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.

As I mentioned when I introduced the category in September, there is a two-stage process in determining the nominees for Best Visual Effects. And guess what? Stage One has now passed!

Last Friday, the following titles were announced as finalists in the category:

“Casino Royale”
“Eragon”
“Night at the Museum”
“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest”
“Poseidon”
“Superman Returns”
“X-Men: The Last Stand”

The committee will now screen pre-selected scenes from these titles and choose three nominees from among them.

To start, a few notes on some surprising omissions. The failure of “The Fountain” and “Pan’s Labyrinth” to make this list has resulted in several eyebrows being raised. I won’t dispute the deservedness of these contenders. However, I can hardly say that their being left off the list shocks me. Both contenders are notably lacking in the CGI, which has come to dominate this category in recent years. Moreover, both are small, very artistic and somewhat atypical affairs. This is the category that is most embracing of the mainstream blockbusters, mind you.

More surprising omissions in the eyes of this viewer come in “Charlotte’s Web” and “Flags of Our Fathers.” It is true that neither of these titles burned up the box office, but both embody the sort of work the branch loves.

“Charlotte’s Web” featured a massive visual effects crew and was an acclaimed film with talking animals – a good start for a prospective contender. Maybe they just thought the work wasn’t good enough or innovative enough?

“Flags” was also very well received, still seemingly all set to be a high-profile contender in many other categories (always a bonus). The effects were impressive and had even been highlighted in “for your consideration” ads. Then again, the crew was totally unseasoned from an awards perspective, which may or may not have attributed to its coming up short.

Let’s take a look at the films that DID make it into play:

“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” must be considered an overwhelming favorite here. From massive storms at sea to a monstrous Kraken and, most memorably, the creation of Davy Jones and his crew, the visual effects work on this film was extremely showy, extremely acclaimed and very much the sort of effort that the branch loves. And the behemoth box office take makes for some tasty gravy.

All things considered, I’d be floored if John Knoll and his crew, including Hal Hickel, Charles Gibson and Allen Hall (all of whom have experienced Oscar love before) fail to make the cut. In fact, I’d venture to say they’re almost certainly headed towards the win.

The only film that could conceivably stop them on their way to the statuette is Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns.” The effects designed for this film sent the budget through the roof (and consequently, pretty much prevented the film from achieving profitability). But that didn’t stop the critical praise from coming for the work which was front and center in almost every scene in the movie. The film probably received the best critical reception of the finalists and, despite number crunching, it remains the third highest grossing of the seven from the perspective of box office.

Oscar winner Mark Stetson heads the crew. Past winners Neil Corbould and Jon Thum are also on board, along with past nominee Richard R. Hoover. I’ll be very surprised if they aren’t all heading to the Kodak once more.

The battle for the third spot is quite competitive. Despite the fact that the effects were a major selling point of their films, however, I’d be surprised if “Poseidon” or “Eragon” managed to sneak in. Both films have been critically reviled. I will concede that this does not always matter in the crafts categories, but it nevertheless makes it more difficult. And these two films don’t really have the box office to overcome this hurdle, despite sporting some veteran and respected crewmembers.

“Casino Royale” was an interesting inclusion among the finalists. A Bond film hasn’t scored an Oscar nomination since “For Your Eyes Only”’s Best Original Song nomination a quarter-century ago. But 007 hasn’t had this sort of critical reception in, well, a very, VERY long time. And when one considers the public’s embracing of the film, not to mention the work in that Venice climax sequence, this nomination seems even more possible.

Then again, if you remove that scene in Venice, is there a whole lot here that sticks out as warranting a nomination? To boot, the crew isn’t peppered with Oscar veterans (at least from looking at the IMDb). A nomination wouldn’t shock me, but I’m certainly not counting on it.

“Night at the Museum” seems like it could be a very substantial hit over the holiday season. The visual effects work also looks quite integral to the film, supervised by three-time Oscar winner Jim Rygiel (of “The Lord of the Rings” fame). But the film also has a great deal of uncertainty surrounding it. Will it actually live up to its box office promise? What will the critics say? Just how substantial are the visual effects (I haven’t seen it yet)? Lots of questions. Answers should be coming shortly.

To me, it looks like “X-Men: The Last Stand” is probably going to sneak that last nomination. It was the franchise’s biggest hit, and did it ever feature extremely showy, “look-at-me” visual effects. John Bruno (a perennial nominee in this category in the mid-80s and mid-90s) is also leading the crew.

But then again, the first two films were much better received critically. And they actually had a respected director at the helm (Bryan Singer). Moreover, this could suffer from “been there, done that” syndrome when the “there and that” weren’t embraced by the branch. It would also be rather odd if this were the only “X-Men” film to garner an Oscar nomination. Alas, sometimes that’s the Academy. After all, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” was the first – and, to date, only, entry in its series to garner a nomination in this category.

Barring something very unexpected happening when the Visual Effects Society announces their nominees next month, this is my last in-depth look at this category. We’ll see what the AMPAS does six weeks from now.

“Eye candy” at the movieplex is increasingly becoming more and more dazzling, attempting to attract an audience on spectacle alone. And of all the “technical” aspects of the filmmaking medium, the arena of visual effects is perhaps the only discipline upon which a studio would try to sell a film outright.

Visual effects work is also becoming more and more expensive, sometimes taking twice as long as physical production to implement. And yet, while the work of an entire team of individuals goes into creating the visual effects of a given motion picture, only four members of the crew are ultimately eligible to share an Academy Award nomination when the time comes.

It’s not surprising that most of the nominees in this category are “the films that pay the bills” if you will, with blockbusters making up the vast majority of the nominees. With the exception of “What Dreams May Come” in 1998, the last ten winners of this award have all been among the top grossing endeavors in their respective years.

There are only three nominees per year in this category (probably because many films have little substantial reliance on visual effects). The category also has a two-stage nomination process. Before nomination morning, a group of seven finalists is announced in a “bake-off.” A committee screens the seven films and chooses the nominees from this lot. Now that sound editing has abandoned this practice, the visual effects category remains only one of two (the other being Best Makeup) to use this method of choosing nominees.

Let’s take a look at the strongest contenders this year.

“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” has all the makings not only of a surefire nominee but also the likely winner. Extremely reliant on visual spectacle, not only in its oceanic action sequences, but also in creating the characters of Davy Jones and his entire crew (with the exception of Stellan Skarsgård’s Bootstrap Bill), the work was undoubtedly painstaking and extremely challenging. The work is also integrated almost flawlessly into the film. That “Pirates” has claimed a mammoth box office intake is just gravy, not to mention the fact that the effects work was supervised by three-time nominee John Knoll (still awaiting his first win).

“Superman Returns” is looking pretty solid for a berth as well. The sheer size of the visual effects crew is staggering, including Oscar winners Neil Corbould and Mark Stetson. The work is also majestic (and EXPENSIVE), and it is integral to almost every scene in the movie. Some might argue that there is a lack of passion for the film itself (it did lose lots of money) – never a good sign in any category. But really…what would replace it?

“The Fountain” was seemingly on track for a nomination before it fell flat at the Toronto and Venice Film Festivals. (And in all honesty, it’s not very good). That’s never a promising sign, especially as no one on the effects team has ever garnered Oscar love before. While the film is a visual treat, the effects work is not the sort of CGI-intensive accomplishment that screams out “Oscar fodder!” Nor is the film likely to rake in a significant amount of money.

”The Prestige” from the young and talented director Christopher Nolan certainly looks visually impressive. I’d venture to say that the cinematography, art direction and costume design could all be bona fide contenders this awards season. But what of the visual effects work? Much like Nolan’s “Batman Begins,” my suspicion is that the achievement will probably be heavily intensive on camera work without a lot of the showy CGI the branch has warmed up to in recent years. We’ve come a long way since the practical effects of films like “Blade Runner,” for better or worse.

“X-Men: The Last Stand” made the most money of the “X-Men” trilogy. It also has the splashiest visual effects, with Oscar winner John Bruno among its supervisors. “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” managed to find a nomination here two years ago after its two predecessors failed to make the cut. Alas, “Prisoner of Azkaban” had the best reviews of the “Harry Potter” movies at that point. This installment of the “X-Men” series was widely acknowledged as the weakest of the trilogy. It would therefore be rather odd for this film to be the only “X-Men” movie to enjoy the moniker “Oscar nominee.”

“Eragon” looks like a potential train wreck in the eyes of this viewer. Much like “Poseidon” (a film whose flop status will almost certainly keep it out of the race), I suspect long-time visual effects supervisor Stefen Fangmeier’s directorial debut could be a disaster with critics and may not draw in the audiences Fox might expect. The trailer was certainly dreadful, in any case. If anything is in the cards Oscar-wise, however, that would be Best Visual Effects. Dragons, after all, are bound to necessitate top-notch CGI.

“Pan’s Labyrinth” from director Guillermo del Toro might certainly end up deserving of a nomination here. Recently submitted as Mexico’s official entry in the Foreign Film race, the film has been considered a visual spectacle by a host of admirers. However, it would be unusual for a foreign-language feature to enter the category most embracing of the films that, again, “pay the bills.”

When the dust of this year’s visual effects race finally settles, I’d look to one of the branch’s favorite sights to see: talking animals. This year, such a peculiarity shall be very prominent in “Charlotte’s Web.” With special effects being supervised by Clay Pinney (Oscar-winner for “Independence Day”) and visual effects being supervised by John Berton (of “The Mummy” and “Men in Black” fame), there is reason to expect the work to be exceptional. With an amazing cast of vocal talent, Dakota Fanning in the lead and a beloved book to sell on which to sell the film, there’s also reason to suspect it could be a big hit. Assuming “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” and “Superman Returns” are looking good for a mention, I’d bank on the third slot being “Charlotte’s Web”’s to lose.

So that’s the way I see the visual effects race right now. And year after year, it is one of the races that changes the least during the course of the year. That is probably because the contenders seem relatively striking from afar – but then again, who expected “Star Wars” to miss out on a nomination last year…honestly?

Next week…we’ll take an initial glance at Best Cinematography.