Anybody disappointed that James Cameron didn't win Oscars

[waht]

You may not like the movie, but it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that so much work and effort went into making Avatar, so much coordination was required, and working with cutting edge technology.

I think Jame Cameron should have won the Oscars for putting it all together and pushing the envelope.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nope.
I'm pleased that sanity seems to have returned to the Oscars.

Special Effects simply cannot be a substitute for a well-written story.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I thought Hurt Locker was pretty good, but I don't know about best picture. Maybe this year had a poor crop of movies.

 

[noblegas]

I am very glad he did not win any award. The story was very unoriginal and not very thought provoking and I did not want to see cameron's ego continue to be boosted

 

[DaveC426913]

I thought Hurt Locker was pretty good, but I don't know about best picture. Maybe this year had a poor crop of movies.

Well, that's the thing. "Best picture" is entirely relative, isn't it? The best picture of the year is nothing more or less than - well - the best picture of the year.

 

[noblegas]

Nope.
I'm pleased that sanity seems to have returned to the Oscars.

A semblance of sanity anyway.

 

[waht]

There was significant work and dedication that went into making Avatar. As a director Cameron he went boldly where no one has done before. He advanced film making. He created something novel. That's creativity. For that he should be rewarded.

Oh well, I guess the majority wins. I'm signing out.

 

[noblegas]

There was significant work and dedication that went into making Avatar. As a director Cameron he went boldly where no one has done before. He advanced film making. He created something novel. That's creativity. For that he should be rewarded.

Oh well, I guess the majority wins. I'm signing out.

It means nothing if the same old story is being regurgitated. The special effects where really NOT that spectacular to me. While I was at the movie theater, even with the 3-d glasses , I did not feel immersed in the movie with the characters. It was a pretty film to look at , but that's about it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

There was significant work and dedication that went into making Avatar. As a director Cameron he went boldly where no one has done before. He advanced film making. He created something novel. That's creativity. For that he should be rewarded.

I guess he'll have to cry himself to sleep on the $2.6 billion his film took in.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There was significant work and dedication that went into making Avatar. As a director Cameron he went boldly where no one has done before. He advanced film making. He created something novel. That's creativity. For that he should be rewarded.

Oh well, I guess the majority wins. I'm signing out.

What did he do that was so revolutionary? We've been watching novelty 3-D films since the 1950s.

 

[GeorginaS]

Revolutionary special effects do not, necessarily, a great movie make. You need a whole raft of other elements to come together with it, such as a compelling story, characters with depth, acting, cinematography, and soundtrack blending together seamlessly that causes you to suspend disbelief and live along with the characters in the movie. You forget that you're sitting in a seat and get lost entirely in the experience as a whole. Special effects alone don't do that.

 

[Lisa!]

What do you think of Tarantino? Didn't he deserve an oscar?
And how about best actress? Don't you think Streep played better than Bullock?

 

[Pengwuino]

Giving him an oscar is like saying the best car is the fastest or the most expensive. Anyone can dream big technology wise, that's not something worthy of a reward... unless he actually made the technology himself.

But yah, I'm sure he won't lose any sleep over his billions taken in for the movie.

 

[GeorginaS]

I didn't see all of those, Lisa!, so I can't comment. Streep delivered, as always, an incredible performance. I don't think I've seen her do anything poorly. (Okay, maybe Death Becomes Her but that was just a bad movie.) I didn't see Bullock's performance.

What I am thrilled about is Up! winning for best animated movie. I loved that movie from end to end. I saw it first in 2-D, laughed myself silly, and then drug a bunch of people from work with me a few days later to see it in 3-D. I was knocked over all over again.

 

[Borek]

Avatar is a nice movie, but - despite technology - flat and shallow.

 

[kakarotyjn]

Oscar is supposed to award movies with great thoughts.I'm happy Avatar didn't won the best film.

By the way,how do you guys think of Invictus?I really like it.Why didn't it won something?

 

[Chi Meson]

Avatar won 3 Oscars: Cinematography, art direction, and special effects. Those are exactly the ones it deserved, of course: "fastest," "shiniest," and "most expensive."

And man, that was one shiny movie.

 

[Lisa!]

Avatar won 3 Oscars: Cinematography, art direction, and special effects. Those are exactly the ones it deserved, of course: "fastest," "shiniest," and "most expensive."

And man, that was one shiny movie.

hmmm...yeah! Avatar won any oscar that a physicist would win for a movie!

I didn't see all of those, Lisa!, so I can't comment. Streep delivered, as always, an incredible performance. I don't think I've seen her do anything poorly. (Okay, maybe Death Becomes Her but that was just a bad movie.) I didn't see Bullock's performance.

What I am thrilled about is Up! winning for best animated movie. I loved that movie from end to end. I saw it first in 2-D, laughed myself silly, and then drug a bunch of people from work with me a few days later to see it in 3-D. I was knocked over all over again.

I agree with you!

 

[DanP]

You may not like the movie, but it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that so much work and effort went into making Avatar, so much coordination was required, and working with cutting edge technology.

I think Jame Cameron should have won the Oscars for putting it all together and pushing the envelope.

Avatar was better than The Hurt Locker. None of those films had a great story IMO. Hurt Locker IMO doesn't deserve the best picture of the year. It wasn't very engaging and it was too long. They could have cut it short with 25-30 mins and make it better. I was half asleep towards the end when it got interesting again. Documentaries about British SAS missions for example kept me better entertained. At least Avatar despite it's story didn't bore the living daylights out of me.

There is a bias towards "serious movies" at academy awards.

 

[gravenewworld]

UP should have won best overall picture this year. An animated film will never win best picture though because there simply is no acting involved.

 

[BobG]

I thought "Precious" and "Hurt Locker" were both much better movies than "Avatar".

"Avatar" was very entertaining and it was an exceptional job making the special effects enhance the movie instead of making the movie. Except entertainment was all it provided - it didn't require much thought or effort for the viewer.

The story line of "Hurt Locker" was just a lot better. The movie was also very well made.

A real life EOD episode - Dude, You Blew Up My Car

 

[DanP]

"Up in the air" is the 2009 movie with the best story. Way better than both Avatar and The Hurt Locker.

 

[cronxeh]

Oscars, just like the Nobel price, seem to be a major let down lately. Frankly, I don't care much for the opinion of any of these. The academy awards where actors pat each other on the back for acting is hilarious at its bestStar Trek won Oscar for best makeup ?? AHAHAHAH

 

[Amar.alchemy]

For me, it was Hurt Locker V/S Up in the air and I'm glad that finally Hurt Locker won :)

BTW, Avatar minus 3D Effects = Just another Sci-fi movie ;)

 

[MotoH]

Even though hurt locker was so horribly inacurate, I am still glad it won.

 

[waht]

The story has some weak points, but it's very creative nonetheless. That's no indicator that the director is bad.

There was no technology available to make this film a few years ago. What Cameron did is pushed industries to roll out the technology more quickly. He created demand. If it wasn't for him, those technologies would remain dormant for many years.

But what Hollywood has been doing all this time? They've made movies in same format over and over. There is nothing innovating about that, only a different story, with different names, and setting.

Cameron on the other hand has demonstrated the future of movie making, NOT the past.

 

[humanino]

The future of movie making is shiny emptiness ?

 

[DanP]

The story has some weak points, but it's very creative nonetheless. That's no indicator that the director is bad.


Cameron on the other hand has demonstrated the future of movie making, NOT the past.

Ok, let me put it this way. Oscars are nice and funny, and it's great to have an award or a nomination.

But in the end the real value of a production is seen on the streets, at the box office.
Ppl speak there.

What did The Hurt Locker grossed ? 21 Million worldwide ? Now compare that with the 2,55 Milliards Avatar grossed worldwide to date.

Frankly, when you run those numbers, you realize that an Oscar for The Hurt Locker was pretty much a consolation prize. The reality is simple. Avatar was the best movie of 2009.
Numbers speaks. A 100 factor in grosses.

In 2009 I believe the best story was the one in "Up In the Air". But this doesn't make it the best movie of 2009. Avatar is.

 

[DanP]

The future of movie making is shiny emptiness ?

Look at the grosses. 2.55 milliards. It seems very much the future. The audience has spoken.

 

[magnusrobot12]

You may not like the movie, but it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that so much work and effort went into making Avatar, so much coordination was required, and working with cutting edge technology.

I think Jame Cameron should have won the Oscars for putting it all together and pushing the envelope.

Cameron won the appropriate awards, technical, visual, and all that stuff. He advanced the field of technology in his movies and he was appropriately rewarded.

The best actors, actresses, director, movie, etc, all that went to the appropriate people.

Avatar's coolness is especially good for young people. I imagine you are in your late teens, early 20's. Am i correct?

 

[DanP]

.

Avatar's coolness is especially good for young people. I imagine you are in your late teens, early 20's. Am i correct?

Will the humans ever get over stereotyping ?

 

[magnusrobot12]

Will the humans ever get over stereotyping ?

Let him answer the question. Are you telling me that young people would not be more enticed by Avatar than an older person. I think an older person would appreciate the technology that went into avatar, but there is nothing wrong with the premise that a younger person would blow-out-of-proportion the impact of the cool visual effects in the context of the other nominated movie. Were you never young?

 

[DaveC426913]

But in the end the real value of a production is seen on the streets, at the box office.
Ppl speak there.

OK, so you believe the only measure of a film's value is in dollars.
You also believe that "most popular" and "best" are synonymous.

That is one opinion, most definitely not shared by all.

 

[DanP]

Let him answer the question. Are you telling me that young people would not be more enticed by Avatar than an older person.

Im underlining that stereotypes cannot be used to infer anything about an individual.

Were you never young?

Im still very young.

 

[humanino]

Look at the grosses. 2.55 milliards. It seems very much the future. The audience has spoken.

That is not a very convincing argument to me. I actually find it quite irrelevant. If tomorrow a movie adds the sense of smell in the show, it might actually define one technical aspect of future movies. Such a technical breakthrough would still (from my point of view) not entitle the movie to any Academy award. I simply do not agree that those should award a technical breakthrough, or a revenue breakthrough either for that matter. I am glad the Academy seems to think better of their own Art.

 

[DanP]

That is one opinion, most definitely not shared by all.

Yeah, no quarrel with that. Earth would be a terribly boring place if we would all agree

 

[humanino]

That is one opinion, most definitely not shared by all.

And not shared by the Academy either !

 

[Borek]

But in the end the real value of a production is seen on the streets, at the box office.

So, here goes list of the 10 best movies of all times:

1. Avatar (2009) $2,564,189,342
2. Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $1,060,332,628
5. The Dark Knight (2008) $1,001,921,825
6. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $968,657,891
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) $958,404,152
8. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) $937,000,866
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) $933,956,980
10. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace $922,379,000

Somehow I don't feel convinced these are really the best movies ever.

 

[DanP]

That is not a very convincing argument to me. I actually find it quite irrelevant.

Actually, if we speak about the "future" of the industry, money revenue is the most important factor. Entertainment industry does not produce for Academy Awards or to gain philosophical recognition. The entertainment industry produces for the money.

The future stands where the highest grosses are.

Awards are a totally different animal. A lot of different oppinions.

But one has to realize that the entertainment industry is here in the first place for the money.

 

[magnusrobot12]

Im underlining that stereotypes cannot be used to infer anything about an individual.

yes, you are correct on the correlation between stereotypes and individuality.

My point is that if you were to plot on a graph the % of people that were disappointed Avatar did not win the oscar as a function of age, do you really think that young people as a whole would not have the highest % on this graph?

 

[DanP]

My point is that if you were to plot on a graph the % of people that were disappointed Avatar did not win the oscar as a function of age, do you really think that young people as a whole would not have the highest % on this graph?

And what it would tell us ? That younger ppl are blowing special effects out of proportion, or
that the geezers became so boring that cannot appreciate dynamism anymore? You can't tell.

 

[ideasrule]

Let him answer the question. Are you telling me that young people would not be more enticed by Avatar than an older person. I think an older person would appreciate the technology that went into avatar, but there is nothing wrong with the premise that a younger person would blow-out-of-proportion the impact of the cool visual effects in the context of the other nominated movie. Were you never young?

What is "out of proportion"? Does the universe have a fundamental physical constant that represents the correct proportion? If younger people might think that good graphics is more important than a good storyline, what right do older people have to criticize that preference?

 

[magnusrobot12]

And what it would tell us ? That younger ppl are blowing special effects out of proportion, or
that the geezers became so boring that cannot appreciate dynamism anymore? You can't tell.

What is "out of proportion"? Does the universe have a fundamental physical constant that represents the correct proportion? If younger people might think that good graphics is more important than a good storyline, what right do older people have to criticize that preference?

Now those were two very funny posts. ​

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, no quarrel with that. Earth would be a terribly boring place if we would all agree

I don't think it's just a matter of "different strokes".

Dollar valuation is only one facet for the greatness of a film. Film is also an art form. As such, it's artistic merit (however you wish to define that) is an important property for valuing its worth.

You are suggesting there is only one meaningful way to valuate, and that the forum for that is the box office, and are implicitly dismissing any other possible way of valuating. I am allowing for both. The Oscars are the forum for recognizing the artistic merit of a film.

 

[DaveC426913]

If younger people might think that good graphics is more important than a good storyline, what right do older people have to criticize that preference?

Because those younger people will change their minds as they become wiser. They will admit that they were naive.

 

[magnusrobot12]

Thank you Dave. My goodness, I thought this forum was build on logic, but in fact, its only built only on logic that people want to hear. I was a kid once and i loved Dungeons and Dragons, and special effect, science fiction, fantasy, etc. Goodness gracious, what is so wrong with the statement that younger people value cool special effects almost as much, if not more, than the storyline? I'm soooo bored with this topic...

Time to go learn some physics again...

 

[DanP]

I don't think it's just a matter of "different strokes".

Dollar valuation is only one facet for the greatness of a film. Film is also an art form. As such, it's artistic merit (however you wish to define that) is an important property for valuing its worth.

Certainly, but it seems that population at large appreciated Avatar.

You are suggesting there is only one meaningful way to valuate, and that the forum for that is the box office, and are implicitly dismissing any other possible way of valuating.

I am only telling you what is the most meaningful to me.

And if I leave this aside, Still "Up in the Air" comes ahead by leaps and bounds to "The Hurt Locker". I really can't root for a film which left me half asleep.

 

[DanP]

Because those younger people will change their minds as they become wiser. They will admit that they were naive.

Let me ofter you a different perspective. It's because older people had changed into boring conformists as they age. They will never admit it, but we all know it's true.

 

[magnusrobot12]

DanP, stop cracking me up dude. You have no idea how young at heart i am. Believe it or not, i probably like many of the things that you like. Ironically, it is YOU who is stereotyping. Ah, the foolishness of the young. Ignorant bliss. You accuse me of stereotyping, but in the end, your stereotyping was associated with a lot more anger than anything I said earlier.

OK, i am not going to comment any more. Must leave this topic and learn physics...must leave this topic and learn physics...

 

[DaveC426913]

Certainly, but it seems that population at large appreciated Avatar.

Again, that is one facet of evaulating a film - as a commodity. It says little about its value as an art form.

I am only telling you what is the most meaningful to me.

No you're not. You're claiming that "the people have spoken"; that it is the de facto best movie.

But one has to realize that the entertainment industry is here in the first place for the money.

Also not true.

The fact that it may be true for some, or even the large majority, not does mean it is universally true. Which is why the box office $$$ is only one limited way of assessing a film's value. You should have listeneded to some of the speeches last night. Some of them do it for love, not money, and would have completed it even if they lost money (and they do).