and Batman deserves it

Sith deserves it more, but then again, there is no need to prove it by winning an Academy. I'll even be happier if Sith doesnt take it. If Harry Potter and WotW win the award, wouldnt the recognition go back to ILM, Lucas' brainchild? HAH!

The Star Wars films have changed the look of visual effects, the rest are just... I cant even make myself to say it.

I don't think Sin City is as good as any of these movies (with the possible exception of Harry Potter). Visually I thought it was good but the story was poor.
For me Star Wars should win (although I've still to see Kong)

Anyone who has seen King Kong will agree that the T-Rex fight is simply breathtaking!

Well if Narnia can make the long list, I don't see why Sin City couldn't. Pray tell what was so revolutionary and innovative and exceedingly challenging in that film as regards SFX? The leopards looked wicked, yeah, but if that's your criteria what new ground was broken that LOTR or HP or any big battle film of recent years hadn't done before?

I think that Sin City had excellent SFX. Excellent isn't a synonym for revolutionary, or innovative or whatever, it just means that it was done well in the film. I don't see how a film like Sin City could convey a "GREAT" style without the excellent SFX supporting, for surely the style would suffer if the latter were only so-so? Unless you mean that the style had little to do with the SFX and more to do with cinematography, and directing and so forth. In which case I'd bow gracefully out of the discussion since I know shit all about SFX anyway.

;)

King Kong had some of the best special effects but what about the brontosaurus stampede. The characters running in place over a bluescreen looked surprisingly fake. I would give it to Sin City for the seamlessness of the effects and how it advanced the movie as a whole. The opening in War of the Worlds was also pretty damn good.

I thought the SFX for SIN CITY outweighed those for BATMAN BEGINS, especially taken into context how the SFX was made in each film.

1) Sin City was released last Febuary.

2) In 2004, one film that didn't get nominated for effects
was "Sky Captain and The World Of Tommorow". I think putting
'Sin City' up there in 2005 for using the same FX process
threatens the Academy.

3) The list will shorten to three or four. Consider that, and there is no
room for Sin City.

4) War Of The Worlds does not belong.

5) So much for "Steath" 's boast of 'the biggest special effect explosion ever caught on film, you could see it from space!'

Going with your reason for Sin City NOT being there, i feel Batman shouldn't be there either. Don't get me wrong, I LOVED Batman, definitely one of the best films of the year IMHO, but were there any really special "visual" effects? Especially compared to Kong, Star Wars, Narnia, WotW, etc. (I mean Star Wars was TERRIBLE in my opinion, but the effects were top notch.)

That was one thing that made Batman great... there were no over-exaggerated scenes using special effects. It had a sense of gritty realness to it. Not some CGI-fest. (I know not all visual effect are CGI, but still...)

My 2 cents...

PS - Whats with everyone dissin the latest Harry Potter? I thought it was pretty decent. I read the books too, and i know they left a lot out, but they kinda had to. I think it was one of the better ones so far... And, the "visual effects" were good too! ;-)

What did the new year already come and go? Sin City was this year. And just because Sky Captain was all digital and sucked doesnt mean all films made the same way suck. Besides Revenge of the Sith had just as much CG as Sky Captain or Sin City.

What I mean, Frank, is that Academy folks seem to have short memory spans.
I thought "Sky Cap'n" (2004) was great in bold FX vision and as a new director Kerry Conran had some potential . Robert Rodreguiez, however, is more seasoned. It shows and Rodreguiez got better performances from his actors (and maybe better actors too) .

The quanity of FX does not always equal quality. Still, Sith is the horse you should bet on when the final roster is announced late January.

As someone who works in the Post Production industry, the difficulty of a special effect is irrelevant. What matters are their effectiveness.

Roger Ebert says that the best special effect is the one you don't notice. I'll vote for the slick stylized Sin City effects over the computer game graphics of Star Wars any day.

Remember, these are CREATIVE awards. This is the exact reason that you didn't think that Stunt men should get Oscars. People should be awarded on how well the effects work to help the story, style and enjoyment of the movie. Not who has the most CGI characters and the biggest budget.

"Sin City" was released in APRIL, not February. April 1, 2005.

I think the problem is is that the Academy refuses to even nominate movies not released that summer or that Christmas. They have a very selective memory (which is also VERY bias).

The Academy is really dying. Not like they're in bad health in ratings and may not happen again in the years to come, but they're just too scared to take any chances. There have been so many great movies with great effects, acting, directing, etc, in the past years that have completely denied because it didn't fit they're description of what a great movie should be. They don't go with what is the best movie anymore, they go with the movie that tries far too hard to be 'sophisticated'.

It's reasons like this why the best movie NEVER wins, because the best movie takes a chance. It took "Lord of the Rings" 3 years to win, "Star Wars" lost to "Annie Hall", "Citizen Kane" lost to "How Green is My Valley", "Pulp Fiction" lost to "Forrest Gump", and the list continues to grow every year.

Dear Academy,
Stop voting for friends and what you claim to fit your 'description' and start picking the movie that should win again.
Sincerely,
A Movie Fan

KONG will win.

I disagree wholeheartedly John, and here's why...

Per the Academy's site (http://oscars.org/78academyawards/rules/rule22.html), films are meant to be judged for a VFX award by the following criteria:

"(a) consideration of the contribution the visual effects make to the overall production and

(b) the artistry, skill and fidelity with which the visual illusions are achieved."

Keeping in mind that these two criteria is the criteria given to voting members, I still don't understand how Willy Wonka and Batman Begins make this list. How is it the Visual Effects contributed to the overall production? Batman Begins had a very small amount of effects in it, overall. It is a great film, no doubt. Worthy of a nomination in several categories, but a Visual Effects movie it is not, nor was it ever intended to be. And Willy Wonka? Duplicating a short person / bunch of squirrels 30 times on the screen is hardly revolutionary - and contributed little to the overall film. In many ways they were unnecessary effects. Cool looking - but in the long run - unnecessary to the "overall production" of the film.

Now Sin City, on the other hand... There is absolutely NO way to make that film without the effects it used and still be faithful to the source material. It is the only full-length black and white, fully green-screened movie in history, and it's effects make more of a "contribution" to the "overall production" than any of those on the Academy short list, hands down.

Although, in the end, I'm pretty sure the snub has more to do with Rodriquez telling the DGA to go f*** themselves that the artistry of the selected. Like I said on FilmRot, shameful.

It's tricky to approach this objectivly instead of shouting out for the film you liked best. I guess the anser would be to see if any one of these films brought anything truly new to the silver screen.

ofcause Sin City should be on the list...

"Although, in the end, I'm pretty sure the snub has more to do with Rodriquez telling the DGA to go f*** themselves that the artistry of the selected. Like I said on FilmRot, shameful."

true!

"PS - Whats with everyone dissin the latest Harry Potter? I thought it was pretty decent. I read the books too, and i know they left a lot out, but they kinda had to. I think it was one of the better ones so far... And, the "visual effects" were good too! ;-)" - John

IMO it was the worst Harry Potter adaption so far and as a film it was only fair to middlin'. They got a lot of things wrong, set up absolutely nothing for Order of Phoenix--which makes the next director's task even more difficult considering the size of the book--and Dumbledore needed Prozac.

But I left it alone when John C. posted about it because, really, we disagree about enough. :->