Anybody disappointed that James Cameron didn't win Oscars

[magnusrobot12]

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 80.

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

I never said 40 makes a person old. I am young at heart. Apparently too young at heart...

 

[waht]

I never said 40 makes a person old. I am young at heart. Apparently too young at heart...

Oh ok. That's an excellent attitude.

 

[Janus]

Responding to Janus: I find that popularity is often [usually] inversely proportional to quality.

Case in point: The last People's Choice Award for favorite film was given to "Twilight".

 

[Chi Meson]

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.

I got to add:

QED

These are so very much NOT the best movies ever made. I really don't think even one of them qualifies for one of the 10-best slots.

That being said, I don't understand why some people are tripping over themselves to denigrate the movie. I'm not sure if, at 45, I qualify as "older," but I really appreciated the movie, and I found it worthwhile to see a second time in 3-D. I think that the praise it has been awarded is justified. Few serious critics thought it really was worth "best picture," and I really don't think anyone was truly surprised that it didn't win as such. As I said before, it won all three of the awards it deserved.

Just thinking about it, I want to see the floaty mountain scenes again in huge-screen 3-D.

Say, has anyone seen it dubbed in another language? Maybe that would make it better.

 

[cronxeh]

My personal take would be..

Sci-Fi category:
The Thirteenth Floor > The Matrix

Action category:
Star Trek (2009) > Hurt Locker

Comedy:
Boondocks > Up

National Geographic category:
Avatar > Precious

 

[turbo]

I got to add:

QED

These are so very much NOT the best movies ever made. I really don't think even one of them qualifies for one of the 10-best slots.

Really! I haven't seen Avatar (not until it's out in DVD) but none of the others is "better" than "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Shawshank Redemption", "Charly", and a huge laundry-list of others that I could dredge up if I was so-motivated. Like I said in an earlier post, if we could measure the quality of art in dollars, Van Gogh's paintings were crap when he painted them, and priceless today. Apart from the Mona Lisa, I can't think of a single painting that would bring more money at auction than Vincent's most popular works.

 

[Brian_C]

There is no Oscar for "hard work".

 

[BobG]

I got to add:

QED

These are so very much NOT the best movies ever made. I really don't think even one of them qualifies for one of the 10-best slots.

That being said, I don't understand why some people are tripping over themselves to denigrate the movie. I'm not sure if, at 45, I qualify as "older," but I really appreciated the movie, and I found it worthwhile to see a second time in 3-D. I think that the praise it has been awarded is justified. Few serious critics thought it really was worth "best picture," and I really don't think anyone was truly surprised that it didn't win as such. As I said before, it won all three of the awards it deserved.

Just thinking about it, I want to see the floaty mountain scenes again in huge-screen 3-D.

Say, has anyone seen it dubbed in another language? Maybe that would make it better.

How often is the Oscar winner the best movie of that year?

Is Ben-Hur as impressive 40 years after it was made as The Diary of Anne Frank?

Is Lawrence of Arabia better than both Mutiny on the Bounty and To Kill a Mockingbird? (To Kill a Mockingbird is my personal favorite, or at least in the top 5) (at least Lawrence of Arabia doesn't look dumber with time - there's just no way it's had the impact of the other two).

Is The French Connection better than both Fiddler on the Roof and Nicholas and Alexandra? (okay, I admit there probably aren't very many that share my high opinion of Nicholas and Alexandra, but I really like that movie)

A movie needs to be capable of holding its significance for decades to rank among the best ever.

In any event, while I liked both Precious and Hurt Locker, I agree the field didn't compare to 1992. I don't think either will wind up very high on a best movie ever list (but at least Precious might have more staying power than Hurt Locker.

Was Unforgiven (a great movie, by the way) really better than Scent of a Woman, My Cousin Vinny, and A Few Good Men? I'd rank it only ahead of A Few Good Men, but I also know there's a lot of people that would rank A Few Good Men as the best movie of 1992.

Or '94, when Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction lost out to Forrest Gump (a good movie, but the other two are classics)?

I'd put Avatar in the same category as Ben-Hur. It's a great movie today, but will it still be a great movie 20 years from now when people aren't amazed by the 3-D effects anymore?

 

[Evo]

Oscars aren't given out for reasons you'd think.

When people are recruited to do a movie, part of their contract, if it is slated to be an important movie, is a guarantee of an Oscar nomination. This is part of their job offer before the movie even starts filming.

Now a guarantee of a nomination is not a guarantee of a win, but it's a guarantee that your name is in the running.

The awards are very "political" among the people that can vote.

And yes, I do know this first hand from a dear friend that has won 3 Academy Awards.

 

[turbo]

Oscars aren't given out for reasons you'd think.

When people are recruited to do a movie, part of their contract, if it is slated to be an important movie, is a guarantee of an Oscar nomination. This is part of their job offer before the movie even starts filming.

In an industry that doles out countless millions of dollars on speculation, it is not at all surprising the the Oscars are political, leveraged, and profit-driven. Should we expect less? I am quite gratified that a small-grossing indie film garnered a Best Director award for Bigelow. She is a classy woman, and when baited, she didn't crow over besting Cameron (ex-husband). I hope Linda Hamilton (another Cameron ex-wife) and Bigelow get together for a nice BBQ and drinks to celebrate.

 

[cronxeh]

In an industry that doles out countless millions of dollars on speculation, it is not at all surprising the the Oscars are political, leveraged, and profit-driven. Should we expect less? I am quite gratified that a small-grossing indie film garnered a Best Director award for Bigelow. She is a classy woman, and when baited, she didn't crow over besting Cameron (ex-husband). I hope Linda Hamilton (another Cameron ex-wife) and Bigelow get together for a nice BBQ and drinks to celebrate.

Yes I am sure they will get together for some rug burning

 

[DaveC426913]

aAnd yes, I do know this first hand from a dear friend that has won 3 Academy Awards.

Cool. I don't suppose you'll give us a hint who? Do we know them?

 

[Evo]

Cool. I don't suppose you'll give us a hint who? Do we know them?

Depends what you mean. Probably one of the best known series of movies in recent history.

 

[DaveC426913]

Depends what you mean. Probably one of the best known series of movies in recent history.

Well, I assume the 3 are not for acting, unless you are close with Barbra Streisand or Ingrid Bergman.

 

[Evo]

Well, I assume the 3 are not for acting, unless you are close with Barbra Streisand or Ingrid Bergman.

Animation/special effects

 

[Lisa!]

Oscars aren't given out for reasons you'd think.

When people are recruited to do a movie, part of their contract, if it is slated to be an important movie, is a guarantee of an Oscar nomination. This is part of their job offer before the movie even starts filming.

Now a guarantee of a nomination is not a guarantee of a win, but it's a guarantee that your name is in the running.

The awards are very "political" among the people that can vote.

And yes, I do know this first hand from a dear friend that has won 3 Academy Awards.

Evo, it seems that you have met so many interesting people and have so many cool friends.
I admit that I really feel jealous about that...

 

[Borek]

Evo, it seems that you have met so many interesting people and have so many cool friends.
I admit that I really feel jealous about that...

Just remember you are one of those interesting people Evo knows

 

[BobG]

I am quite gratified that a small-grossing indie film garnered a Best Director award for Bigelow. She is a classy woman, and when baited, she didn't crow over besting Cameron (ex-husband). I hope Linda Hamilton (another Cameron ex-wife) and Bigelow get together for a nice BBQ and drinks to celebrate.

She was married to him for two years, twenty years ago. I would hope they were over the divorce by now.

 

[DanP]

I'd put Avatar in the same category as Ben-Hur. It's a great movie today, but will it still be a great movie 20 years from now when people aren't amazed by the 3-D effects anymore?

I find Ben Hur good even today. ('59 version). Meaning, I've watched it with pleasure
when it had a re-run on one of our TV channels.

Maybe Avatar won't be a great movie in 20 years. But surely as hell The Hurt Locker wasn't a good movie today, so who cares about it 20 years from now.

 

[DanP]

Like I said in an earlier post, if we could measure the quality of art in dollars, Van Gogh's paintings were crap when he painted them, and priceless today. Apart from the Mona Lisa, I can't think of a single painting that would bring more money at auction than Vincent's most popular works.

Art (as the whole craft) / art perception evolves/changes. What IS crap one day may become a treasure in 50 years.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I think I rate "Avatar" right up there with "Tron" and "The Last Starfighter", and I'm sure it will be remembered similarly in the future for its groundbreaking special effects.

 

[Lisa!]

Just remember you are one of those interesting people Evo knows

Very nice of you!
Now I think of it, I also have so many cool freinds here

 

[Brian_C]

Animation/special effects

Definitely the Lord of the Rings Series. According to IMDB, your friend is either Jim Rygiel or Randall William Cook.

 

[Huckleberry]

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

Cameron didn't use the same format that has been around 50 years to make Avatar. He created a new process for filming 3D movies that takes advantage of modern technology. Then he went about popularizing it by encouraging other directors to use the new format. It's a different animal, barely comparable to the old 3D films. Otherwise, Avatar didn't bring anything new or great to the table.

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.

Yup, it got all the Oscars it deserved, though it did win Best Motion Picture at the Golden Globes. Cameron also won the Golden Globe for Best Director for Avatar. I haven't seen the other films in those categories, but I guess it wasn't a stellar year for movie scripts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Cameron didn't use the same format that has been around 50 years to make Avatar. He created a new process for filming 3D movies that takes advantage of modern technology. Then he went about popularizing it by encouraging other directors to use the new format. It's a different animal, barely comparable to the old 3D films. Otherwise, Avatar didn't bring anything new or great to the table.

I wouldn't say "barely comparable" based on the results. The old 3D stuff thrilled the audiences with stuff coming out of the screen just as this does. The problem with 3D has never been the film or video technology; it's the glasses.

... or could it be that the relative cost of making the movie has changed? Is that what makes this siginficant - that it is siginficantly less expensive technology - or was this another big-budget extravaganza that demands the popularity produced by novelty, in order to turn a profit?

 

[waht]

I wouldn't say "barely comparable" based on the results. The old 3D stuff thrilled the audiences with stuff coming out of the screen just as this does. The problem with 3D has never been the film or video technology; it's the glasses.

... or could it be that the relative cost of making the movie has changed? Is that what makes this siginficant - that it is siginficantly less expensive technology - or was this another big-budget extravaganza that demands the popularity produced by novelty, in order to turn a profit?

The 3D IMAX option is just a bonus. The quality of the movie is great in 2D.

What is new is a motion capture set. Every actor wears a suit loaded with sensors, and a camera that captures their tiniest muscle contraction on the face. This data is fed live to a supercomputer farm which recreates the characters in the computer.

What is so cool about it is that the director can walk around the set with a screen that shows a 3D rendering of the world at a certain position and orientation in the set. The direction can see all characters rendered in 3D live, and as a result can instruct the actors how to act right on the spot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2_vB7zx_SQ&feature=related

 

[DaveC426913]

I wouldn't say "barely comparable" based on the results. The old 3D stuff thrilled the audiences with stuff coming out of the screen just as this does. The problem with 3D has never been the film or video technology; it's the glasses.

I disagree. This did not have things coming out of the screen so much as it had things going into the screen - the film was greatly enhanced by its dramatic depth of field.

 

[Borek]

I disagree. This did not have things coming out of the screen so much as it had things going into the screen - the film was greatly enhanced by its dramatic depth of field.

I disagree. There were moments (I think in the forest) when I have literallly felt as if the branches where sticking out of the screen. Not to the point of dodging them, but close.

 

[GeorginaS]

When I saw Up! in 3D, a bird flew past my head and I ducked.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Deicider]

its was fun seeing Camerons ex-wife (director of Hurt Locker) taking the oscars from him.