Anybody disappointed that James Cameron didn't win Oscars

  • Thread starter Thread starter waht
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
122 replies · 17K views
humanino said:
Can you remind me of the argument you had in favor of awarding an Oscar to a flat and shallow movie but including the sense of smell (or any other technological breakthrough that would please you) ?

Im talking about future the industry, not Oscars. Industry wants money. If smell will bring money, they'll give you smell.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
magnusrobot12 said:
Dan, OK, tell me. what is your age.

Im 36.

magnusrobot12 said:
Be honest now. Come on man, we're all friends here.

Hinting at honesty ... maybe a form of prejudice ?


magnusrobot12 said:
"Ah, the foolishness of the young. Ignorant bliss."

I really do hope that my generation is capable of more respect towards the young generation.
 
DanP said:
Im talking about future the industry, not Oscars.
Well, I'm sorry I did not understand, I thought we were talking about Oscars.
 
In my short time being here, I do not think I have seen one thread get past 2 pages with peaceful conversation!

Avatar = Halo 3 and Cats the musical

The Hurt Locker = Rambo in an EOD squad
 
DanP said:
Im still very young.

You and i are the same age then. i too am "still very young". I'm 40 and you are apparently 36. Dont believe you but that is OK. Take care. :cool:
 
MotoH said:
In my short time being here, I do not think I have seen one thread get past 2 pages with peaceful conversation!

Its been only 12 hours since the topic began and we are already on page 5. :smile:
 
magnusrobot12 said:
. Dont believe you but that is OK. Take care. :cool:

Are you calling me a liar ? Do you want to rephrase it, perhaps ?
 
DanP said:
Are you calling me a liar ? Do you want to rephrase it, perhaps ?

I'm sorry Dan, but i don't believe you.

Wow, my post count is getting larger. I'll be at 1000 in no-time thanks to Dan. :smile:
 
magnusrobot12 said:
My goodness, I thought this forum was build on logic, but in fact, its only built only on logic that people want to hear.
You should not make this kind of statement. It does not reflect well on you.
 
I do not see any claim that DanP has made about his age that could be concluded to be false.

Other than "I am still very young", I see no comment from him at all, and that comment cannot be falsified.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You should not make this kind of statement. It does not reflect well on you.

I was only making the point that DanP was ignoring logic when it was hurting his argument. I did not mean to make a generalization of the forum as a whole. I apologize for my carelessness. Thank you Dave for bringing this to my attention. Magnus
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
I do not see any claim that DanP has made about his age that could be concluded to be false.

Other than "I am still very young", I see no comment from him at all, and that comment cannot be falsified.

Yes, you are correct. I have no evidence that he is not 36. Just picking on him right now. You are correct again Dave. Thank you, Magnus
 
magnusrobot12 said:
I'm sorry Dan, but i don't believe you.

Yes, understandable for certain psychological profiles. It doesn't make any difference in fact if you believe me or not, the take home message for you is that you should respect more the younger generation.
 
magnusrobot12 said:
Just picking on him right now.

Wise beyond your age. :smile:
 
DanP said:
Yes, understandable for certain psychological profiles. It doesn't make any difference in fact if you believe me or not, the take home message for you is that you should respect more the younger generation.

I have a young child and i will do everything in my power to love him, cherish him, respect him. I have nothing against young people at all. In the contrary, i love young people. I was a high school teacher for 2 years before going back to graduate school. There is no doubt that i respect young people.
 
Last edited:
magnusrobot12 said:
I'm sorry Dan, but i don't believe you.

Wow, my post count is getting larger. I'll be at 1000 in no-time thanks to Dan. :smile:

Posts in GD doesn't count:wink:
 
Lisa! said:
Posts in GD doesn't count :wink:


http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1865/charliebrownargh.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cronxeh said:
The academy awards where actors pat each other on the back for acting is hilarious at its best

No, that's the SAG awards.
 
Avatar was a fairly dull movie, its special effects were, for example, less to boast about than, say, Lord of the Rings.

As for the storyline, it never was anywhere near, say, the Star Wars movies, LOTR, or, for that matter, Titanic.

All in all, a piece of forgettable glitz.
 
Oh and btw, Inglorious Bastards and District 9 were ten times better than Avatar and THL. QT gets jiped again.
 
After further reflection, I have to wonder whether young people had significantly different opinions about the movie than old people. In the thread "Watched Avatar yet?" almost everybody, from teenagers to sixty-year-olds, expressed the same opinion: good special effects, bad plot. All of the back-and-forth arguing is over the relative significance of the two.
 
Holy earlier when I woke up this thread was only at 2 pages long, actually it was just barely 2 pages with Chi's post. Come back on and there are 5 pages now. Most of it useless bickering, meh.

Anyways I think that Avatar did not deserve best movie Oscar it was actually pretty boring, it was rediculously long I thought and everything was predictable.
To argue that the film was the best because it made xxx amount of money isn't really the greatest comparison to make between movies. For instance 1 ticket to Avatar cost about twice as much as a regular movie ticket. I think that Avatar was also marketed better than Hurt Locker and Avatar attracted an audience that would go see the movie 3-4 times in theatres, each time spending twice the amount of a regular ticket to see it in I-MAX.
This is also beside the fact that a financially successful movie doesn't necessarily equate with best movie. Financial success has to do more with the audience being targeted and the marketing done for the movie. There was never a doubt in my mind that Harry Potter movies would earn a LOT of money. Having read the books and been a fan of the books it was clear to me that whoever picked up the opportunity to make the movies was going to earn a killing. The movies weren't however ALL that great, same for Dark Knight... I thought it was a pretty stupid movie overall.
In my opinion one of the best movies ever was Shawshank Redemption, did that movie do well in the box office? Not particularly. On the other hand I really like the original Jurassic Park movie, and it did very well financially. So my conclusion to all this is that financial success doesn't automatically equate with best movie success. In some cases it may be an indicator but it's far from the determining factor.

@magnus, I don't see why you are making stereotypical comments towards young people. I would consider myself to be a young person, at 21, and I would have to disagree with you about 'young' people being attracted to all the special effects. The majority of my friends have never really liked those types of movies and when we discuss which movies are our all time favorites none really come up that were 'special effects' monsters. (even out of our childhood) I also really doubt that you are 40 years old, the manner of your posts and just the way you present your ideas makes it seem to me that your probably much younger.
 
MotoH said:
Oh and btw, Inglorious Bastards and District 9 were ten times better than Avatar and THL. QT gets jiped again.

Although I really didn't like either movie I'd have to agree that they were better than Avatar. Inglorious Bastards wasn't that great but it was probably because of the expectations I went in with. District 9 was a good movie as well but towards the end I was starting to get bored of watching it and I definitely wouldn't watch it again.
 
ideasrule said:
What is "out of proportion"? Does the universe have a fundamental physical constant that represents the correct proportion?

Yeah.. its (1+sqrt(5))/2
 
DanP said:
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.

If you want an award for "most popular film", you need to look to the People's Choice Awards. The Academy Awards simply use a different criteria. They have that right, it is their award.

It seems a bit silly to complain that an award show gave an award out on the basis of its own criteria.



If however,
 
Responding to Janus: I find that popularity is often [usually] inversely proportional to quality.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Responding to Janus: I find that popularity is often [usually] inversely proportional to quality.

It's a shame how many blank stares I've received after mentioning Primer to video store clerks. Talk about an excellent movie which has absolutely zero special effects.
 
Magnus how does being 40 make you old? It's a very young age. Wait until get 50, then reflect how wise you were in your 40s, and then when you get 60, reflect how wise you were in your 50s, and so on, until you get to 100.

As far as me, well I'm 25. And I'm perfectly content to say I'm the least wisest person in the world.

As a member of the younger generation I do however have some movie preferences. I crave movies like Nietzsche Wept, Man from Earth, 2001 Space Odyssey, Primer, Pianist, District 9 etc... and anything that has the deep philosophical implications. And I tend to stay away from many popular mainstream flicks.

So why do I praise Cameron? Well, for being bold and doing something no one has done before. Avatar is unique. Most directors settle for less. Most directors make quick and cheap flicks with existing techniques. But Cameron wanted more. He demanded technology that wasn't previously available, and one that will be a bench mark for movies in the next decade.

He thinks in terms of the future, and not the past. That's why I'd give him the Oscars. Especially considering how short the list was to choose from.

As far the plot? I don't care. I think "Man from Earth" a $200,000 budget movie shot in the living room for an hour and a half has a better plot. But the quality of craftsmanship of Avatar surpasses anything that was done before.
 
Last edited:
But then again, let us not forget the painfully slow English Patient that won an Oscar a few years back. A movie like that would have benefited from a little George Lucas technology. :smile: