i vote for either TDK or Benjamin Button. Both films have REALLY amazing visuals.

Peter, do you know if the aging process in Benjamin Button was done with CGI, or was that make-up? I was blown away and impressed with the aging process of Benjamin Button.

It was CG. They filmed a man, Peter Donald Badalamenti II. He wore a blue head mask that covered everything but the face. Then they took hundreds of photos of Brad Pit doing facial expressions. Then they had him do the voice. Then they make the fake face and put it on the actor in the computer. So it's a mix of CG and real film. MOSTLY real film.

There was a recent article in the NY Times

wow.... it sounded like a LOT of work.

It took four months to do! O.O

it's actually not a lot of pictures of Brad Pitt

Its Mova facial technology accompanied by Image Metrics technology (both of which are propitiatory)... in Mova, they cover the face with some kind of invisible powder which is sensitive to some kind of specially designed camera that just captures that invisible layer.. (the benefit is that the director can really direct the performance, and he is not distracted by the markers that the older technologies used)

and regarding Four months.. you are really wrong!!!! This whole thing has been in production for at least a year and half (with probalby 2 more years in pre-production)

Mova tech came out around 2 years ago and back then, Fincher said he is going to be the first to try it

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/01/04/movie...
That's how they did it. MY BAD. It wasn't pictures but over 120 facial expressions. I got those mixed up

FOUR MONTHS for that PART of Benjamin's life. I NEVER said for the whole film!

A lot was make-up, but Benjamin at the beginning was CGI.

In that interview posted on here they talk about how there was a long period between the filming and completion due to the insane amount of visual effects for the aging process.

so it was CGI?

Yeah, a whole majority of the aging process in the film was Computer Generated and not makeup, to give it a "more dynamic" process.

LOL at the mummy 3, yettis playing football!!!!!!

I'm going with Button

Iron Man's visuals were amazing. As much as I love TDK, I don't know if I'd give it that Visual Effects award. I haven't seen Benjamin Button but I can imagine Brad Pitt's makeup was amazing. The others seem like jokes to me.

Either Hellboy 2 or Iron Man. TDK doesn't have that much CGI.

We're talking VISUAL fx, not digital. TDK trumps both Iron Man and Hellboy all around.

visual effects are shots that are manipulated outside of the actual shoot (in other words, they are mostly digital). yes, TDK did have some great visual effects, but most of the effects were SPECIAL effects (live effects caught during the shoot). I vote Button. Fincher's films have always shown a mastery of visual effects.

You're completely right... technically. Unfortunately, the Academy doesn't make that distinction, they lump it all together under "Visual Effects". Look at the history of the award and you'll see it used to be called "Best Special Effects" until they split it into "Best Visual Effects" and "Best Sound Effects". They're only making a sensory distinction, not technical.

Who is talking about digital. CGI is the same thing as visual effects or special effects.

That's my point, but for some reason people think Button should win because its CGI (ONLY its CGI) is better than TDK's. That's why I said "all around", because both digitally and practically, TDK has better effects (in my opinion)

I'm going with Benjamin Button or Hellboy II.

No Speed Racer? Say what you will about the Story, the acting, whatever- but you cannot say the seamless integration of all the effects in that movie with the actors, not to mention the sheer scope of the world created by hand doesnt at least deserve a nomination.

Out of that list, i'd say Iron man. Give a technical achievement award to TDK for the use of IMAX cameras in a mainstream film, thats where it really stood above the rest, the effects where good, but they didnt drive the film, they didnt have to.

benjamin button ftw! the aging process was incredible!

The Mummy was nominated?! Is this a joke?

AND Journey? WTF?!

i know!!!!

Seriously... it's a travesty that Speed Racer was not even in the short list (of 14) and f**king Journey makes it into top 7???

Hate Speed all you want... but this is beyond retarded

Iron Man or Button. Iron Man's visuals were the most convincingly real, but Button's were the most innovative.

Any other year it would definitely be Benjamin Button, but I simply enjoyed The Dark Knight too much this summer, and the level of craftsmanship in the visuals really elevated the film. And that's before you even add Batman to the mix.

Most of the shots though were practical effects though. There was very little "visual effects" in the flick.

You do realize that the scene where Bats is gliding in Hong Kong and the scene where the Tumbler is prepping to eject the Batpod are really the only effects shots in the film, don't you? While I concede that the shot where he is gliding is beautiful (which I find to be attributable to the IMAX camera's cinematography), the same can not be said for the Tumbler shot.

Benjamin Button and Iron Man are my picks.

I suspect those who don't mention Hellboy 2 probably haven't seen Hellboy 2. The visuals were magnificent.

Australia had terrible effects.

Australia had terrible effects IN people's opinion because that's the style the director wanted to go for! Not because they didn't do the effects right! GO AUSTRALIA!

Iron Man, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor weren't anything noteworthy, in terms of special effects.

I respectfully disagree regarding Iron Man and Mummy 3... as much as I did not like either one, both VFX wise were pretty damn good (the whole cracking technology in Mummy 3 is one of the best ever done... its been used in a retarded way no argument, but its really well done)

Hellboy II was absolutely beautiful. The effects were not only realistic but really, really imaginative. I also think it should definitely win Set Design (for everything, especially the gears battle chamber at the end).

it should be between iron man, hellboy, and button (dark knight seems like it had too many practical effects to be considered). button should win. the aging effects were just astounding

I really agree with you...
TDK is just there becasue Academy members liked the movie!!! It has really good VFX but overall it's not even comparable to even Hulk or Speed Racer which even didn't make the list of 7!!! (and something that nobody brings up is that some of the TDK shots had to be rendered in 8K - or at least 6K- res which is a whole different beast... that's the whole reason they can't shoot something like Iron Man 2 in IMAX)

Practical? What the hell does that mean? When you realize just how much they did do and how well it was pulled off. It's far from practical.

I swear you people make it sound like this shit is all done with the push of a button.

i'm not sure, but i think by practical he meant they were analog, not digital. i don't doubt that the movie's effects took a lot of effort and skill, but most of them were done without computers, which in itself is amazing.

lol, CaptainAwesome, take a chill pill.

MoMo, that's exactly what I meant. Obviously, all the effects in Dark Knight were incredible and it's all the more amazing that they were completed without the use of a computer (for the most part). So unless I misunderstand what Visual Effects are in terms of the Award, it's referring to computer created effects, in which case the Dark Knight doesn't have all that many (making it more impressive than similar films)

and CaptainAwesome, what do you mean "you people"?????

I completely agree.... Visual Effects award should at least include Speed in this list

OK people, we're not talking best digital effects, we're talking best VISUAL effects... it can be CG or it can be a sock puppet.

I just watched Button so I really want to cheer for that one, but I have to say TDK because there are shots in that movie people honestly believe to be real that aren't.

OK people, we're not talking best digital effects, we're talking best VISUAL effects... it can be CG or it can be a sock puppet.

I just watched Button so I really want to cheer for that one, but I have to say TDK because there are shots in that movie people honestly believe to be real that aren't. Plus a lot of the FX were done for the IMAX format, which is a feat in and of itself.

Hellboy II had wonderful visuals. It should definitely be nominated for Visuals, Set, and Make Up (although Benjamin Button is pretty much guaranteed to win this one).

I'd say either Benjamin Button or Hellboy II.

T.D.K. was great effects, regarding they did flip a truck over forwards. Button was good special effects and make up wise. Hellboy II was mostly CGI so its not that impressive. I would have to say. The Dark Knight because of their adjusting to the bulky imax cameras and the use of mostly visual effects instead of digital effect. Make up is Button defiantly.

ehm, Will, have you ever tried to build a character in 3d and light, texture, animate it and then integrated that cg-character into a shot so that it looks like it belongs there? It is a lot of hard work and I find that very impressive, espacially in Hellboy II where they managed to work out a great combination of practical and digital effects. And also in TDK, which has fantastic "invisible" vfx (the truck was filmed as a special effect .. the street under the truck, that was replaced digitally to clean the shot up, that is a visual effect) and, of course, the face.
Haven't seen Benjamin Button yet, but it must be spectacular. Check out fxguide.com for more insights on it's vfx
I am a bit sad though that Cloverfield didn't make it. Those visual fx blew me away. The scene on the Brooklyn Bridge? Filmed in a studio. As was most of the film.