Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Anybody disappointed that James Cameron didn't win Oscars

  1. Mar 8, 2010 #1
    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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 8, 2010 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

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

    Special Effects simply cannot be a substitute for a well-written story.
  4. Mar 8, 2010 #3
    I thought Hurt Locker was pretty good, but I don't know about best picture. Maybe this year had a poor crop of movies.
  5. Mar 8, 2010 #4
    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
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2010
  6. Mar 8, 2010 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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. :tongue:
  7. Mar 8, 2010 #6
    A semblance of sanity anyway.
  8. Mar 8, 2010 #7
    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.
  9. Mar 8, 2010 #8
    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 thats about it.
  10. Mar 8, 2010 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I guess he'll have to cry himself to sleep on the $2.6 billion his film took in.
  11. Mar 8, 2010 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What did he do that was so revolutionary? We've been watching novelty 3-D films since the 1950s.
  12. Mar 8, 2010 #11
    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.
  13. Mar 8, 2010 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?
  14. Mar 8, 2010 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 wont lose any sleep over his billions taken in for the movie.
  15. Mar 8, 2010 #14
    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.
  16. Mar 8, 2010 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Avatar is a nice movie, but - despite technology - flat and shallow.
  17. Mar 8, 2010 #16
    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?
  18. Mar 8, 2010 #17

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
  19. Mar 8, 2010 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    hmmm...yeah! Avatar won any oscar that a physicist would win for a movie!:biggrin:
    I agree with you!:smile:
  20. Mar 8, 2010 #19
    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.
  21. Mar 8, 2010 #20
    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook