Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
To avatar Fans out there...
jillvexi
Member Posts: 4
Avatar, not the king of the awards wold????
"Avatar" is still raking in the profits, but failed to produce the critical success that Cameron's previous film, "Titanic," generated 12 years ago. In fact, "Avatar" -- the most financially successful film of all time -- was easily the most mocked film of the evening.
Sure, it was an easy target. No other nominated film featured blue aliens. Oscar co-host Steve Martin participated in a bit where he used bug spray to defend himself against "Avatar's" jellyfish-like creatures. Ben Stiller attempted his best Na'vi impression as a presenter.
In 1997, James Cameron's other box-office behemoth, "Titanic," accomplished the rare feat of box-office and Oscar dominance. "Titanic" was nominated for a record 14 Academy Awards and won a record 11 awards. "Avatar" only won three of its nine nominations: Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, and Best Visual Effects. Cameron's "Titanic" also won those same three awards, plus 6 others, including the Academy Award for Best Picture and Best Director; "Avatar" lost Best Picture and Best Director to "The Hurt Locker."
"Avatar" had the unfortunate luck -- if you can call a movie that's made over $2.5 billion worldwide "unfortunate" -- of being right smack in the middle of the science fiction genre. A genre that, historically, doesn't win Oscar gold no matter how successful financially. In 1977, "Star Wars" became the most financially successful film of all time but lost the Best Picture Oscar to "Annie Hall." Similarly, in 1982 "E.T." set box-office records but lost the Academy Award to "Ghandi." The closet thing to science fiction to ever win Best Picture would be 2003's "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" -- and even that film series needed three attempts before it finally won.
Comments
Yep, it s really sad.
A Oscar should go to people that have done a amazing job , comedy, science-fiction or drama should not matter.
I find it hard to believe that a film that's nearly 2 years old (first screening was in 2008) won best picture. It's even been around on DVD since April 2009. Avatar should have won due to it's huge success and innovation in 3D technology among other things.
The academy's known peeves: Animation, Sci-Fi. Guess what Avatar was?
Yes, I realize it was done using mo-cap and not purely animated.
Now with 57.3% more flames!
The fact that avatar got that far still amazes me, I knew it should of won, but I also knew there wasn't a hope in hell.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Avatar will be remembered. Hurt locker will not. Avatar has definitely made a deeper impression on film than hurt locker did. In the years to come, we'll see which one gets played more often than the other.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
Where to start. First let me say that I have seen both movies. I watched Avatar in IMAX3D, the best way to see it. Having said that. I agree with the Academy 100%.
Avatar is ground breaking in a couple of areas, plot is not one of them. The weakness of the story itself makes Avatar in my opinion a cutting edge visual action movie. Nothing more.
The Hurt Locker is probably the best movie I have seen in two years. Not just for it's subject, but for the way they made the experience real. So many people making movies about war and veterans, just fill the screen with the same old cliches. They left all the crap out of Hurt Locker, and told a great story.
*edited to add a comment about how the years will treat these two films.
Avatar uses cutting edge motion capture, and CGI technology, which right now is a big factor in its success. As these technologies age, all it will have to offer is fourthrate plotline. Much like StarWars. Even though the plot of the first StarWars movie was much, much better than the one in Avatar those 1979 "cutting edge" effects are painful to watch now.
Hurt Locker is story driven. The plot is universal. The effects on soldiers that are exposed daily to life and death, in a warzone and how they deal with it, or fail to. Hurt Locker is timeless.
Haha to your watered down plot of a movie getting dominated. How many times has that plot been used and reused? I suspect as long as man has been writing screenplays.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
I was surprised. I would have thought that it would have won something.
Striving for Silver Stars since Gold is so effeminate.
Avatars award is oodles of money.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
Seems like a really popular band wagon to jump on.
Avatar was deep beyond belief in the quality of the world he created.
Where Hurt Locker relied on the real world to flesh out the details, everything James Cameron did was created. The eco system, the animals, the language.
The story itself was simple, but at the same time there was already so much going on with the world, that if you tried to put an overly complex story you would miss all that the world her created had to offer.
If you ignored the world the story was set in, and just break down the plot into A's and B's yes the plot like would be simpler, but by doing that you are missing out on the entire point of Avatar.
He created a world, with animals, plants, and culture... That's already an overwhelming amount of information and innovation for one film, if you add too many more layers you will lose most people.
If you "break it down" and ignore most of what Avatar had to offer, of course it will lose. if you look at it as a whole, it offered things that Hurt Locker didn't, and this is why Avatar will be remembered.
Avatar broke a technology barrier, Avatar was a whole new world, with an incredible background and meticulous detail.
It was a huge name, and even now where I live it is still selling out two screens every night.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Seems like a really popular band wagon to jump on.
Avatar was deep beyond belief in the quality of the world he created.
Where Hurt Locker relied on the real world to flesh out the details, everything James Cameron did was created. The eco system, the animals, the language.
The story itself was simple, but at the same time there was already so much going on with the world, that if you tried to put an overly complex story you would miss all that the world her created had to offer.
If you ignored the world the story was set in, and just break down the plot into A's and B's yes the plot like would be simpler, but by doing that you are missing out on the entire point of Avatar.
He created a world, with animals, plants, and culture... That's already an overwhelming amount of information and innovation for one film, if you add too many more layers you will lose most people.
If you "break it down" and ignore most of what Avatar had to offer, of course it will lose. if you look at it as a whole, it offered things that Hurt Locker didn't, and this is why Avatar will be remembered.
Avatar broke a technology barrier, Avatar was a whole new world, with an incredible background and meticulous detail.
It was a huge name, and even now where I live it is still selling out two screens every night.
Seems like a even more popular bandwagon to jump on. Style over substance. If you "break it down" to a popularity contest (the highest box office) the most simple and basic will always come out on top, that is Avatar to a T. Avatar does what it does very well, what it doesn't do is tell a very interesting or original story. The only way Avatars plot could be more basic is if it was grunted in caveman speech. Human, bad. Navi, good. Green, good. Technology, bad. Natives, good. Invaders, bad. Now give me 20$.
Seems like a even more popular bandwagon to jump on. Style over substance. If you "break it down" to a popularity contest (the highest box office) the most simple and basic will always come out on top, that is Avatar to a T. Avatar does what it does very well, what it doesn't do is tell a very interesting or original story. The only way Avatars plot could be more basic is if it was grunted in caveman speech. Human, bad. Navi, good. Green, good. Technology, bad. Natives, good. Invaders, bad. Now give me 20$.
I'm not saying style over substance at all, I mostly mentioned the world rather than the cutting edge graphics. I also never mentioned the sales, nor "breaking it down". I was saying exactly the opposite. Did you even ready what I posted?
If you were purely looking for complex plots, read a book. There is a medium were special effects are meaningless.
Movies are a visual medium, and the quality of the visual should be a factor.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Seems like a even more popular bandwagon to jump on. Style over substance. If you "break it down" to a popularity contest (the highest box office) the most simple and basic will always come out on top, that is Avatar to a T. Avatar does what it does very well, what it doesn't do is tell a very interesting or original story. The only way Avatars plot could be more basic is if it was grunted in caveman speech. Human, bad. Navi, good. Green, good. Technology, bad. Natives, good. Invaders, bad. Now give me 20$.
I'm not saying style over substance at all, I mostly mentioned the world rather than the cutting edge graphics. I also never mentioned the sales, nor "breaking it down". I was saying exactly the opposite. Did you even ready what I posted?
If you were purely looking for complex plots, read a book. There is a medium were special effects are meaningless.
Movies are a visual medium, and the quality of the visual should be a factor.
It may be a visual medium but it can't stand on that leg alone. If that was the case then one could strip away the plot and the sound and purely have a cinematic experience like the silent films of old. You don't see any major studios making silent films anymore more for the simple reason that it wouldn't make them any money. Most people don't go to the movies to simply see pretty pictures and flickering lights.
Edit: Then again silent films had plot so my analogy might be a bit flawed.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
Seems like a even more popular bandwagon to jump on. Style over substance. If you "break it down" to a popularity contest (the highest box office) the most simple and basic will always come out on top, that is Avatar to a T. Avatar does what it does very well, what it doesn't do is tell a very interesting or original story. The only way Avatars plot could be more basic is if it was grunted in caveman speech. Human, bad. Navi, good. Green, good. Technology, bad. Natives, good. Invaders, bad. Now give me 20$.
I'm not saying style over substance at all, I mostly mentioned the world rather than the cutting edge graphics. I also never mentioned the sales, nor "breaking it down". I was saying exactly the opposite. Did you even ready what I posted?
If you were purely looking for complex plots, read a book. There is a medium were special effects are meaningless.
Movies are a visual medium, and the quality of the visual should be a factor.
It may be a visual medium but it can't stand on that leg alone. If that was the case then one could strip away the plot and the sound and purely have a cinematic experience like the silent films of old. You don't see any major studios making silent films anymore more for the simple reason that it wouldn't make them any money. Most people don't go to the movies to simply see pretty pictures and flickering lights.
Edit: Then again silent films had plot so my analogy might be a bit flawed.
But graphics wasn't the only leg as I said.
The world itself was part of the show. There was so much effort and quality put into making sure the world was an awe-inspiring place, Avatar really brought that to the front.
And yes, your analogy of Avatar to a silent film does seem a little flawed to me as well :P
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
The reason Avatar lost is because it is Sci-fi/Fantasy with a lot of animation, and all of that is a THREAT to them and their livelihood. Period. Avatar was a solid package, and that does include the story. I don't care if there are similar ones out there, is THIS one good?
Obviously it is.
But they are terrified of a future where there are no actor/actress celebrities because there are no films that require them.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
Seems like a really popular band wagon to jump on.
Avatar was deep beyond belief in the quality of the world he created.
Where Hurt Locker relied on the real world to flesh out the details, everything James Cameron did was created. The eco system, the animals, the language.
The story itself was simple, but at the same time there was already so much going on with the world, that if you tried to put an overly complex story you would miss all that the world her created had to offer.
If you ignored the world the story was set in, and just break down the plot into A's and B's yes the plot like would be simpler, but by doing that you are missing out on the entire point of Avatar.
He created a world, with animals, plants, and culture... That's already an overwhelming amount of information and innovation for one film, if you add too many more layers you will lose most people.
If you "break it down" and ignore most of what Avatar had to offer, of course it will lose. if you look at it as a whole, it offered things that Hurt Locker didn't, and this is why Avatar will be remembered.
Avatar broke a technology barrier, Avatar was a whole new world, with an incredible background and meticulous detail.
It was a huge name, and even now where I live it is still selling out two screens every night.
Seems like a even more popular bandwagon to jump on. Style over substance. If you "break it down" to a popularity contest (the highest box office) the most simple and basic will always come out on top, that is Avatar to a T. Avatar does what it does very well, what it doesn't do is tell a very interesting or original story. The only way Avatars plot could be more basic is if it was grunted in caveman speech. Human, bad. Navi, good. Green, good. Technology, bad. Natives, good. Invaders, bad. Now give me 20$.
I watched Hurt Locker to see what the Buzz was about.
War sucks. Guy has kid, can't relate to kid, but loves adrenilin of War. Gimme 20 bucks.
It wasn't a bad film, but Hurt Locker isn't anything I'd make sure I didn't miss at the theater. It also wasn't shot with any particularly innovative or memorable directing. It was the standard shaky cam used in TV series like, well that Cop show i forget with some fat bald guy.
As mentioned in other posts, it starts out good, then kind of falls off, and the end seems kind of tacked on.
A few good memorable scenes, but nothing like say Heat. Now that is a bad ass movie.
I'd give it to Avatar. That movie was unbelievable, a real movie going experience. Hurt Locker was just ok. Hurt Locker doesn't have any awesome deep plot that blows away the story of Avatar. it's guy goes to war, guy is in love with war, can't relate to his own kid. The end. Why is that so "deep" compared to white man kills the natives for their land?