Fandango - Star Trek: Beyond Movie Tickets

Star Trek On Oscar VFX Short List + Nominated By Detroit Critics

The award season continues to ramp up and today Star Trek got another (albeit expected) accolade by making the short list for the Oscar for best visual effects. But early reaction says that Trek is not the favorite. Also, Star Trek actors picked up a couple of nods from another critics group.

 

Star Trek FX on the short list – but can anyone beat Avatar?
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences today announced the 15 films on the short list for the Achievement in Visual Effects award for the 82nd Academy Awards. The final nominees will be drawn from these semi-finalists. And the list is:

  • "Angels & Demons"
  • "Avatar"
  • "Coraline"
  • "Disney’s A Christmas Carol"
  • "District 9"
  • "G-Force"
  • "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra"
  • "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"
  • "Sherlock Holmes"
  • "Star Trek"
  • "Terminator Salvation"
  • "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"
  • "2012"
  • "Watchmen"
  • "Where the Wild Things Are"

It is no surprise that Star Trek is on the list as it was one of the big ILM movies for the year. And given the competition, Star Trek has a good chance of being one of the final nominees. However, now that James Cameron’s ‘game changing’ Avatar is out, touting ‘breakthroughs’ in CGI and motion capture, it seems to be the early favorite. The LA Times ‘Envelope Blog‘ notes:

Given the overwhelmingly positive response to the motion-capture wonderland that is James Cameron’s “Avatar,” does any other film have a chance in that category this year?

And The Wraps ‘The Odds‘ Awards blog had this to say:

But getting onto the shortlist is only the first of four steps in one of the more complicated Oscar processes — and this year, that process is almost certainly a doomed quest for everything except “Avatar.”


Can Star Trek’s FX beat out Avatar?

Mindel talks Star Trek Cinematography and VFX
In one of those end of the year wrapup articles, Variety takes a look at some of the directors for photography being talked up for awards, including Star Trek’s Daniel Mindel. According to the DP, 60% of the shots in the film involved some form of CGI. Mindel notes:

There’s nothing worse than watching a movie where the CGI stands out so much that it looks artificial

And regarding his relationship with VFX Supervisor Roger Guyett, Mindel tells Variety:

We had a symbiotic relationship that enabled me to give him exactly what he needed so he could give us back effects that were just right



Before and After Star Trek FX shots show the integration of CGI and live action

Trek gets two nominations from Detroit Film Critics
The Detroit Film Critics will be announcing their awards next week and announced their nominees today. Star Trek got a couple of acting nods, one for Best Ensemble and one for Breakout Performance by Chris Pine.

As noted in the last Award Buzz column, a number of season announcements are coming up in the next week. TrekMovie will keep updating new developments as we delve deeper into the season.

Sort by:   newest | oldest
JG
December 12, 2009 12:55 am

Not unexpected. And…first.

December 12, 2009 12:58 am

Having not seen ‘Avatar’ yet, it’s hard to say what’s going to happen come Oscar time. I do think TREK stands a better chance at an Oscar for sound, but getting it for SPFX would be nice too!

Phasers On Stun
December 12, 2009 12:59 am

The effects were great in ST09 and much better than previous ST films (though I still love the completed effects for STMP director’s cut). But there was nothing ground breaking. So I’ll be surprised if they pick up an oscar for VFX.

I would love to know what the process is and what they look for when they pick a film for the best VFX.

Harry Ballz
December 12, 2009 1:05 am

I thought Chris Pine “knocked it out of the park” with his portrayal of a young James T. Kirk, but an Oscar nod is highly unlikely…

SChaos1701
December 12, 2009 1:22 am

For the first time ever, the Enterprise looked like it actually existed.

Hat Rick
December 12, 2009 1:24 am

Good ol’ Oviatt Lib– I mean, Starfleet Academy. :-)

Harry Ballz
December 12, 2009 1:31 am

#5:

Are you kidding? Every exterior shot of the Enterprise looked as phony as hell!

Will_H
December 12, 2009 2:29 am

First off, I have yet to be at all impressed by the CG shots from Avatar. They look cartoonish and unrealistic. Also, I wasn’t that impressed by the new Star Trek ship shots either. All they were was more flashy than what we’ve seen. I hate to say this but I honestly found the Enterprise shots from Nemesis more realistic than the ones from this one, and that movie is like 7 years older, which is an eternity in CG. Still, I think Star Trek looks better than Avatar, but I have yet to see Avatar so its hard to make a good judgment.

USS Manila NCC-99232
December 12, 2009 3:27 am

Star Trek really had the awesome CGI effects. Haven’t seen Avatar yet so I don’t know if I’m right about my decision.

JJ Savard
December 12, 2009 4:00 am

I said it yesterday to a friend of mine, the new movie looked very CG (especially the fanal scene with Nimoy’s “Space the final frontier” VO) I far preffer DS9’s special effects because there is something tangible on screen, and the last season aired 10 years ago.

AJ
December 12, 2009 4:42 am

I have to agree with Harry in #7.

The Enterprise, while it looked real in the Iowa yards, really falls short in some of the space shots, especially in spacedock, lying in wait by Saturn, and pulling away from the singularity.

I heard there was a ‘beauty-pass’ by Saturn’s rings, and, watching attentively, as I have over 20 times, I still can’t see it. It’s too quick and choppy. It’s also ‘in your face.’ TMP had a beauty-pass or two which were effective in conveying scale.

The E coming out of warp in the debris field and twisting through the debris was pleasingly real, as were the fleet preparing for warp. Funny, as the Kelvin sequence seemed to be fine (save the huge humanoid flying out of the hull into space).

AJ
December 12, 2009 4:46 am

It sounds like Avatar should be nominated for “best animated film.” Like Bedknobs and Broomsticks, for example, they both combine live action and animation, but B&B would qualify as a cartoon. I mean, if the whole film is one big computer SFX montage, it’s like “Toy Story,” right? Animated.

Best SFX should be FX which seemlessly interact with the filmed ‘real world” like the Enterprise or a giant tidal wave.

December 12, 2009 5:39 am

Hmm. Nice FX I guess… But was that actually Nero’s planetary drilling platform or another near miss by Paxton, using the Mars-based verteron array. :p

JimJ
December 12, 2009 7:32 am

I thought the effects were amazingly good in the Star Trek movie, but with James Cameron attached to “Avatar”, you can kiss any Oscar hopes goodbye for Trek. If you want Oscars for Trek, hire Cameron and give him a $500 million budget. Then, you’ll get Oscars. It’s not going to happen, though, after Avatar will struggle to even make back it’s $500 million here in the USA. Movie studios will get nervous about a budget that big.

Flake
December 12, 2009 7:33 am

I don’t think Trek will win any oscars. I think Avatar will clean up the technical nominations which means Trek has nothing. It will be nominated for a few though.

For its time and production circumstance, the views of the Enterprise in ST:TMP were and are unmatched. The view of the travelpod in contrast to the drydock immensity of the Enterprise gave her a scale unlike any other Trek production before or since.

Abrams’ realization of the Enterprise, while a wonderful reinvention, still carries that breath of disproportionism (for lack of a better nonword) that just doesn’t “work” for me entirely. Its a nice looking ship, but it can’t hold a candle to the TOS movie series Enterprises.

rainmaker83
December 12, 2009 9:31 am

IT would be nice for star trek to win but i doubt it very much the new E just dosent look as good as the one in TMP but the kelvin i thought looked fantastic anyway the fx shots in the movie were up and down a lot some ones that were great like the E coming out of warp at valcan was good but the end shot with the E firing all her wepons for me was disaponting anyway thats my opinion rock on

December 12, 2009 9:31 am

On the one hand Trek is and was always destined for the technical Oscars and acting-wise Sci-Fi is seldom able to act up to a solid drama piece.

On the other hand the Oscars in the last years were more and more about financial success of a movie than acting excellence, so Trek could still grab an acting Oscar.

Aside from Trek I mostly like small indy dramas and not some actors/actresses trying to mimic the big Jack Nicholson (Tim Burton’s Batman rules!!!)…

December 12, 2009 9:32 am

I’d also like to agree with 7 and 11…

I choke a little every time I hear JJ say that we have now become completely “photo-real” when describing the CGI. So many of the shots, like the Vulcan school, the Enterprise in the debris, the Kelvin flying through the Narada, the orbital skydiving, really do stand up to the test–

But very sadly, all the more because of how TMP glorified her so, the Enterprise suffers in several shots, most already listed here. The reality is that the model from TMP still looks much more real.

rainmaker83
December 12, 2009 9:36 am

@19
totaly agree. Liked some of the shots of the new E but overall they could of been done better. also would of liked to of seen some more of the other ships at the spacedock rock on

richpit
December 12, 2009 9:53 am

The Oscars are stupid and have nothing to do with the quality or popularity of a movie. It’s all about politics and “who you know”.

I’ve never cared about what movie wins an Oscar and I certainly won’t start caring now because there’s a slight chance that a Star Trek movie may be nominated.

Sorry, I don’t mean to sound grumpy, just the way I feel about awards shows in general.

Third Remata'Klan
December 12, 2009 10:44 am

That is one Oscar nomination that Star Trek deserves.

And another it definitely won’t win.

Hell, I’m even pulling for AVATAR, and I haven’t seen it yet….

BOOZBA
December 12, 2009 10:53 am

Star Trek VFX looks more real,the Avatar VFX looks more cartoony.

Zebonka
December 12, 2009 11:16 am

#5

That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. The Enterprise looked way more real in the other movies. The difference was, it looked like it was really a few feet long and in a studio somewhere.

Now it just looks like …. gurrraphics. There were only a couple of shots in the new movie that even looked remotely real.

AJ
December 12, 2009 12:07 pm

One issue is that FX start to look shittier the better they get. Look at the battle over Coruscant that begins ROTS. What a beautiful piece of crap. Stunningly awful. It’s the issue of reliance on the FX to fill time rather than tell the story, of which there isn’t much in the prequels.

JJ’s film had some basic things going on, and I think he understands that FX shots should not eclipse ‘real’ ones. He’s said so. But he’s paid lip-service to Robert Wise’s fly-over sequence, and said it inspired the 2-second one we get in ST09. I don’t see it. The Enterprise didn’t get the treatment it should get in ST09.

Hopefully, should he make it the ‘character’ that it is in TOS and the first 3 films, we can see it in a better light.

Michael
December 12, 2009 12:19 pm

Of the films I’ve seen so far this year, Star Trek and District 9 are the two with the best effects. Quite an accomplishment for District 9 considering it’s low budget. As to Avatar, I have not seen it yet so I will withhold judgment. One film that should not even be anywhere near this category is G.I. Joe. Some of the worst effects in recent years.

Thorny
December 12, 2009 12:27 pm

Avatar is already out? I thought it wasn’t hitting theaters until next week.

December 12, 2009 12:28 pm

This whole silly conversation of special effects looking fake reminds me of when I went to see Superman Returns, and when we first see Superman fly up to save the jet, the guy behind me said, “Oh, now that is FAKE!” I reminded him that of course it was fake because people can’t really fly.

There is some suspension of disbelief that is required to watch movies, especially sci-fi movies. I can’t believe how whiny you people are about the fakeness of scenes that are clearly not real. The day that people can actually build a huge starship and film it flying through space is the day you guys should be complaining aboug CGI starships – until then put your fanboy criticism on hold because clearly no special effect in any movie looks absolutely real.

Harry Ballz
December 12, 2009 1:51 pm

Question to Bob Orci:

Not that you have to agree with us, but can you at least tell us whether JJ is aware of the fact that a core group of fans here are inherently unhappy with the exterior shots depicting our beloved Enterprise in the movie?

It would be a nice Christmas present to get your feedback on this!

Ceti Alpha 5
December 12, 2009 2:51 pm

I agree with 28 SarahJ
And @29 Harry Ballz, this core group you speak of, is still pretty small.

Harry Ballz
December 12, 2009 2:56 pm

30:

I’ve been reading every post over multiple threads here and that core number might be bigger than you think. Time for a poll, maybe?

Sci-Fi Guy
December 12, 2009 3:18 pm

I am sure Avatar will win the VFX award…on sheer volume if nothing else.

And no, I haven’t seen the film but you can tell these effects are going to be groundbreaking and huge just from the trailer.

Trust me, it’ll win best VFX…

EFFeX
December 12, 2009 3:29 pm

I dunno… Avatar looks like an XBox 360 game, it’s pretty, but nothing that blows my mind.

dep1701
December 12, 2009 6:06 pm
I’ve gotten used to the Ryan Church Enterprise, and enjoyed it in the movie. At times, I can even look at the two replicas I have on display ( the Playmates Toy – which I got weeks before the movie premiered so I would have time to get over the shock of the redesign, and the really nifty and relatively accurate exclusive Target DVD holder ) and think it looks pretty cool. However, I still prefer the original two designs ( series and movie ) because to me they seem more well proportioned and balanced than the 2009 version ( lest you think I’m picking on Ryan’s version alone, I was also never thrilled by the 1701-D either ). But, this is what we have now, and you can either learn to get used to it, or let it constantly get in the way of your enjoyment of a film. I will say that I doubt that it will ever have the same place in my heart as the originals. As I said, I thought it looked pretty good in the film ( for the most part ) and I enjoyed watching it being put through it’s paces in the movie. My favorite shot is probably when the ship pulls away from the space dock, banking starboard. Generally It looked close enough to the original Enterprise – particularly in distant shots – to give me a trekkie thrill when it was on-screen. However, on a purely personal aesthetic note, I… Read more »
@28 Your argument misses the point entirely. If you had said to me what you said to that gentleman in the theater, I likely would have told you turn around and shut your mouth. I strongly suspect the man knew flying people weren’t real, and didn’t need your chronic condescension on top of it. In the reality *of that movie*, a superhero *could* fly. That reality had better be credible or it won’t work. For that one viewer, it didn’t. Shame on you for daring to suggest the only possible answer was a disingenuous assessment of the man’s intelligence. We all understand that to appreciate movies you must suspend your disbelief, and with science fiction genre this is especially so. The trick is finding that imaginary line where the work before you truly makes that suspense a natural consequence of theatrical immersion. The CGI, or model-based photographic effects, or the combination of both, have the necessary responsibility of performing that immersive trick. When it works, its breathtaking (see Trumbull’s work in 2001). When it fails, its an embarrassment (see Trek V). If you can see the artifacts of production, if the effort makes you have to *think* about suspending that disbelief, they’ve failed. Pure and simple. That’s why you get people who have been sold a line of “you’ll believe that a man can fly” makes the “that’s fake” comment when the promise isn’t realized. Unless they’re chronically cynical and have the latitude to blow $10 a ticket to see… Read more »
Michael Hall
December 12, 2009 9:33 pm

“But very sadly, all the more because of how TMP glorified her so, the Enterprise suffers in several shots, most already listed here. The reality is that the model from TMP still looks much more real.”

Well, I disagree. For my money, the Enterprise has never looked more viscerally “real” onscreen than it did in the Abrams film. Given my overall distaste for the “re-imagined” design, in fact, it looked all-too real. :-(

December 12, 2009 10:27 pm

Will see but I’m going to see avatar it lokks damn great to watch

ryanhuyton
December 12, 2009 10:41 pm

I’m looking forward to this movie. It is curious to know whether or not this movie makes back it’s money and earns a profit. Judging by how well his previous films did at the box office, there is a good chance it will. But then again, it has cost between $250-300 million already, so it is a big challenge.

ryanhuyton
December 12, 2009 11:03 pm

ooops! Wrong post! Never Mind!

David B
December 13, 2009 6:42 am

It would be interesting to know the cost of a CGI Enterprise vs a Model filmed Enterprise.

If a model being filmed is cheaper than hours of cgi work then please go back and do it the old way.

Gary
December 13, 2009 9:17 am

Can someone explain why the blue rectangle is needed as shown on the second pair of the Star Trek before and after photos?

DaveO
December 13, 2009 9:43 am

@34. dep1701 – December 12, 2009

“… While none of the effects in the film were groundbreaking … “
————————————————-

The VFX sequence of the destruction of Vulcan was groundbreaking.

In fact, I’ve rarely seen *that much* ground broken on screen.

— DaveO

Anthony Thompson
December 13, 2009 11:56 am

The FX were nearly flawless. And very beautiful at times. The new warp effect is so much better than what was done in past films (with rainbow colors trailing the ship, etc.).

Michael Hall
December 13, 2009 12:38 pm

#42–

Good one. :-)

dep1701
December 13, 2009 12:53 pm

@41

Two Possible Explanations:

1. The blue background functions as a blue or green screen to allow any actor body parts ( head, arms, torso, etc ) to be easily rotoscoped into the CGI effects shot without having to deal with painting out surrounding plants or buildings.

2. On set, the blue wall provides a visual cue for the players to know where to look, run and gather at, as well as providing the FX guys with a guide as to where the bottom of the effects should begin in the plate.

December 13, 2009 1:31 pm

#5: “For the first time ever, the Enterprise looked like it actually existed.”

Sorry, but no. ST TMP’s shots of the Enterprise, especially Mr. Scott’s guided tour was far more real than any of the shots of the new E. AND no, I am not saying the new E’s shots were not impressive, they clearly were.

December 13, 2009 1:51 pm

#35: Lighten up already. Your response that Sarah is suffering from a superiority complex doesn’t wash.

If anything, she merely said what a lot of us–as are you, I suspect—are tied of people doing nothing but complaining about this and that on this website.

colonyearth
December 13, 2009 5:00 pm
In worldwide box, AVATAR will easily recoup its cost. Let us also not forget people that the upwards of $500 million that’s been mentioned includes the film’s P&A (that’s Promotion and Advertising) budget, which is exclusive of the production budget. Need I remind you that Spiderman 3 cost upwards of $300 million and easily made its money back (and that didn’t include the P&A I don’t think. AVATAR, while expensive, is also groundbreaking in almost every way, so it’s cost is viable. Even Cameron admitted the cost was high when pitching the two sequels to Fox and told them that now that the worlds have been “built” the cost of the next films will be much much lower. Oh and BTW, Spiderman 3 was a hunk of sh*t! And it did well. As to those who claim the FX in AVATAR look like a video game…wait and go see the film! Stop bitching! You all sound like fanboys! This film is groundbreaking on many levels and the least you could do is acknowledge the hard work and vision that’s gone into this film. It’s getting rave reviews and I still remind you that most of the trailer images were also still being tweeked up until about a week ago. I will also say AGAIN that you have to see this in its native format, 3D to truly appreciate it and the vision behind it! The FX were rendered for 3D and it’s in 3D that they look their absolute best… Read more »
colonyearth
December 13, 2009 5:03 pm

Oh and BTW Harry, it was already stated a while back after ST09 came out that the naysayers only represented about 2% of the fans and that’s not including the new fans the film brought in.

You’re like the right wing…you’re in the minority but you’re all very loud so you seem like a lot more people.

Harry Ballz
December 13, 2009 7:28 pm

49:

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the new movie. It was…FUN! I just don’t care for any of the exterior shots depicting the ship. Hell, in Galaxy Quest, when the actors on the elevator first see the ship….THAT looked more realistic, for cryin’ out loud!

wpDiscuz