|
|
|
|
|
|
Snubbing Lucas and ROTS In Favor Of KONG For BEST FX IS:
| Author |
Message |
|
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 63026
Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
I did like some of the effects in ROTS... granted I never saw Narnia so I am in no place to say if it looked bad or not. But Kong was so believable as was ALOT of the scenery and of course... New York itself.
Now WOTW... it made aliens look real... nothing we haven't seen before... like in ET!
 _________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
| Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:08 pm |
|
|
|
nghtvsn
Extraordinary
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 pm
Posts: 11016
Location: Warren Theatre Oklahoma
|
I also think the problem with this category is that it's limited to just 3 films. It clearly needs to be expanded considering that a decent % of films incorporate some level of Visual effects in the film not just all out Sci Fi like SW. I also think leaving ROTS off the short list is a legitimate gripe but again it's due to the fact the category only has 3 slots.
This 3 slot issue can also be applied to Animated films now since there is a good 10-15 of them each year now and if their isn't a certain qty of them then you just limit the selection to 3. Simple solutions.
_________________
2009 World of KJ Fantasy Football World Champion
Team MVP : Peyton Manning : Record 11-5 : Points 2669.00
[b]FREE KORRGAN
45TH PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A. DONALD J. TRUMP
#MAGA #KAG!
10,000 post achieved on - Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 7:49 pm
|
| Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:16 pm |
|
|
|
FILMO
The Original
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:19 am
Posts: 9808
Location: Suisse
|
I think WOTW should win. I didnt see Narnia though. Kong should be kicked for the bad Dino bluescreen.
_________________Libs wrote: FILMO, I'd rather have you eat chocolate syrup off my naked body than be a moderator here.
|
| Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:16 pm |
|
|
|
moonreflection
Speed Racer
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:57 am
Posts: 193
|
Well, it all depends on what a good special effects means. To me it means how realistic it is. While Sith has some cool effects. They did a lot with reflections and shadow, etc. But those only look cool to the people who enjoys computer rendering. I don't get that feeling of a real place when I watch that movie.
_________________http://www.walasoft.comLike karaoke? Please try out my first software. WalaOke. A software based karaoke with video background.
|
| Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:52 pm |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
moonreflection wrote: Well, it all depends on what a good special effects means. To me it means how realistic it is. While Sith has some cool effects. They did a lot with reflections and shadow, etc. But those only look cool to the people who enjoys computer rendering. I don't get that feeling of a real place when I watch that movie. Bullshit.
Coruscant is exactly the same as real one.
|
| Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:26 pm |
|
|
|
zennier
htm
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:38 pm
Posts: 10316
Location: berkeley
|
Yeah, definitely a snub here. Kong's sfx were so overwhelming... but in a good way. It deserves the nom. Worlds was amazing.
And Narnia? Blech. 
|
| Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:09 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
