Superman Returns Superman Returns has Oscar Considerations

[Cyrusbales]

Casino Royale - nope, nothing special here
Eragon - not seen yet
Night at the Museum - Unlikely, not a 'big enough' film
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - Very likely, it was the films only saving grace
Poseidon - Nope, we've seen the same things before
Superman Returns - Definately a posiblity.
X-Men: The Last Stand - No, the effects looked too fake, especially the phoenix at the end.

SO i say either Superman or POTC, although i have not seen eragon, so I cannot say about that one.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

I can see X-men getting nominated but not winning. A possible nomination for Eragon (however I personally feel the effects look rather weak).

Definitely gonna be a toss up between POTC and SR as far as potential winners for the VFX Oscar.

 

[dark_b]

Yup, and big movies like Superman Returns, Pirates of the Caribbean, Batman Begins, Star Wars, etc. tend to have larger crews than most films. And in case the lot of you haven't noticed, most big movies nowadays cost between $150-200 million anyway. SR costing $200 million shouldn't surprise anyone.

actuallly it does. with a big climax at the end and some action rescuing metropolis i could see 200 milions. but for what we got in SR not.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

this is one of the most amusing threads I've read in a LONG time..... This forum is always such a hoot

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

CGI mattes cost money.

The bank robbery scene cost money.

Effects of bullets hitting Superman cost money.

Every time Superman flew and was CG enhanced cost money.

The continent growing cost money.

The destruction caused by the continent cost money.

The plane rescue scene cost money.

Shots in space cost money.

In other words, every piece of CG in the film cost money. Everything you saw on the screen cost money, real sets being the most expensive. Hell, even things not seen on screen cost money, and that's not just including the Return to Krypton sequence.

There was plenty going on within Superman Returns to understand the budget. People just have this rather closed minded opinion, showing a lack of understanding the business, that $200 million equals large effects shots and non stop action.

That just isn't the case.

 

[dark_b]

freddy agian you told us nothing new. of course it cost money.


but POTC had mroe groundbreaking effects. peoeple didnt know how they made davy jones. in SR almost everyone knew from the beginning what was CGI.

of course i dont think that it is bad CGI but i think that davy jones is the best organic CGI that i saw in my whole life.

 

[Jlandsw]

Freddy I love your sig. That term "Singerman" has always annoyed me.

 

[Super Kal]

the difference between Burton's Batman and Singer's Superman is that Burton's Batman was great... Singer's Superman just plain sucks.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

freddy agian you told us nothing new. of course it cost money.


but POTC had mroe groundbreaking effects. peoeple didnt know how they made davy jones. in SR almost everyone knew from the beginning what was CGI.

of course i dont think that it is bad CGI but i think that davy jones is the best organic CGI that i saw in my whole life.

Oh people knew that Davy Jones was CG. He may be a very realistic looking CG character, but still very obviously CG. As were all the crew on his ship. Pirates had good CG, but still obvious CG. Same goes with SR (which had more CG enhancements with the flying scenes--Brandon was there, but CG was added to make his movements more fluid).

But still, my point remains--the $200 million spent on SR went to good and obvious use.

the difference between Burton's Batman and Singer's Superman is that Burton's Batman was great... Singer's Superman just plain sucks.

Debatable. I love Burton's Batman flicks, but as I've grown and read more Batman comics, I can't help but wonder why Burton's Batman kills. Other than that, yeah, they're great.

 

[GreenKToo]

ya,burtons batman is pretty good.,I prefer nolan's take though.I used to like Keaton's better,but Bale won me over.

 

[Superman: Idols]

I'm thinking--

*Costume design

*Visual FX

*Original score

*Cinematoarphy

 

[Dan33977]

Dan33977, don't waste your time with explode7, he's known for being....Well, not so bright.

LOL! Thanks for the notice.

Just to clarify, you do know that in the end it’s all mostly political...right?

Agreed; however, I like to think that there is at least some honesty involved in deciding what movies get what awards, especially when it comes to the various guilds and their nominations.

arent teh oscars only opinions of other people? why should we care?

...because the members of the Academy and the various guilds that influence their decisions are professionals who do this stuff for a living and know more about this art and its various categories (i.e. visual effects) than you will ever hope to. I've been repeating this point since my first reply to this thread on the first page: the various guilds consist of the same people who make this stuff!

thats what he was trying to tell. they made a lot of oscars.

...which, as I stated in my previous reply, is evidence of them being high-quality films, not high-grossing ones, which is what he was saying.

I'm thinking--

*Cinematoarphy

Seriously, anyone who actually thinks RETURNS will get a Best Cinematography nomination is just fooling himself. The Academy and the Cinematographers Guild do not like digital at all.

It seems like everyone who's replied to this thread is ignoring and/or underplaying X3's visual effects, but I don't think you're thinking about this situation correctly. The Academy usually cares about groundbreaking inventions and new methods when it comes to the visual effects category. With this in mind, X3 is the one movie they'd definitely look at this year! Has everyone already forgotten the visual effects at the beginning of the movie? They made those two old geezers look 20 years younger than they actually are without the use of any make-up! According to an article in this issue of Variety that I have that showcases various visual effects this year, the people behind X3's actually invented new technology to do this!

 

[explode7]

CGI mattes cost money.

The bank robbery scene cost money.

Effects of bullets hitting Superman cost money.

Every time Superman flew and was CG enhanced cost money.

The continent growing cost money.

The destruction caused by the continent cost money.

The plane rescue scene cost money.

Shots in space cost money.

In other words, every piece of CG in the film cost money. Everything you saw on the screen cost money, real sets being the most expensive. Hell, even things not seen on screen cost money, and that's not just including the Return to Krypton sequence.

There was plenty going on within Superman Returns to understand the budget. People just have this rather closed minded opinion, showing a lack of understanding the business, that $200 million equals large effects shots and non stop action.

That just isn't the case.

Thanks for stating the obvious dude. Thanks alot.

 

[Pickle-El]

Thanks for always providing a laugh implode7.....I know I chuckle every time you post.

 

[Jochimus]

the difference between Burton's Batman and Singer's Superman is that Burton's Batman was great... Singer's Superman just plain sucks.

...Tim Burton actually made a movie with Batman in it?

Seriously, in as much as I really like SR, I don't see it going away with anything but a nom for FX. For that matter, I can't see the score getting nominated since it was just a John Williams rehash, and bear in mind, I have the soundtrack.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Thanks for stating the obvious dude. Thanks alot.

Ummm...that was the whole point of my post. People wanted to know where the $200 million went and I told them. It was supposed to be smart assed.

So, you're welcome.

Seriously, anyone who actually thinks RETURNS will get a Best Cinematography nomination is just fooling himself. The Academy and the Cinematographers Guild do not like digital at all.

True, but there is a time when they're gonna have to start to like it. It's looking like digital filmmaking is getting or has gotten as big and important as regular film.

 

[dude stannis]

I would laugh so hard at the reactions here if Singer won an oscar. Hell, I dare say some haters would die from heart attacks.

I don't honestly see Superman in the Oscar race. It's usually artsy fartsy crap that always wins. So, if Pirates 2 cleans up, I'd be very happy.

 

[bunk]

the difference between Burton's Batman and Singer's Superman is that Burton's Batman was great... Singer's Superman just plain sucks.

WOW. Such eloquence.

 

[Diamondhead]

Of course it has
Have you ever notice that the Oscar is just a way of making people notice a movie that hasn't made enough money for the studio

Hey!
Memory of our father will probably be the best picture.
No that I have something against it…
But If Apocalypto don’t make enough it will be in the running too

HEY Gibson! Stop making movies in language people don’t understand ok!

 

[KalMart]

Of course it has
Have you ever notice that the Oscar is just a way of making people notice a movie that hasn't made enough money for the studio

Yep..like Titanic and LOTR.

 

[dark_b]

Oh people knew that Davy Jones was CG. He may be a very realistic looking CG character, but still very obviously CG. As were all the crew on his ship. Pirates had good CG, but still obvious CG. Same goes with SR (which had more CG enhancements with the flying scenes--Brandon was there, but CG was added to make his movements more fluid).

But still, my point remains--the $200 million spent on SR went to good and obvious use.



Debatable. I love Burton's Batman flicks, but as I've grown and read more Batman comics, I can't help but wonder why Burton's Batman kills. Other than that, yeah, they're great.

ok let me put it it different. noone knew that he was 100% CGI

 

[dark_b]

...because the members of the Academy and the various guilds that influence their decisions are professionals who do this stuff for a living and know more about this art and its various categories (i.e. visual effects) than you will ever hope to. I've been repeating this point since my first reply to this thread on the first page: the various guilds consist of the same people who make this stuff!

they are professionals at watching movies and telling their opinion?

i already told this: getting money for telling your opinion on a movie is a dream job. the same with oscars.

why are they so special? why are they so better. opinions are opinions.



p.s. i am watching comingsoon.net. x-men,007 will maybe get a nomination for effects?
this is why i can not take them serious. this is why i am saying that its just opinions.

007 getting a nomination and pirates wont? hahahahhahaha t:

 

[Dan33977]

*sighs*

For the umpteenth time, I really wish people would start educating themselves on this topic (the Oscars) before they discuss it! Most of the people who have already replied to this thread need to read my replies as I've explained with much clarity exactly how the Academy and the various guilds that influence its decisions work. It's pretty clear to me with the kind of replies to this thread I've read so far that people didn't know anything about the Oscars before I replied and they still don't. Are you really this unintelligent? I mean, it's no wonder a lot of you disliked SUPERMAN RETURNS and gush over recycled drivel like X3 (which, BTW, made Peter Travers 10 worst movies of the year list) and POTC: DMC. If all you care about is how a movie performed at the box office, you're never going to see a genuinely great movie.

It's usually artsy fartsy crap that always wins.

...or actual good films. If you actually think that the kinds of movies that win Oscars are "artsy-fartsy," you have no idea what the word means.

So, if Pirates 2 cleans up, I'd be very happy.

It won't. And this is one reason people listen to critics: their intelligent and know how to separate well-made films from the typical, recycled trash that idiots flock to in hordes.

Have you ever notice that the Oscar is just a way of making people notice a movie that hasn't made enough money for the studio

Hey!
Memory of our father will probably be the best picture.
No that I have something against it…
But If Apocalypto don’t make enough it will be in the running too

HEY Gibson! Stop making movies in language people don’t understand ok!

...

No comment.

Actually, I cannot resist.

1. You're an idiot.
2. TITANIC.
3. LORD OF THE RINGS.
4. STAR WARS.

And using your inane logic, CATWOMAN would have won too many Oscars to count! Why didn't it, though? Because it's a terrible movie! See? Do you see how an Oscar denotes quality?

they are professionals at watching movies and telling their opinion?

i already told this: getting money for telling your opinion on a movie is a dream job. the same with oscars.

why are they so special? why are they so better. opinions are opinions.



p.s. i am watching comingsoon.net. x-men,007 will maybe get a nomination for effects?
this is why i can not take them serious. this is why i am saying that its just opinions.

007 getting a nomination and pirates wont? hahahahhahaha t:

Wow!

Well, I don't have the time or the energy to reply to this comment right now. I'll do so tomorrow...

 

[dark_b]

*sighs*

For the umpteenth time, I really wish people would start educating themselves on this topic (the Oscars) before they discuss it! Most of the people who have already replied to this thread need to read my replies as I've explained with much clarity exactly how the Academy and the various guilds that influence its decisions work. It's pretty clear to me with the kind of replies to this thread I've read so far that people didn't know anything about the Oscars before I replied and they still don't. Are you really this unintelligent? I mean, it's no wonder a lot of you disliked SUPERMAN RETURNS and gush over recycled drivel like X3 (which, BTW, made Peter Travers 10 worst movies of the year list) and POTC: DMC. If all you care about is how a movie performed at the box office, you're never going to see a genuinely great movie.



...or actual good films. If you actually think that the kinds of movies that win Oscars are "artsy-fartsy," you have no idea what the word means.



It won't. And this is one reason people listen to critics: their intelligent and know how to separate well-made films from the typical, recycled trash that idiots flock to in hordes.



...

No comment.

Actually, I cannot resist.

1. You're an idiot.
2. TITANIC.
3. LORD OF THE RINGS.
4. STAR WARS.

And using your inane logic, CATWOMAN would have won too many Oscars to count! Why didn't it, though? Because it's a terrible movie! See? Do you see how an Oscar denotes quality?



Wow!

Well, I don't have the time or the energy to reply to this comment right now. I'll do so tomorrow...

someoen should ban this guy t:

 

[Retroman]

ok let me put it it different. noone knew that he was 100% CGI

I was one of them.SR fan or not, POTC2 is the favorite for the effects award.