Here is why 1917 deserves the oscar in VFX over Avengers Endgame

So many people have been debating on this topic since the academy awards took place. the Disney/Marvel might've hoped to taste some Oscars 2020 success by taking home Best Visual Effects, but 1917 won the title. Why did this happen? what went wrong? Let’s analyze. Marvel has been pumping out movies with incredible CGI almost every year and they still can’t seem to win.

How they made a pair of walking talking raccoon and tree interesting and realistic is beyond us… 
Avengers: Endgame might have been the most ambitious crossover in cinematic history, but it still didn’t bring home the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. The entire film hinges on all the disparate elements coming together to form something that people can watch and lose themselves in.

It’s disappointing because it uses an abundance of VFX to spectacular, heart-racing, emotional effect. I mean, the emotionally-charged glorious climactic battle sequence alone is a showcase of how good usage of VFX can be deployed to make our wildest and geekiest imaginations come to life.

On the other hand -
1917 absolutely deserves to be nominated in the Best VFX category. The VFX may not be obvious (apart from say, a spectacular scene where a plane crashes into a barn) but it’s there, hiding in plain sight. In fact, without VFX, I don’t think director Sam Mendes would have been able to bring his vision to life. Remember, 1917 wasn’t shot in one long take, it’s made to look that way… by VFX.

1917 might not have had a flying Brie Larson or a teenage talking tree, but its visual effects were innovative and pushed the limits of what could be achieved in film. The impression that 1917 is all one single shot is a cinematic marvel (pun not intended), and the methods used 
to achieve this effect won't be seen in many other releases this year if any.

In the modern era, it's easy to associate "Best Visual Effects" with "Most Impressive CGI" because that's the direction the film industry has taken as a whole, but the Academy's official rules state that the category is judged on "the artistry, skill, and fidelity with which the visual illusions are achieved." By this measure, the painstaking lengths Sam Mendes and cinematographer, Roger Deakins, went to in order to create the illusion of a single shot were always likely to be considered more Oscar-worthy by the Academy that the outsourced CG effects of Avengers: Endgame, especially at a time when practical effects of the kind seen in 1917 are becoming ever rarer.

Basically, I think 1917 won for 2 reasons

• Marvel has been making CGI heavy movies for years. So in the Academy’s eyes, Avengers: Endgame’s CGI was less “innovative” than 1917’s illusion of a single-shot approach.
• The Academy might have leaned towards the more practical effects-heavy 1917 over the outsourced CG effects of Avengers: Endgame.