Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 5113569" data-attributes="member: 50987">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."  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.</blockquote>