Sound Editing and Special Effects finalsts announced

[CMJ]

Beverly Hills, CA - The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences today announced the seven films being considered for Achievement in Sound Editing for the 75th Academy Awards(R).

The films in consideration are listed below in alphabetical order:
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Minority Report
Road to Perdition
Spider-Man
We Were Soldiers
XXX

Ten-minute clip reels from each of the seven films will be screened for the Sound Editing Award Committee on February 4. The members will then vote on these films for Oscar consideration. The outcome of this vote will result in the following options: 1) if two or three productions receive the required votes they will become the nominated films in the Sound Editing category; 2) if only one film receives the required votes it will be recommended to the Academy Board of Governors for a Special Achievement Award; or 3) if no film achieves the required votes, no award for 2002 will be given in the category.

If nominees are selected they will be announced along with nominations in 23 other categories on Tuesday, February 11, at 5:30 a.m. PST. Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2002 will be presented on Sunday, March 23, from the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland(R) and televised live by the ABC Television Network beginning at 5:30 p.m. PST. A half-hour arrival segment will precede the presentation ceremony at 5 p.m.

Academy Announces Films in Competition for Visual Effects Oscar(R)

Beverly Hills, CA - The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences today announced the seven films being considered for Achievement in Visual Effects for the 75th Academy Awards(R).
s
The films in consideration are listed below in alphabetical order:

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Men in Black II
Minority Report
Spider-Man
Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones
XXX

Fifteen-minute clip reels from each of the seven films will be screened for the Visual Effects Award Nominating Committee on February 5. The members will then nominate three of these seven films for Oscar consideration.

The finalists will be announced along with nominations in 23 other categories on Tuesday, February 11, at 5:30 a.m. PST.

[ReaperFett]

First, why 15 minutes clips? That isnt fair. Should show the whole thing.

Second, Sound Editing is still the worst award in the Oscars :)

[JMK]

Does that mean 15 consecutive minutes? If so, I have a problem with that because it may not show the best sequences. If it's an ultra condensed version of the film where the best effects are emphasized, then that's cool with me.

[CMJ]

Kyle...I'm pretty sure it's 'highlights' and not a consecutive 15 minute stretch.

Reaper, Best Sound..and Best Sound Editing are TOTALLY different. Try not to criticize the award. :p

[Marcus Telcontar]

Sound editing would be a very difficult job. YOu are aware the sounds you hear almost always are not recorded a the time of shooting, but are added later? So, I well see the point of a Sound editing award, bcause it actually quite important.

[ReaperFett]

Marcus, the other year it was between U-571 and Space Cowboys. Is it a valid award if technically NOONE can win it? Why not do it like how SFX is done?

[Marcus Telcontar]

So, they only hand it out to films that deserve it. I'm cool with that.

[CMJ]

Reaper, trust me there will be films nominated for it. Is it possible, that none will? Yes, but the chance of that actually happening are slim to none.

It IS a valid award.

[ReaperFett]

Why arent the other awards done the same way? Why is it the best three get SFX nominations, but a non-static get it for editing? And I mean, for petes sake, TEN MINUTES? So if, say, TTT (It's the longest) had 2hr 50 of awful sound editing, but 10 stunning, it could win?

[CMJ]

Reaper...did you READ the special effects one? Your logic is flawed. If we use what you're saying then...A film could have crappy special effects through most of but as long as the have 15 good minutes they'd win. :p

Where's your outrage? :p

[Marcus Telcontar]

Possibly. But then again, could a moive be a total crap fest apart from sayone supporting actor, who could get nominated?

Anyway 15 minutes is quite chunk. It is a good representation of what the rest of the movie is.

[ReaperFett]

SFX, you can SEE if it is good. Who sits ina cinema, and thinks "Oh, GREAT SOUND EDITING!" How the bleep do you decide that?

[CMJ]

Reaper...believe me you can. Sound is my brother's specialty, and he ALWAYS comments on sound and sound effects in movies.

Actually, after studying film in school, I notice sound alot more than I used to as well.

[JonathanLB]

So no AOTC for Sound Editing?! That's very surprising because the Star Wars films are among the best for sound and sound editing, not to mention effects.

[ReaperFett]

You notice SOUND, I will give you. But it's EDITING?

[CMJ]

Do you notice how a film is edited when you watch it? I do. Most people don't, but I'm always subconsciously thinking "Okay they went from an establishing shot to a 2 shot, then a close up. Now we see an reaction shot," and so on. It's all that film school training.

It's the same concept.

[JonathanLB]

I hear you on that, CMJ. It's something you have to be trained to think of, though, like our film teacher is always pointing out things that may seem obvious that just float right over most people's heads I suppose.

I am sure you are familiar with that 7-minute uninterrupted take in The Maltese Falcon? That is truly amazing. It's funny because I honestly didn't notice that when I first saw it. It's very fluid, which is even more remarkable.

It's funny to think that even the lousy little amateur movies that I made with friends show a level of complexity that did not arise until many, many decades after the invention of film. I mean, the first movies used only stationary cameras and were not cinematic whatsoever, usually. Not even Chaplin's films were cinematic. They were more staged and theatrical, whereas Keaton was the more cinematic of the early silent era comedians at least. Even the color in amateur movies now was not around in movies at all until the late '30s and the sound not until 1926 or so. Yet now, 13 year olds with camcorders can create truly cinematic amateur films that show a grasp and understanding of cinema that is actually learned over watching TONS of movies, but it's learned subconciously. It isn't something that anyone is born knowing, although it seems very obvious sometimes to us. In the earlier days of cinema, as you read and you can see, "basic" things really were not that basic at all. It was a big deal to have narrative in a movie, it was at first a big deal that a movie could actually be a commercial endeavor. Edison never really saw his movies like that originally, but more as historical or for research purposes (actualities, too). The Lumiere brothers immediately were more cinematic and artistic in their endeavors, though.

Watching how various directors use their takes and place the camera is definitely interesting, but it's something you have to train yourself to notice. It's the difference between a normal audience member watching a film and a big film buff, film critic, filmmaker, etc. Anyone who has more of an insight into the production process I suppose or has more interest in how it is all done. Sometimes I find that when I talk to people about movies, they cannot say much more than "it was good" or "it was bad." The grasp of why a movie is bad or good is sometimes not communicated as well by audiences because they're not sure how to express what they know. I'm not saying they don't have their reasons, but only that they are not quite as well versed in the ways in which you criticize or praise a movie. I found that was the case with me when I started JLBMedia.com as a review site more than 2 years ago (August 2000). I sometimes really could not think of much to say in my reviews because I lacked a large database of films with which to compare new movies, I couldn't really tell how I was supposed to criticize them, and therefore my reviews almost read more monotonously like, "It is a good film because it is interesting and the characters are well developed" or something, not really that insightful. I thought a few of them were laughably bad when I went to re-edit them before putting them on JLB Movies.

[CMJ]

I remember that take in 'Maltese Falcon'(which I found highly overrated by the way). Did you see the opening take in 'Touch of Evil'?

Now THAT is impressive...hell it's impressive by today's standards much less the standard 50 years ago.

I'm not sure I totally agree with your slant on the Lumiere brothers. They shot mostly actualities too, from what I remember. We had to watch a few of those early documentaries(because that's really what they were) in Perspectives on Film, History of Film, Art of Film and Non-theatrical film(in other words I'm kinda versed in those, at least more versed than the average Joe).

I think most of the editing(or uses of it) can be attributed to Eiseinstein of Russia. We watched some of his stuff(and of course studied the hell out of him). He pioneered so much when it comes to editing. The guy was remarkable.

I agree with you about people and how they evaluate film as well. I have alot of friends back home that can never tell me what's good or bad about a film. They just like it or don't.

Hey, I'm not the most eloquent person either, but I always point out the technical aspects I like and/or performances and people are like "Wow, I never thought of that." :p

It's rather amusing.

[ReaperFett]

Do you notice how a film is edited when you watch it? I do. Most people don't, but I'm always subconsciously thinking "Okay they went from an establishing shot to a 2 shot, then a close up. Now we see an reaction shot," and so on. It's all that film school training.
I do. I noted the overuse of Zoom in about 2 minutes of TTT footage, and felt it sometimes had bad editing, where characters would jump distances :)

[CMJ]

Then in my opinion, being able to notice how a films sound is edited should not be difficult.

Here's the deal(short explanation)...Sound(effects) editing should be the literaly sound effects and how they are put together with the film.

That includes everything about them. Do they coincide correctly? Do they sound correct? All of that sort of stuff.

Best SOUND is the whole sound mix. Is the music at the proper level. Does dialogue overpower background noise or vice versa? Are the levels all properly mixed.

It's like saying Best Art Direction is an unnecessary award because there's a Best Cinematography award.

[ReaperFett]

So how do you compare the editing in something fact paced like TTT and something slow?

[CMJ]

Are we speaking sound editing now...or "regular" editing?

[ReaperFett]

sound, I just dont want to keep saying it all out :)

[CMJ]

In sound(effects) editing it makes little difference if it's "fast" or not. We're judging, like I said earlier, the sound effects and how they're put in with the film.

[ReaperFett]

Well, all the sounds in The Bourne Identity were in the right place. How was it beaten by a film that has someone shout Wilhelm?

[CMJ]

And how they sound as well. :p It's a tough category to judge, but all the technical categires are Reaper.

Hell if you wanna get down to it...ALL the categories are PERIOD. It's all subjective.

[ReaperFett]

I disagree. You can SEE special effects, or good acting. How do you see that that bit of sound was great? Its just some daft award to give someone else an Oscar :)

[CMJ]

If you can see what great acting is..then why do so many people disagree on performances? Not to mention people disagree on the realism of special effects ALL THE TIME.

There is not one objective award in the main Oscar Ceremony.

[ReaperFett]

Im talking about categories being tough to judge :)

[CMJ]

Reaper how many flippin' times do I have to tell you...people CAN tell! Especially if you're trained for it. Most of what the casual person thinks of as Best Sound..is actually in the Best Sound(effects) editing category.

I seriously feel like I'm banging my head into the wall. I do COME out of movies remarking how good a film sounds. If you hear alot of effects in a film(like guns or what have you) that's the sound effects editor's work. He and the Sound Mixer(who is awarded for Best Sound) have interrelated jobs, but they are very distinctly different.

Do some people do both? I know of a few, but they are 2 distinctly different disciplines. BOTH categories deserve recognition. Dear lord, this is like fighting with Jonathan....

[ReaperFett]

Why? Because Im having to debate with someone stubborn in their views? Unwilling to change?





Got to admit, it's not all one way here :)

[CMJ]

There's a difference between being stubborn and being well...I don't know...difficult. Trust me Reaper I know what I'm talking about. You seem to be arguing JUST to argue.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
I disagree. You can SEE special effects, or good acting. How do you see that that bit of sound was great? Its just some daft award to give someone else an Oscar :)

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The way to do so is LISTEN. Listen to the sounds in the background, how they sync up, how they add to the movie. Maybe a footfall or a crucnhing leaf. Thise effects are added later and it's a science initself to get them right. What about volumes? What about bass effects and clarity?

If you have worked on a sound desk, you will find out what an art it is to get a sound mix right. Really top notch sound guys are very hard to find. Effects you may not want to acknowledge, but they are valid and just as difficult as the rest of the effects in a movie.

Hey what about the sonic missiles in AOTC? What you think they are an afterthought? That boom is done by a sound effects tech. What about the feelign of dread music in Hitchcock gives? Sound Effects. I really sound not need to say anymore, but I will say in this case you are 100% wrong.

[ReaperFett]

Marcuss, when I said see that it was sound, obviously I know you listen :)

I was just carrying on the term :)

[JMK]

How do you see that that bit of sound was great? Its just some daft award to give someone else an Oscar

My God. Try telling an audiophile that sound quallity, mixing etc cannot be measured and evaluated for an Oscar. Why do people buy surround sound systems? Because of the tremendous amount of work put into sound mixes and the editing, that's why. It's a worthy field, deserving of an Oscar. 2 of them for that matter.

[JonathanLB]

"Dear lord, this is like fighting with Jonathan...."

Hey, I resemble that remark. ;)

I do not argue about stuff like that, for the record, I appreciate the work that Sound Editors do because, like Lucas, I believe sound truly is half of the experience. It's amazingly important.

[ReaperFett]

dont you mean resent? Or was that deliberate? :)









And if it is this big important thing that you all agree on, answer my initial point. WHY doesnt it follow the same standards as other Oscars? WHY can it become a special achievement, or not even exist?

[Morgan Evanar]

Jon is acknowledging that he can be stubborn, seemed pretty clear-cut to me.

Come Fett, you ever played Half-Life or CS with A3d?

[ReaperFett]

Im going to guess no :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I guess I will get into this debate, truthly I don't like saying that something was the best of something because it so subjective its like saying what is the best food that is all of the matter of taste. But of course this is just my opinion I don't think we should get rid of the oscars if we did there would less to argue about :p

[ReaperFett]

And how else would we complain films have been shafted by the Academy ;)

[JonathanLB]

You know the Visual Effects Oscar can become a Special Achievement Award too. That generally happens in a year where one film so clearly deserves the award that the competition is basically forfeit and instead one film is just chosen to receive the top honor. Star Wars: ANH in 1978 got a Special Achievement Award for Best Visual Effects.

[Marcus Telcontar]

... Which, if you think about it, is a good idea. If a movie is that clearly in front, then give them the Oscar and be done with it. Rare somethign or someone is that clearly ahead, but it makes sense to me. Also, avoids some of the political BS associated with Oscars and glaring travesties. And if nothing deserves it, then yes, withhold.

Edit : And if anything else other than WETA or ILM get nominated in Visual effects, that would be immense suck.

[JonathanLB]

True, true.

It would be funny to have a year where nothing deserved it. I mean I see why they leave that possibility open, but still, that is rather insulting ;)

[ReaperFett]

But why cant it be the same for SFX, or film, or screenplay?

[CMJ]

Though no one except Price WaterHouse knows for sure: I would assume, with those categories you mentioned Reaper, there are a PLETHORA of things that get the 'required' votes.

They have to take the top 5 in each category, but I'm sure there are many more than that most years.

[ReaperFett]

But with SFX, they didnt mention that. They said, top 3 go through. Why cant Sound Editing get this?

[CMJ]

I think Special Effects used to be handled in much the same way Reaper. Looking through the history of the Awards there were acouple of years where they DIDN'T award an Oscar for that category.

Other evidence for this statement includes the fact that there were several years in the 60-70's where "Special Achievement" awards were given. :p

I'm not sure when the award chnaged to a for certain one, but there's little doubt it started out like Sound(Effects) editing.