VFX Showdown: King Kong (05) vs. POTC 2 (06)?

[lime]

OK, I have always wondered how each year there is ONE movie that has so impressive VFX that overshadows everyone else, and never a good solid competition.

This led me to this: WHAT IF King Kong (2005) and Pirates of the Caribbean: The Dead Man's Chest (2006) were released the same year?
which would you prefer to win the award and which do you think would have gotten it (Who will Oscar select)?

Both films were absolutely amazing in the department of VFX, and both had revolutionary work in terms of character animation. Only one would have won. Who?

* PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE THE MOVIES THEMSELVES AND VOTE ONLY FOR THE VFX!

* Vote in the poll for what movie do you think was going to win, and write down in the thread if you think the other was going to be more deserving. (EXAMPLE: I think Kong would have won, but POTC was more deserving)

Some examples of WETA's work on King Kong:

ILM's work on POTC 2:

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Kong for me. Pirates of the Caribbean created one great character, but Kong was a whole world. Davy Jones was great, but the rest of the effects in the film were sort of iffy. The Kraken, for example, didn't have any real weight behind it. Like with that shot of Jack and the Kraken, they don't appear as if they are apart of the same reality. It looks like a picture of Jack on a ship with the Kraken photoshopped into it. Compare that to the pit attack in Kong. Kong looks far more realistic overall, IMO.

 

[Poetic Chaos]

Dinosaurs looked horrible so Pirates.

 

[SpitCurl]

Hmm, good question. In terms of just pure digital wizadry? I kind of lean towards Pirates (specifically Davey Jones and his crew, since it's much harder to render a character believable the more "human" they are, uncanny valley and all that). Since most of us have never seen a gorilla in person (and even if we have, not for long), it's easier to get away with imperfections in Kong's movements.

However, if we just look at Kong himself vs. Davey Jones and the overall performance, Kong gets it, as Bill Nighy still had the benefit of dialogue and playing what was ostensibly a "human" character, so he could really just forget about the dots on his face. Andy Serkis had to rely on body movement and facial expression and not come across as a human playing ape, so... I think I give it to Kong. Even though the title is "VFX", the performance capture work has TONS to do w/the overall outcome, so KK wins.

 

[mclay18]

If it was simply comparing the work done on King Kong himself and Davy Jones, it would be a tie. Both are seriously impressive, and a testament to Weta and ILM's work.

But in terms of overall work on the film, POTC 2 wins. The dinosaurs just weren't convincingly rendered in KK '05 and some other questionable shots. POTC 2 had some iffy shots but it was much more consistent.

 

[Gianakin_]

Both have the same quantity of awesome and shoddy shots.

 

[dark_b]

Dinosaurs looking bad is an internet myth. its started with '' i like JP better''. and then months and years later it transformed in '' Dinosaurs looked very bad''.

 

[CGHulk]

I think the effects work in Pirates is better. I recall when Kong came out people were saying how that work was the limit of realism that effects work could be done at the time. When Pirates came out it shocked audiences and people in the industry that such work was possible. The work for in Pirates for me personally blew my mind! I had a hard time seeing that Davey Jones was all CG, I couldn't believe it, the level of sophistication blew my mind! King Kong in scale was bigger than Pirates, the amount of work that was done on the film was huge. Even the artists working on it were wiped out by the enormity of the film. It was 3000 visual effects shots where big effects films usually had 2000 shots.

Ron Fedwix work pushed ILM's work over the top.
http://physbam.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/

Since then his alumni are all over the effects and animation industry breaking new ground in computer graphics, from Pixar to Weta to Walt Disney Animation.

Films now are all visual effects with weak writing, I'm beginning to lose interest. There has to be a balance. Even Dennis Muren thinks the effects films are to big and less personal. http://www.movies.com/movie-news/special-fx-arent-special-anymore/11843

 

[lime]

I think the effects work in Pirates better. I recall when Kong came out people were saying how that work was the limit of realism that effects work could be done at the time. When Pirates came out it shocked audiences and people in the industry that such work was possible. The work for in Pirates for me personally blew my mind! I had a hard time seeing that Davey Jones was all CG, I couldn't believe it, the level of sophistication blew my mind! King Kong in scale was bigger than Pirates, the amount of work that was done on the film was huge. Even the artists working on it were wiped out by the enormity of the film. It was 3000 visual effects shots where big effects films usually have 2000 shots.

Ron Fedwix work pushed ILM's work over the edge.
http://physbam.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/

Since then his alumni are all over the effects and animation industry breaking new ground in computer graphics, from Pixar to Weta to Disney Animation.

Films now are all visual effects with weak writing, I'm beginning to lose interest. There has to be a balance. Even Dennis Muren is upset that effects should support the story not replace it.

I agree, visual effects should serve the film, and not the film to serve the visual effects (Transformers)