Avatar

[rok]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->2005: I think Crash was incredibly overrated, but I know I'm in the minority on this one...so I won't say which films should have beat it<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

We're in the same boat on this one for sure. However, I think some of the others you listed can be argued subjectively one way or another. I happen to agree with you in most cases, but overall the Academy is torn between critical darlings and popcorn fare, so I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. In some years where you have a film that touches the masses and critics AND somehow makes a boatload of cash (Rocky for instance), then that is usually a no-brainer and a safe pick. Those movies are few and far between. However, I just haven't cared enough to get angry at any of these selections in the past 10 years. My tastes are not in the mainstream, and I get that. It's not that I don't have a guilty pleasure or 2 or have never enjoyed a popular movie, far from it, but I generally get bored with the standard Hollywood retreads and boilerplate snoozefest indie flicks that are churned out year after year. Generally, if a movie doesn't push boundaries or make me think, I have no patience for it. I'm not even certain which audience the Academy is serving anymore. It sure isn't me, but it also isn't the average person.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=78160:date=Jan 31 2010, 09:44 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 31 2010, 09:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Some historical Oscar travesties (I'm only including movies I've seen):

1976: Rocky over Taxi Driver

1979: Kramer vs. Kramer over Apocalypse Now

1980: Ordinary People over Raging Bull

1989: Driving Miss Daisy over every other movie made in 1989

1990: Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas

1994: Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction

1996: The English Patient over Fargo

1997: Titanic over L.A. Confidential

1998: Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line

2002: Chicago (what a steaming pile of shit) over every other nominee -- Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Two Towers, and The Pianist

2005: I think Crash was incredibly overrated, but I know I'm in the minority on this one...so I won't say which films should have beat it


Obviously, this is somewhat subjective (and I'm sure some of you will disagree with me), but it's pretty easy to see which movies on this list have stood the test of time and which ones haven't.

Anyway, I'll have to think about it a little, but I'm pretty sure Hurt Locker was the best movie I've seen this year. However, I haven't seen Avatar so it wouldn't be fair for me to complain if it wins. I have my suspicions about it, though (all spectacle and no substance).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I usually don't pay much attention to these sort of things and when I do I often immediately forget it... however Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan? Really? I can't believe I don't remember that.

[liner]

i really liked shakespeare in love.

i wouldn't be too excited to see avatar on dvd. i did see it at the 3D imax for the second time last night.

i heard they'd widening the movie nominees to 10 this year. its all a cash grab and i think, if they do this wrong, they could be setting themselves up to really be a laughingstock.

i'm with you guys on crash, too much hype that made me feel like it'd be a life changing experience, it was just a good movie. not sure which of the others i'd pick over it though

[Auz]

Shakespeare in Love also won it over Elizabeth which was easily a stronger movie (Although Saving Private Ryan should have won it). And then Gwenneth Paltrow winning best actress over Cate Blanchet's role in said movie is a fucking travesty and goes to show you that the judges for the Oscars don't know shit from clay.

[funkster]

<!--quoteo(post=78188:date=Feb 1 2010, 10:32 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Feb 1 2010, 10:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'll probably cave eventually and see it. I just happen to think James Cameron is a giant douche and would rather not give him my $10. Also -- everyone tells me I *have* to see it on the big screen and in 3D, which means to get the "full experience," I have to fork over more money (rather than waiting to see it on Netflix).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LMAO...he's a massive douche. Its worth seeing in 3D..however its NOT the best picture of the year that's for damn sure.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=78613:date=Feb 4 2010, 06:26 PM:name=funkster)-->QUOTE (funkster @ Feb 4 2010, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=78188:date=Feb 1 2010, 10:32 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Feb 1 2010, 10:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'll probably cave eventually and see it. I just happen to think James Cameron is a giant douche and would rather not give him my $10. Also -- everyone tells me I *have* to see it on the big screen and in 3D, which means to get the "full experience," I have to fork over more money (rather than waiting to see it on Netflix).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LMAO...he's a massive douche. Its worth seeing in 3D..however its NOT the best picture of the year that's for damn sure.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Especially early on, there were blurs in the image from some of the 3D projections and I felt I would have appreciated the visuals more if I had a chance to watch in in 2D. Maybe I just don't see the 3D well.

[jstraw]

SPOLIER ALERT:























































































I saw this on Saturday. The visuals were good though it's easier to invent convincing fictitious animals than humanoids. The Na'vi were believable, not convincing. The facial mapping tech developed for this film was astonishing though and the rendering can only get better.

When this technology becomes <i>convincing</i>, watch out for 60 year-old Meryl Streeps playing 30 year-old Meryl Streeps. Gonna happen.

By the way, if all the other mammals on Pandora had six limbs, why didn't the Na'vi?

There were a couple of interesting plot devices (such as how do you introduce a jarhead into a world of diplomatic scientists when the avatars require specific DNA) that were handled cleverly.

Mainly the story is pretty tried and true stuff...predictable and/or telegraphed (did anyone NOT know Sully would fly the big bird or that merging him with his avatar would work when that time inevitably came?

Characters were cinematic cliches. Giovanni Ribisi has been playing Paul Reiser since John Ford was making westerns in Monument Valley. Cliche applies to Sigourney Weaver and Stephen Lang's characters too.

I can get people with hundreds or thousands of hours logged with their Avatars being used to being 10 feet tall and blue...but Sully? Come on...were was the struggle with inner revulsion/disconnect at being an odd new species...imagine waking up some other primate or just another race. There are some interesting existential struggles they just pretended aren't inevitable.

Ok, so Sully is just so happy have working legs...fine...I guess...but he's instantly got radar for 10-foot Blue hot chicks?

The 3D was amazing at times and less so at others. Sometimes it was just about exactly like looking through a Viewmaster. You know...2D objects on different planes. I suspect that the difference was in whether what was being seen was optically shot or digitally rendered.

I think without the visual wow factor this story is 2 of 5 stars and with it...2.5....maybe 3.

Not worth seeing at all if you don't see it in 3D on a theatre screen.