Categories One-by-One: Visual Effects

[criddic3]

I was glad to see "Oppenheimer" not get in here, because it would not have been deserving of a win considering its effects amounted to camera gimmicks and imagery we've actually seen before in terms of VFX. The film uses what it has effectively, but I think it would have kind of been cheating here.

"Mission: Impossible" is impressive when you see the side-by-side comparison of how the effects were done. Using graphics to fill in over the stunts in a way that is imaginative. But despite being the first in the franchise to make it here, many voters will likely see as a been-there-done-that type of effect.

"Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3" will likely suffer from the same feeling.
They nominated the first two but neither won.

"Napoleon" may benefit from using effects in unexpected areas, like horses falling into the sea. But that might not be immediately apparent to voters who might associate effects with a city on fire, or gun battles.

"The Creator" does have some innovative effects particularly the look of the AI in the film. It might suffer a bit from mixed reviews for the film, but it could win.

I would go with "Godzilla Minus One" here if I was a voter. It takes a concept that's been done before and makes it more life-like than most previous movies in the franchise have, while also preserving the mystical quality of the legendary monster. The creature effects and the city destruction scenes are above and beyond prior entries, and I also think the unexpectedly poignant storyline will help keep it in voters' memories. On top of that, it is a rare chance to honor a longtime franchise largely from another country. It would be the first time (correct me if I'm wrong) that a team entirely from outside the U.S. won this category.

[Greg]

I am so clueless about Visual Effects that in the Prediction Contest I predicted Mission: Impossible as it was clear nobody else would be predicting it; and, if it did win, I would get triple points.

[dws1982]

Tee used to talk about the makeup branch, and specifically how they used to leave out potential winners, which is how we end up with discordant-sounding phrases like "Oscar-winning film The Wolfman". (Given that the winner probably would have been Alice in Wonderland if it had not been boxed out of that lineup, and we don't really want to see that as three-time Oscar winning film, I'm okay with it in the long run.) That branch seems to have gotten their act together, even--especially since the lineup has expanded to five--hitting a balance between recognizing makeup jobs across a pretty wide spectrum: Oscar movies, non-Oscar movies, somewhat obscure ones. (I do wish they had used their old methods to box out The Whale last year.)

All this to say, the Visual Effects branch seems to have pulled a similar stunt this year. Put aside the issue of whether it's best visual effects of the year, or the CGI vs practical debate, Oppenheimer probably could've easily won this award if it had made the final five, if only because the rest of the lineup is so strange. It's a frontrunner in lots of other categories, and it has a centerpiece that uses visual effects in a very conspicuous way.

I haven't seen anything in this category, but I don't know if it matters. I'm too backlogged/uninterested on Marvel to do Guardians anytime soon, and Godzilla is not available, even as a rental, on streaming yet. (This is reportedly due to rights/non-competition issues with the Godzilla x Kong film coming out in a few weeks.) But I may take a look at the other two if I get time over the next couple of days.

The Creator, from what I've heard, is more effects-centered than anything else in this lineup, so if it's "most visual effects", that might be the way to guess. If it's "closest to a Best Picture nominee", as this lineup frequently is when Best Picture nominees are left out, then I guess Napoleon would fit that bill, and if it's "best story", that's Godzilla.

Napoleon's visual effects are much more supporting than, for example, the visual effects of First Man or Blade Runner 2049, where there were specific things that voters could point to as visual effects. Napoleon's visual effects are geared towards battle and period realism, and while that's a good use for visual effects (and lots of movies use them this way without getting any recognition), it's probably not something that is going to help it win this award.

So in the question between "most" and "story", I might lean towards Godzilla. They have campaigned in a way that The Creator seems not to have done, and it puts one of the old school movie monsters front and center. It's a tough category though, and I might feel differently later today.

[Mister Tee]

I've been reluctant to comment here for a reason I'm guessing some other share: because I haven't seen the apparently quite competitive Godzilla Minus One. I skipped seeing it in theatres because 1) horror films/not my thing and 2) I presumed it'd be streaming in time for the ceremony. But the film's producers have made a decision to withhold the film from any kind of home viewing even while removing it from theatres -- something to do with promoting the NEXT Godzilla movie -- so it's now the only nominated film (from best film down to live short) with which I'm not personally familiar.

It's a very weird year for the category, especially in the context of bounteous 2023. Even in the crap years of the pandemic, Hollywood managed an action blockbuster to take this prize. This past summer, no dice: the two big hits were Barbie and Oppenheimer, films that didn't rely on effects for their audience (had Oppenheimer not been excluded by the branch, it might have won despite its relative paucity of effects, just because nothing else really fits the bill).

The problem for the nominees, Godzilla aside, is that they're seen as commercial disappointments. Guardians might have slipped by as acceptable (both critically and commercially), but not at the level to engender enthusiasm (especially given the Marvel-aversion the category has show). Mission Impossible, let's not forget, was initially thought by some (male) critics/pundits to have potential to undercut Barbie -- but the opposite happened, and the film ended up a serious box-office letdown domestically. Which is better than The Creator, which ended up with the lowest gross of the category's nominees. As for Napoleon -- it wasn't a spectacular failure, but not successful enough to score "serious best picture contender" points (especially since its effects weren't all that pronounced). Godzilla is the only movie in the bunch that's perceived to have somewhat out-performed commercially.

As for the effects: Napoleon's are, as I say, minor (though the under-ice blooding was cool to look at); Guardians' were omnipresent but the same as in the two previous (unacknowledged) installments; Mission Impossible was more stunts than effects, though that final 15 minutes or so of literal cliffhanger were pretty impressive; The Creator is wall-to-wall effects, and you can see why it did well at VES. But will its financial flameout kill its chances?

Genuinely puzzling category. I'd lean Godzilla because none of the ones I've seen feel like winners...but I'd sure like to have the evidence for it in front of me.

[anonymous1980]

The nominees:
The Creator
Godzilla Minus One
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One
Napoleon

Ever since Dune Part II decided to move to 2024 and Oppenheimer failed to make the bake-off list, this category has become one of the most contentious and confusing of all. First, let's eliminate the ones who won't win. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 has some good visual effects and is here because it's the one superhero/MCU property that did NOT disappoint financially or critically so the nomination is the reward. The Mission: Impossible franchise finally broke through with nominations both here and in Sound but I'm not optimistic it will triumph at either one.

I think it's down to three films. The Creator just won Best Visual Effects in an FX-Driven Film in VES, also has a Best Sound nomination and has gotten acclaim for its effects and the fact that it achieved it in a budget under $100 million. But the film has mixed reviews and some Academy members might be turned off by its somewhat pro-A.I. stance.

Godzilla Minus One is the most acclaimed film of the category. It also got attention for achieving great visual effects for an even way lower price tag than The Creator. It even recently dropped a breakdown video detailing how they achieved it, possibly in an effort to quash those saying they did it by overworking and underpaying their VFX artists. But it's the film's only nomination and that could be in its detriment.

Then there's Napoleon....the nominee with the most "prestige" and the most "Best Picture"-like. Sometimes, if the VFX category has no Best Picture nominee you can default to, go with the nominee that's closest to a Best Picture nominee (i.e. First Man, Blade Runner 2049). It's also the only VFX nominee that's also a Production Design nominee and those almost always win. However, it lost both the BAFTA (which went to Poor Things) and the VEST Best Supporting Visual Effects (which went to Nyad).

I'm personally rooting for Godzilla Minus One and I might just hopedict it all the way to Oscar night. But, really, it's a three-way race.