The Energon Pub

News Credits: 42 · Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:39 pm

...thankfully its for the robots, not the acting, direction or script.

Visual Effects Oscar Shortlist via. Slashfilm.com

Still, it might have a chance of coming second behind Avatar.

Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:04 pm

TF2 has no chance of winning, and I'm shocked that it was even nominated. The visual effects weren't that great. And since everyone's calling Avatar the Star Wars of our Generation I think it's obvious that it's going to win. Also James Cameron > Michael Bay.

News Credits: 1 · Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:52 pm

If that piss of dick wins, I'll actually come back here full-time just to spew bile about it. Bloody thing looked like it was conceived by, animated by, and aimed at, Lenny and his rabbits.

News Credits: 7 · Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:53 pm

Avatar could only be the SW of this generation if there will be sequels. It's an awesome movie, but in itself won't make movie history. Still, it has the most chance -I'd call 90%- to win the Oscar.
Although I'm not surprised RotF is on the list, I doubt it has a chance. Maybe Star Trek could be a second after Avatar.

News Credits: 3 · Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:58 pm

I agree with everyone else - this is probably going to be an Avatar year.

News Credits: 1 · Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:23 pm

Avatar>Star Trek>District 9>2012>Terminator Salvation>ROTF.

At least for visuals. Haven't seen HPatHBP, so I can't rate it better or worse than ROTF. I'm surprised ROTF made it on the list. Half way through, it felt like they either got tired of animating the movie, or just got lazy, since the characters stopped looking like the same and actually became the same.

News Credits: 7 · Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:29 pm

The robots do have a lot of work out into them (Devastator allegedly melted a computer!), and it's a shame the first one lost to... those polar bears... not the Coke commercial... movie. "Compass" something....

Avatar.... Eh... It irks me how it came out of seemingly nowhere at the end of the year and steals all the attention. Nonetheless, in a year of amazing visual movies with horrendous plots, this probably is the most visually amazing (and most horrendous plot-wise, IMO

).

News Credits: 1 · Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:43 pm

Noideaforaname wrote:The robots do have a lot of work out into them (Devastator allegedly melted a computer!), and it's a shame the first one lost to... those polar bears... not the Coke commercial... movie. "Compass" something....

Avatar.... Eh... It irks me how it came out of seemingly nowhere at the end of the year and steals all the attention. Nonetheless, in a year of amazing visual movies with horrendous plots, this probably is the most visually amazing (and most horrendous plot-wise, IMO ).

Yeah, but it didn't take a decade for them to build the computer that Devastator melted (and, to be fair, I've had Tomahawk CDs melt computers before).

Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:10 am

Dear God, really? Jesue man, parts of the damn thing looked like they forgot to finish rendering, not to mention the clusterf*** with the multiple Constructacons.

Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:35 am

Transformers melted a computer,

Avatar "Made" a computer specifically to show 3D elements in real time while Cameron was filming which was pioneered by Martin Scorsese during his filming with "The Aviator", as well as perfected MOCAP and facial capture animation, not to mention an art team has been working on this film since 05, and the script was finished back in 1995......

Ya see, thats what happens when you take your time making a bloody film. You get something like Avatar, not to also add on to the fact it's a film which you can view both in 3D and regularly and still enjoy unlike films like Beowulf and such.

No, this wins hands down. Pure and simple. It's one thing to melt a computer because your abusing rendering programs and pushing pipeline deadlines not even your render farms can handle, it's another thing to develop your own "Tech" and build it just for one film over 15 years. And from what I heard, because of it's success, Cameron is considering a sequel.

Plus, it had friggin giant Dragonfly Pterodactyls.
And six legged lizard panthers.....

Chao!

Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:40 am

Malicron wrote:Dear God, really? Jesue man, parts of the damn thing looked like they forgot to finish rendering, not to mention the clusterf*** with the multiple Constructacons.

I've said this before and yet no one gets it. Devastator =/= Constructicons. Avatar's effects only worked because there was nothing real to compare it to. The scenes when he first got his body in the lab looked way off. When it was all CG it blended together. It will still win though due to Hollywood politics.

News Credits: 767 · Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:32 am

Seibertron.com member Psychout has stumbled upon the next Oscar nominee Visual effects list on SlashFilm. And yes Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is a nominee in that category.

To check it out just click here.

Will it make it this time round or will it just be nominated like it's predecessor in 2007? Only time will tell.

Stay tuned to seibertron.com for all your Transformers related news!

Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:33 am

I think hell would freeze over if TF2 won anything at the oscars. I also don't see why avatar is so highly regarded. It's a bloody pocahontas remake, nothing original in it at all. And the visuals gave me a major migrane, so avatar is at the bottom of my list, tied with TF2 for suckiest film.

Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:44 am

Devastator makes me sad. The only reason why Spielberg sweared after watching him in action was because of Devastator "attributes". I'm not a GEEWUNNER but I wish Devastator was made more like his G1 namesake, It would had looked cool.

News Credits: 226 · Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:52 am

Well something has to lose ...

Personally i'm hoping for District 9 to be an unexpected big winner.

News Credits: 37 · Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:01 am

DAMNIT! Avatars in this! While I think ROTF has the better quality of CGI, Avatar looks like it has more quantity. Plus the 3-D, and people say its awesome. I even hear some people say that the story was un original but the CG saved it and or took up for it. Must be some good-ass CG to save a story. But the two TF movies have the most realistic special effects I have seen when it comes to this category. But last time, they lost to a f8kin polar bear! Really?

Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:03 am

last month, i posted a comment about avatar winning the oscars and i got rebuked as a reply. it's going to be a miracle if ROTF won.

News Credits: 21 · Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:26 am

TF2 has no chance of winning, and I'm shocked that it was even nominated. The visual effects weren't that great. And since everyone's calling Avatar the Star Wars of our Generation I think it's obvious that it's going to win. Also James Cameron > Michael Bay.

maybe thats why it wasnominated everyone expects avatra to win but if it was nominated fro mlast year it might have won something and poeple in charge of the oscars didnt want transfromers to win anything,

OR

there desperat fro more nominations & they put transfromers in there if you ask me every catargory that avatra is in it will probably win, that harrypotter, or twilight new moon

Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:49 am

should avatar even be there? i was pretty sure it missed the cut-off date and would just get nominated at next year's awards.

but considering a movie with terrible effects like golden compass won before, i dont hold out much hope this time. i can't believe all the people saying TF looked like crap etc.. wow, hate the movie itself all you want but thats the one place where it did amazing work.

of course it'll probably go to avatar because everyone seems to be blinded by its "awesomeness". lol

News Credits: 97 · Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:45 pm

While the visual effects of ROTF are intense and definitely worthy of an award (probably the only part of the film that is truly award-worthy), I'm betting Avatar ends up winning.

Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:13 pm

Those trashing the Golden Compass effects miss the point entirely. The Academy doesn't just look at the "prettiest effects" but the effects that deliver the best performance. That extra effort that makes it more than just shiny.

The Golden Compass wasn't a great film (still better than either Transformers film) but the CG animals all expressed emotions and "acted" alongside the flesh and blood people- and not one of them peed or break danced or tried to rape characters with robot tentacles.

The Bayformers just rolled around a lot and looked shiny.

The same goes for Revenge of the Bayformers.

Don't be surprised if the pics this year are:

-Avatar
-District 9
-Harry Potter

Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:02 pm

it should be nominated for crappiest lead actress(megan fox) :-x

News Credits: 7 · Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:10 pm

decepticonblitz77 wrote:it should be nominated for crappiest lead actress(megan fox)

Why the hate against Megan Fox? I think she was all right, not good, but definitely not worse than the rest of the human cast.

News Credits: 34 · Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:04 pm

Tough year as I love Avatar, District 9, Terminator: Salvation Star Trek, and Transformers 2 and their effects.

I would go with the underdog on that list and say District 9 wins this year. District 9's effects does so much in the movie with little amount of money. The CGI that were used were able to emotionally connect the audience with the aliens. The movie was a perfect marriage between live action and CGI.

News Credits: 1 · Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:16 pm

Agreed with that guy's list on the article. Avatar and District 9 both blew me away with their visual effects. 2012 had the great California destruction scene, but the other bits were sub-par. Transformers does have some mind-blowing scenes, but it also has lots of "that's soooo fake!" scenes. It should come over Terminator though.