Visual effects have, in many respects, been at the forefront of a change that has been occurring in cinema since “Star Wars,” where the increasingly sophisticated methods of filmmaking technology are becoming ever more important to the perception of quality in film. The increasingly expensive aspect of filmmaking is, as I noted in my column last year, perhaps most appreciated by the general public and the sole crafts medium on which a studio might try to sell a movie outright.

The Academy Award for visual effects is chosen in a manner different than every other category except makeup. The branch does not vote directly for five nominees. Rather, a list of seven finalists is announced (usually in late December, though occasionally in early January) and a committee will then screen the work and three nominees will be named on nomination morning.

This truly is the category where blockbusters rule the day. Unlike other categories, where prestige often carries the torch, the visual effects branch rewards the money-making studio efforts. This is seen in the fact that summer films usually form the majority of the nominees in the category. Last year, in fact, they formed all three. One of the reasons I am discussing this category so early this year is that we have seen so many of the contenders already. (Including, in my opinion, the three nominees, but we’ll get there in a minute.)

Cash also speaks in this category. The winner of this award is almost invariably a massive money-maker. Of the fifteen nominees in the past five years, all but three have cracked the $200 million domestic barrier. Given the increasing cost of visual effects, however, it can hardly be considered surprising that failing to return the investment makes getting a nomination very challenging.

This year, the slate looks awfully full.

As far as I can see, Michael Bay’s “Transformers” has got to be considered the leader in this year’s field. The film was essentially sold on its massive and visually extraordinary robots, completely created by the use of visual effects. The film made $300 million, a mild surprise and Bay’s top grosser to date. But most importantly, “Transformers” distinguishes itself from formidable competition by being a cinematically new endeavor. While other franchise installments will be seen this year, we’ve never seen an achievement like “Transformers” before, despite its being the sort of effects this category loves. When one also considers that Oscar winners John Frazier and Scott Farrar led this team, I’d say its status as a nominee is all but assured.

John Frazier’s talents were also seen this summer on “Spider-Man 3,” the latest, and possibly last, installment in Sam Raimi’s hugely successful franchise. I agree with consensus in calling this film the weakest in the series, and a huge drop in quality from the absolutely wonderful second installment. Nonetheless, there is no denying the work that went into creating the character of Sandman alone, not to mention Spidey, Venom, the Goblin and the general chaos ensuing in the action scenes. The legendary John Dykstra is not back this time out after supervising the series’ first two films. His replacement, however, is no slouch. Scott Stokdyk has only worked on three previous films this decade – “Hollow Man,” “Spider-Man” and “Spider-Man 2.” He’s been Oscar-nominated for all of them, winning for the latter. I doubt this film will stop the trend.

“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” also marks the third installment of a hugely successful franchise. This final installment was also a critical disappointment (and, in all fairness, it kind of sucked) but that did not stop audiences from flocking to see Captain Jack one more time. The numerous explosions, ship wrecks and CGI-formed characters like Davy Jones and his crew all should work towards this nomination coming relatively easily. This is not to mention the use of water and storms – one of the favorite challenges in this branch. John Knoll and his crew won Oscars last year for “Dead Man’s Chest” and were nominated four years ago for “The Curse of the Black Pearl.”

But the fact of the matter is that I’m always skeptical of calling any category wrapped up so far in advance. “Minority Report” and “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith” are just two examples of films that in recent years appeared shoo-ins for citations here and then fell short. I feel that if the visual effects committee is looking for something new, the “Pirates” or “Spider-Man” series could be given the cold shoulder.

The primary alternate that I would look towards is the first installment of the “His Dark Materials” series, “The Golden Compass.” Chris Weitz’s take on Philip Pullman’s acclaimed – and controversial – universe will undoubtedly attract much attention come its December release. But even more importantly, the film looks visually stunning. Nonetheless, it is my suspicion that it will ultimately not be as financially successful as the three aforementioned summer blockbusters, nor is the visual effects crew as Oscar-seasoned. This is, of course, all speculation until we actually see the film, but for now I’d bet on the three summer blockbusters.

“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is almost certain to join its four predecessors in this series among the finalists. However, like three of those predecessors, I don’t see it making the final trio. The only previous film in the series that did make it, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” was considered the best movie in the franchise and also came in a weak year for the category. I don’t think we can say that about this year, regardless of all the “Potter” hype. A home-turf BAFTA nomination remains assured.

Also in the realm of family features, “Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium” is headed our way in the Fall with a substantial amount of special and visual effects coming with it. I could easily see this being a “Night at the Museum”-style finalist, but I highly doubt we’ll be seeing a nomination given the other spectacles coming out this year.

The epitome of anti-family feature might be “300,” Zach Snyder’s violent bloodbath take on Frank Miller’s graphic novel. The visual effects work here was actually very impressive (and I say this having hated the movie), but I’m highly skeptical that this film, lacking the sort of CGI and traditional big effects that usually make the cut, will be able to garner much traction in the race.

I really don’t see much else making a run. “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” will not make the final three when its predecessor failed to make the final seven. “I am Legend” looks like a typical Will Smith action film without the extravagance of the aforementioned fantasy films. And the financial failure of “Stardust” won’t be easily overcome in a year much more competitive than last. (EDITOR'S NOTE: I think it would be wise to consider Julie Taymor's “Across the Universe” at least in the early months.)

A final note on Robert Zemickis’s “Beowulf.” Special effects will certainly be pivotal to the success of this film, as will the blending of stop-motion animation techniques. But I ultimately suspect that the film may be considered more of an animation achievement. We shall wait this one out.