Superman Returns Superman Returns has Oscar Considerations

[Retroman]

Why should SR get at least a nomination for visual effects?
It has the bullet-in-the-eye scene which is one moment haters and lovers (probably) agree made audiences go; Wow! It was complex and very expensive to pull off but the pay off was gold.A classic film moment in my opnion.

The plane sequence (must-be-seen in IMAX), the photo realistic CG superman (pretty difficult to do), the CG recreaction of Marlon Brando's image also make SR's candidacy for a Oscar nomination strong.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

my only problem was at times when they used a cgi double..there was no need to..afater all that work brandon did in those wires..they hardly used a quarter of the stuff he probably did.

 

[Retroman]

my only problem was at times when they used a cgi double..there was no need to..afater all that work brandon did in those wires..they hardly used a quarter of the stuff he probably did.

I agree. Even in some of shots of Brandon they unnecesarily enhanced/retouched it making it appear more fake than it was before. It must be said though that creating a photo realistic CGI double of superman is 10 times more difficult than Spider-Man or even Batman.And i think someone like Singer would want to shoot something real if he can.With less money to spend in the sequel i think we'll see more real Brandon than CG.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I really hope so, as brandon looks very impressive on screen..superman better return..with a more realistic supes aka Real Brandon..

it was shocking though the amount they used.. some of the best shots were with brandon flying with kate..much better than cgi.

 

[dark_b]

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

and on comingsoon.net they are saying that x3 and 007 are mybe the ones who get teh nomination. this just proves that you can not take the m serious.

 

[dark_b]

I agree. Even in some of shots of Brandon they unnecesarily enhanced/retouched it making it appear more fake than it was before. It must be said though that creating a photo realistic CGI double of superman is 10 times more difficult than Spider-Man or even Batman.And i think someone like Singer would want to shoot something real if he can.With less money to spend in the sequel i think we'll see more real Brandon than CG.

yes it is hard to make a CGI human. but nothing new. they could made this already in 2003. if you want to make it better focus on movement. thats the only thing human eyes notice.

 

[Retroman]

I really hope so, as brandon looks very impressive on screen..superman better return..with a more realistic supes aka Real Brandon..

it was shocking though the amount they used.. some of the best shots were with brandon flying with kate..much better than cgi.

Agreed.

yes it is hard to make a CGI human. but nothing new. they could made this already in 2003. if you want to make it better focus on movement. thats the only thing human eyes notice.

They're improving it movie by movie.The difficulty for the effects crew is to stay a cut above the rest and make something that won't feel dated 10-15 years from now.Audiences are getting more and more demanding. They want a good story, big stars, great effects ánd memorable moments in their (action) movies.Its no wonder blockbusters are costing so much to make.

Reportedly Evan Almighty (Bruce Almighty 2) cost 200 million, POTC3 225 million and Spider-Man 3 more than 250 million american bucks.

 

[KalMart]

Why should SR get at least a nomination for visual effects?
It has the bullet-in-the-eye scene which is one moment haters and lovers (probably) agree made audiences go; Wow! It was complex and very expensive to pull off but the pay off was gold.A classic film moment in my opnion.

And it was a major waste of valuable screentime, paced excruciatingly slow just for the sake of showing a cool effect. It did absolutely nothing for the film. How 'bout putting the time and effort needed for that shot into the writing...y'think?

 

[Dan33977]

Both films have outstanding visual effects!

someoen should ban this guy

This is your reply? Do you still not understand that you are debating facts about how the Academy Awards work with me?

 

[Retroman]

And it was a major waste of valuable screentime, paced excruciatingly slow just for the sake of showing a cool effect. It did absolutely nothing for the film. How 'bout putting the time and effort needed for that shot into the writing...y'think?

I completely disagree.

 

[Super Kal]

Why should SR get at least a nomination for visual effects?
It has the bullet-in-the-eye scene which is one moment haters and lovers (probably) agree made audiences go; Wow! It was complex and very expensive to pull off but the pay off was gold.A classic film moment in my opnion.

The plane sequence (must-be-seen in IMAX), the photo realistic CG superman (pretty difficult to do), the CG recreaction of Marlon Brando's image also make SR's candidacy for a Oscar nomination strong.

I cana gree with you on Jor-El, but that's it.

 

[KalMart]

I completely disagree.

Okay then.

ON another note, I finally got to see POTC2 for the first time last night on DVD.

Sorry folks, but this year, Pirates will take the awards for effects, production design, and sound.

It's not even close.

 

[dark_b]

Both films have outstanding visual effects!



This is your reply? Do you still not understand that you are debating facts about how the Academy Awards work with me?

oscars are nothing special only if you make them special

 

[Matt]

You are aware that just means the studio submitted it to those races, right? Most critics won't even look at it twice for any of those categories but special effects, art design, etc. It'll get a couple nominations in technical categories but will likely get beaten by Pirates in all of them, with Casino Royale taking coreography.

 

[dark_b]

Both films have outstanding visual effects!



This is your reply?Do you still not understand that you are debating facts about how the Academy Awards work with me?

from BT.net

KalMart
When some movies are currently playing in Dec, etc...the studios send out their 'For Your Consideration' packages along with screener DVD's with the 'For viewing/voting purposes only' text that comes up every now and then. You get those DVD's if the movies were out earlier in the year, as well. I used to be involved with SAG and one of the board members who would receive these, so I would watch the movies then instead of going to the theater (like Ray, Million Dollar Baby, and House of Flying Daggers in 2004

), and we'd sometimes debate what she was going to vote for, just for fun. The DVD's are actually studio-release quality with full 5.1 DD sound, instead of a quick lower-res run-off copy (the one for Incredibles even had a Dolby Digital EX 6.1 track...while the movie was still in the theaters and months before the actual DVD release!). In reality, the people who watch these usually only base their votes on about 5-10 minutes of watching, and many of the dvd's have chapter markers for an actor's money-scene, or the effects or what have you. So no, the industry voters aren't necessarily sitting there throughout all the films and scrutinizing every bit of it with surgical aplomb.

Obviously a host of other factors such as politics come into play, but actually watching the movies the whole way through make up a surprisingly small part of the process, if at all.

what you think of this? is this true or not? i think it could be true

 

[KalMart]

It is true...and before DVD's, they got VHS tapes. It's not like they got to see private screenings to absorb the theater experience of watching these movies in all their glory. Got a little 19" TV, a VCR, pop in the tape, then perhaps pop in another tape a few minutes later before lunch is over. Nice, huh?

But like I said, this isn't everything that goes into the voting. But it's shocking how little of it is actually sitting there, watching the entire movie, then thinking about it, and even comparing it. A few may very well watch the entire movie depending on their level of interest/field of work. But that's more rare than common.

 

[blueboy]

I really like those "For your consideration" posters... The Cinematography was pretty decent in my book Especially for Digital...If Warner Bros. gets another nom for Cinematography, they'll be two for two since Wally got a nom for Batman Begins...

*I wonder if Singer will stay with the Genesis Camera for the sequel*

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

It doesn't deserve jack. It's one of the worst movies ever produced and possibley the biggest waste of money ever. SFX are also undeserving of an award as they do more impressive things on TV now for a very small percentage of SR budget. On repeat viewing of SR I really am astonished at hoe bad it is on almost every technical level witht eh budget that it had. The flying effects are dodgey and some of the lighting and green screen effects are among the worts that I've seen for a big summer movie.

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

For fracks sake what is the point to wasting money on an effect like this.

As for the bullet to the eye. Also complete crap.

 

[Dan33977]

You are aware that just means the studio submitted it to those races, right? Most critics won't even look at it twice for any of those categories but special effects, art design, etc.

Exactly!

SFX are also undeserving of an award as they do more impressive things on TV now for a very small percentage of SR budget. On repeat viewing of SR I really am astonished at hoe bad it is on almost every technical level witht eh budget that it had. The flying effects are dodgey and some of the lighting and green screen effects are among the worts that I've seen for a big summer movie.

As for the bullet to the eye. Also complete crap.

I hope you realize that the Visual Effects guild, which consists of experts and professionals who make visual effects for a living and know and understand more about the art than you will ever hope to, disagrees with you, especially with your last comment as they've nominated the Bullet-In-The-Eye sequence as one of the Best Visual Effects shot of the year.

To each his own, though...

 

[dark_b]

It doesn't deserve jack. It's one of the worst movies ever produced and possibley the biggest waste of money ever. SFX are also undeserving of an award as they do more impressive things on TV now for a very small percentage of SR budget. On repeat viewing of SR I really am astonished at hoe bad it is on almost every technical level witht eh budget that it had. The flying effects are dodgey and some of the lighting and green screen effects are among the worts that I've seen for a big summer movie.

i dont belive you. you can not think like that.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

It doesn't deserve jack. It's one of the worst movies ever produced

Sorry, that's just an ignorant statement. Go watch Manos the Hands of Fate, The Creeping Terror or any other movie that's had the pleasure of being on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Those are the very definition of "the worst movies ever produced."

 

[tallsy_1]

It might get nominated for the technical awards. They should have put forth James Marsden's name for Best Supporting Actor. He was better than Spacey. Heck, Richard White may have been the best character in the movie.

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

Sorry, that's just an ignorant statement. Go watch Manos the Hands of Fate, The Creeping Terror or any other movie that's had the pleasure of being on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Those are the very definition of "the worst movies ever produced."

There's nothing ignorant about my statement. I watch alot of movies and the movie that you've mentioned is probably more entertaining then SR. For the money spent on the movie as it looked like crap. As an example go look at the scene with Spacey on the boat before he shoots his krypto missile into the ocean. It's so overlit and doesn't look natural at all. I never for a second believed that they were actually outside of a studio.

I also really don't get the bullet in the eye bit. There was nothing great about it. We've seen similiar things with bullet time happen weekly on Smallville. There's nothing incredible about it except that it made a pretty *****ty action scene seem even dumber. Why would the guy bother shooting him with a handgun after witnessing a couple of hundred rounds bounce off of him?

 

[bunk]

^^Watch the behind the scenes.