AVEITWITHJAMON
Badass Cloud
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 42,445
- Reaction score
- 7,911
- Points
- 103
It'll definately get a couple of nominations in the smaller categories, but i doubt it'll get any in the larger ones, even though i think it deserves to.
explode7 said:Sure thats why movies like LOTR and Star Wars never get any awards.![]()
The Return of the King's haul of 11 statuettes equalled the totals won by Ben Hur in 1960 and Titanic in 1998
including best director and best picture.
Two Towers won the award for Best Visual Effects and it beat off blockbusters Spider-Man and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones for the prize.
it also scooped the award for Best Sound Editing.
and as for the fellowship won it was a winner in
Oscars
Cinematography
Makeup
Music (Score)
Visual Effects
Art Direction
And nominee for Best Director
Best Picture
Costume Design
Film Editing
Music (Song)
Sound
Supporting Actor
Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
King Kong (Weta Digital)bunk said:What movie won best visual effects last year? I'm too lazy to look it up.
thats what he was trying to tell. they made a lot of oscars.Maze said:
dark_b said:thats what he was trying to tell. they made a lot of oscars.
Indeed , thanks .

no they dontCyrusbales said:Visual effects is a huge possibility here, even people who don't like it, have to admit that the effects do look $200,000,000, surprise surprise!


Cyrusbales said:Visual effects is a huge possibility here, even people who don't like it, have to admit that the effects do look $200,000,000, surprise surprise!
dark_b said:no they dont
no they dont
is this a f.. joke? the effects dont look like they were made wiht 20 milions. i am tlaking about the scale.
SolidSnakeMGS said:Academy Awards are like Pulitzer Prizes, nobody remembers what you got one for, just that you got one.
then you have no idea how much 200 milions is for a movie. this is a lot of money.Showtime029 said:Really, because I really thought that was Superman saving a plane, that sequence was brilliant in my opinion, and utilized an amazing amount of special effects.
dark_b said:what should we care about the details on the sets.
Ummmm....so they look realistic and not like cardboard cutouts?
ok yo uhave fake sets than you have real sets and than you have mega detailed sets.Freddy_Krueger said:Ummmm....so they look realistic and not like cardboard cutouts?
kakarot069 said:you can do that without spending 200 million on it... that's a ridiculous amount considering how much action there was in the film.
KalMart said:Did somebody mention Special Effects for 2006?
![]()
t:
Yeah...but I'd say that the effects were showcased in that movie moreso than in SR, no?bunk said:Effects on this movie were freaking amazing. Too bad the rest of it sucked.
really? i thought that they do this for freeFreddy_Krueger said:Not really, considering the sets didn't cost $200 million.
Again guys, look at the credits. Every single one of those people had to be paid. Then you have your sets which weren't any more detailed than any other big budget movie set. Then you have your CGI (which wasn't just Superman flying, CGI mattes were all over the place).
Costs are just going up. That's inflation for ya. Just because a movie costs $200 million doesn't mean it's going to be loaded with non stop action and millions of dollars worth of explosions.

dark_b said:really? i thought that they do this for free
what about the other movies? everyone has to be paid there.