Academy Awards for "Avatar"

[CleverNickName]

Were you surprised (disappointed? laughing?) when the most successful film of all time, "Avatar," did now win the Best Picture oscar? The writers of this blog seem to think that the Academy is biased toward science fiction movies in general, and computer-enhanced ones in particular.

Do you think there is some anti-science fiction agenda at the Academy that keeps these movies out of consideration? Or do you think that, however dazzling and visually stunning the film was, "Avatar" just wasn't an Oscar-worthy piece of art?

Vote your opinion, and maybe tell us all about it below.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Treebore]

El Mahdi states my opinion almost perfectly as well, so "DITTO!"

 

[Relique du Madde]

I was laughing because Barbara Streisand is a bitter old woman and Cameron looked like he was annoyed that his golden cash cow lost (it looked like he was swearing as he clapped.).

 

[CleverNickName]

I dunno. It's not like I need a crusty gathering of ancient Thespians to tell me what's good. (shrug)

I think El Mahdi hit the nail on the head...and the poll seems to support that. I mean, it was a nice piece of eye-candy, but the acting wasn't stellar and the story wasn't new.

But I disagree with El Mahdi on one point: I think there is a very strong bias against science fiction in the Academy. Maybe I'm off base here, but it seems like no matter how groundbreaking, well-written, innovative, or culturally-significant a film is...if it is science fiction, it is ignored. Like that article said: "Annie Hall" over "Star Wars?" "Gandhi" over "E.T."? That's not only ludicrous, it's insulting.

That said, "Avatar" is no "Empire Strikes Back."

I get the argument that computer-generated actors might be a deviation from the art. My wife is one of those aforementioned Thespians, and she has rather strong opinions about that sort of stuff. "Cartoons are not actors!" she will say.

 

[Aeson]

I saw it last night and enjoyed it. It's a beautiful movie. Watching it made me think that a World of Warcraft movie could be made and look realistic. I liked the story and thought it showed some excellent examples of humanity both good and bad. Of course there were better movies that deserved the oscar but I don't think the bashing Avatar recieved is right.

 

[jaerdaph]

I get the argument that computer-generated actors might be a deviation from the art. My wife is one of those aforementioned Thespians, and she has rather strong opinions about that sort of stuff. "Cartoons are not actors!" she will say.

Musicians are being replaced more and more with computer generated music as well.

 

[jaerdaph]

Back to Avatar, I was surprised it was even nominated in the first place. Then again the field was expanded to ten films.

Not that it isn't a fun, entertaining movie, but come on...

And if Sci Fi should (or even could) have gotten a nod, I would rather have seen District 9 win Best Picture.

 

[Deset Gled]

Not surprised at all, mostly for the reasons El Mahdi gave.

I would say that District 9 deserved the Best Picture oscar much more than Avatar. District 9 had a better script, better acting, better pacing, and a much more dramatic story line. I haven't seen The Hurt Locker, so I can't really tell you if it deserved to win or not.

I'll even go as far as saying that I don't think Avatar deserved the Cinematography award. I think Inglorious Basterds should have one that instead. Avatar was pretty, but it's imagery was very basic once you got over the eye candy. Basterds, OTOH, did a lovely job of inverting a number of the visual basics in a very nuanced way.

All that being said, I still love Avatar and will definetally be buying a copy when it comes out. Just because a movie isn't Oscar-worthy doesn't mean it's not entertaining.

 

[Wombat]

My feeling with Avatar, like with most Cameron films, is "Looks pretty, but someone else has done/could do much better with the story." So in the end I was far from disappointed.