And to be clear, my pick for movie of the year is The Hurt Locker, but I wouldn’t be disappointed if Avatar won it; despite all of its faults, it’s still an exceptional movie that deserves to be recognized.
Avatar is artistic in technical achievement, but not artistic as a whole film. That’s why you’re not seeing nominations for performances or screenplay. It simply doesn’t connect on those levels.
It basically does one thing really, really well – and that is the special effects.
Your thoughts on District 9 match my thoughts in Avatar. While Avatar was certainly a visual achievement. I felt it needed work in a few key areas it script and plot. I felt D9 was stronger in those areas actually and illbe rooting for that and Up in the Air which was my favorite film of 2009
The star of Avatar was the world of Pandora, and since there wasn’t really any acting done on the part of the world, it’s more deserving of a “art direction” award than anything else.
Are there seriously TEN movies up for best picutre? That’s insane. There’s no way there were ten movies worthy of that that came out this year. Not if movies like Avatar and District 9 are being nominated. And I don’t mean to knock those films, because I heard very good things, though I haven’t seen them myself. I’m sure they’re good movies, but are they Oscar Great? Do they deserve to stand up against movies like Gone with the Wind or Lawrence of Arabia? When I think about the movies nominated in recent years…like the wonderful piece of work that was There Will Be Blood, Frost/Nixon, Slumdog Millionaire, The Queen….. Do movies like Avatar and Disctrict 9 REALLY belong in there? Surely there were better movies than a freaking George Clooney film?
Not that every movie in the past should have been there either (I hated Crash, and it won that year), but….seriously?
my biggest problem with any avatar nominations was the one for best cinematography.
should you really be nominated when most of your shots are created digitally?
Cinematography is about camera placement and composition. Even if the objects that are being shown aren’t real, someone still has to make those decisions about how to frame and light a shot.
@Andre
I think we have different definitions of what a screenplay should be. To me, a screenplay should involve plot, dialogue and character development. Can you say Avatar set any benchmarks in these areas? Just because you were entertained for 3 hours doesn’t mean the movie has a brilliant screenplay – especially when the movie relies on its visuals to carry its run time. I could watch a 3 hour porno and be pretty confident it’s not the plot or character development that’s keeping me entertained.
I stand by my assessment that Avatar isn’t artistic as a whole film. And that’s not me hating on the success of the film. I think you’re clinging on to the Screenplay argument a little too tightly by pulling stats on the last 9 Best Picture winners. I never said that a Best Screenplay win or even a nomination was a requirement to win Best Picture. I’m just saying it’s a prominent element in an artistic film.
If you really want to use those 9 films as an example, what other awards did they win?
Gladiator had 12 nominations. One for direction and two in acting categories.
A Beautiful Mind was nominated in 8 categories. One for direction and two for acting. And, by the way, it DID win for Best Adapted Screenplay
Chicago was nominated in 13 categories. One for direction and 4 in the acting categories. Again, you’re wrong about it’s nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Return of the King was nominated in 11 categories and won EVERY SINGLE AWARD it was nominated for. Again, you’re wrong about it’s nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay. It was nominated and won.
Truthfully, now that I’ve dug into it a little bit, I don’t know if I should continue. I’m wondering where you’re getting your facts from.
Million Dollar Baby was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. So was The Departed. No Country For Old Men was nominated and WON Best Adapted Screenplay. Slumdog Millionaire was also nominated for and WON Best Adapted Screenplay. Do you think Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay aren’t the same thing? The only qualifier is whether or not the screenplay was based off existing material, like a book or a play.
Each of the 9 films you listed won Best Picture through a combination of artistic merit, box office success and buzz. Performances, screenplay and direction are major indicators of a Best Picture win. Hell, even Titanic scored two acting nominations.
But Avatar is a different beast completely. 9 nominations, all in technical categories except for direction. It was nominated and will probably win because if its advancement of special effects and because it is a global phenomenon at the box office. But Avatar is not an artistic film. If this movie made $200 million instead of $600 million domestically, it wouldn’t have been nominated for Best Picture. Bottom line.
“Avatar is artistic in technical achievement, but not artistic as a whole film. That’s why you’re not seeing nominations for performances or screenplay. It simply doesn’t connect on those levels.”
No, you don’t see nominations for performances because they’re mostly digitalized. There’s some real-life acting too, but not enough to consider.
And screenplay, I thought it was fine. How often does an almost 3 hour movie keep you interested from start to finish without any boring moments? That indicates great screenplay to me.
Btw, the movie of the year rarely also wins the best screenplay.
2000 – Gladiator won best movie, nominated for screenplay but didn’t win.
2001 – A Beautiful Mind won best movie, not nominated for screenplay.
2002 – Chicago won best movie, not nominated for screenplay.
2003 – Return of the King won best movie, again, not nominated for screenplay.
2004 – Million Dollar Baby won best movie, again, not nominated for screenplay.
2005 – Crash won best movie, also won best screenplay.
2006 – The Departed won best movie, not nominated for screenplay.
2007 – No Country For Old Men won best movie, not nominated for screenplay.
2008 – Slumdog Millionaire won best movie, not nominated for screenplay.
2009 – ?
So… out of 9 years, 1 best movie also won best screenplay, another was nominated for best screenplay and the other 7 best movies were NOT nominated for screenplay.
So, according to you, those other 7 best movies “didn’t connect on those levels”?!?
Whatever. I pretty much think that anyone that thinks Avatar isn’t anything but great is a hater. You know, the type of person that can’t stand when everyone else seems to love something, or as you said yourself a few posts ago, “haters gonna hate”. 😉
I think within the sci-fi genre, District 9 is a far better film than Avatar. Yes, Avatar looked pretty, but District 9 took a road far less traveled in my opinion. I think Sharlto Copely belonged in the Best Actor category for it, but such is life.
I actually think The Hurt Locker walks away with Best Picture. It’s as good as Avatar, but again, on a much different level. And I think AMPAS might look at James Cameron and essentially tell him to be satisfied with making more money than God and call it a day. That said, I’d be thrilled to see any of the above 3 films make it.
I find it interesting that it has been 12 yrs since a James Cameron “masterpeice” has been featured so glowingly by the Academy. That being said, like Titanic (a film very similar – Stunning visually, but a merely average plot and writing) it will walk with a majority of awards, Including Either best picture or director, but NOT both. My true and gut feeling is that he will not win Best Director – Katheryn Bigelow will get that honor for Hurt Locker.
I am excited to see the “Peyton Manning Face” on James Cameron when one of those two awards goes elsewhere – Priceless!
“Do you think Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay aren’t the same thing? The only qualifier is whether or not the screenplay was based off existing material, like a book or a play. ”
Hmm… you’re right, I only looked at the original screenplay categories… that explains it!
Back to Avatar, I think it’s more than just a visual effects movie. I really think I would have been just as captivated as I was had it been done with real-life actors & locations, not that creating a whole planet was really a possibility… 😉 People keeps saying it’s Pocahontas meets Matrix meets Dances with wolves, but those were all great movies, and as far as I know, nothing else quite mixes up different ideas as well as Avatar did. A movie doesn’t have to be the most original ever to be the best movie of the year. In fact, most best movie winners are usually not that original.
I don’t know, I hate it that people use the visual effects as an excuse to diss a movie.
With all that said, I think I’ll be proven right and Avatar will win it this year. Then again, people will still complain and say it didn’t deserve it, but seriously, If Crash can win it, any movie can.
I’m not using the visual effects to dis the movie. Like I said, I think the effects are game-changing in terms of how Hollywood pursues visuals in the next 10 years.
But another movie that was a game-changer in effects was The Matrix and it was nominated for 4 Oscars in technical categories, too.
Wasn’t nominated for Best Picture though. Why not? Good story. Good acting. But compared to Avatar, its box office was a drop in the bucket. $171 million when it was all said and done. Avatar is at $600 million and still climbing after 7 weeks.
I’m not saying that Avatar is a BAD movie. All I’m saying is that the AMPAS is clearly worshiping at the Altar of Box Office Receipts by heaping award nominations onto it. And that’s a little bit sad.
Usaly I find that movies that win are ones I’ve never heard of, didn’t even know they were in theaters and when I rent the are so dull I fall asleep. I would love to see more sci-fi that has good writing like district 9. There are plenty of good scifi novels but usaly only the ones that can look flashy make the big screen and the well written ones don’t get the treatment they deserve. So although there are nominees that desrve it more I hope district 9 gets it because the scifi genere needs the boost a well written Oscar winner can bring
didn’t they already reward cameron for box office and technical achievement when they gave his last rubbish mega-movie, titanic, best picture? when he makes avatar 2, do we have to go through this again?
Hey, I would’ve nominated The Matrix too, one of my favorite movies of all time!
And respecting the massive appeal a movie has isn’t a bad thing; it worked for Titanic, Return of the King and others I’m sure. Did Titanic & Return of the King have that much better acting & screen play than Avatar did?
Remove the visual effects and consider only the acting / writing, Avatar was still very good IMO. Great story, not original, but very good & in-depth, and the acting was definitely more than good enough. I wouldn’t have been shocked to see Zoe whatshername nominated for female lead; she was great. Sure, there’s a layer of digital effects on top of her performance, but with the extent of motion capture going on in this movie, it’s still her! And Sam wasn’t any worse than DiCaprio was in Titanic, or any of the people in Return of the King.
In 20 years, only Avatar will stick out as a masterpiece coming out of this year. We won’t even remember The Hurt Locker, Up! or District 9.
I myself loved avatar, but have mixed feelings on it winning so many rewards. On one hand, as a writer, I recognize that there is no such thing as a truly original plot. And that the best ones are often common ones. I tend to go by the quote of C.S. Lewis, who said “Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it. ”
However, there is a rub to this. C.S Lewis was a good enough writer to use common plots and make them original, to not have them constantly compared to other writers.
And Cameron was less concerned about ‘telling the truth’ and was more fascinated with telling a story like the ones he loved as a kid. It showed, it wasn’t original because instead of finding his own voice on it he wanted to emulate those that shaped him.
And, to put it simply, he is not a good enough artist in the area of writing for him to do this and still create an original vision.
To summarize as to WHY this is important, let me say this. It is my belief that the main goal of a writer is to create a story that submerges the reader/watcher into it, and the true artist in this will tell the stories that are most dear in a way that is completely new.
That is why I feel weird about the idea of Cameron winning anything other than visual effects. Because he does not have the artistic skill in story telling like others do.
Well, it seems to have already been mentioned, but I think Hurt Locker’s got a good shot at Picture and Director, if we go by the most recent award shows. I’m personally really happy that District 9 was nominated, as it was everything that Avatar wasn’t (and was supposed to be). It won’t win, but it’s high on my lists of films that should.
I like the expanded Best Picture category, as it allows for more worthy films to at least get in for a nomination. Gives more options. And it’s also a good thing that Up got one, since it sort of officially ‘allows’ the Acadamy to allow animated films back in that slot. Sure, it’ll have to be happy with just Best Animated (which I actually think should go to Fantastic Mr. Fox), but that was a given from the start.
I’d also like to say I’m not sure what Andre is talking about. Avatar is an enjoyable movie, but far from a masterpiece. The inherent problem with effects-based movies like that is that eventually the effects stop seeming so special. Time goes on, more movies dazzle like that, and how blown away we were at first doesn’t hold up anymore. After a while, the only thing really memorable about Avatar will be Stephen Lang’s badass colonel. And what’s the big deal about motion-capture acting? Doug Jones has been giving great performances covered in prosthetic for years, and that’s a considerably harder thing to do properly (and looks better, in my opinion), but there’s no big hubbub for him.
And besides, in the end one thing is most apparent: The Acadamy completely and totally shafted Moon.
Avatar will be remembered just like titanic is today – with an eye-roll and an awkward admission that “yes, i saw it in the theater.” the award Avatar should really win is for PR – the top-down buzz they managed to create through entertainment mags, tv interviews, and even elaborate product placements (remember that episode of Bones where they’re camping out for it?) was the true milestone.
Up will be remembered just like any other (good) animated film – Toy Story, Lion King, etc. Hurt Locker is a war film, and they tend to have limited appeal anyway. District 9 is a sci-fi allegory of race relations? Again, limited market but it could be remembered to the extent of a film like Gattaca.
I refuse to believe Avatar is that good. Visually it is stunning. It deserves awards for pushing the envelope in the way films can be seen. But as best picture?
“In 20 years, only Avatar will stick out as a masterpiece coming out of this year. We won’t even remember The Hurt Locker, Up! or District 9.” – I’m sorry, I remember when Titanic came out, and people said the same thing. Now days People generally like Titanic but consider it a far cry from being a masterpiece.
Same thing with Avatar.
But I guess it’s all interpretation of what consists of an oscar worthy film. I disagree that it is best picture material. But that’s me.
Like I said, I think Hurt Locker should win, it was great in all aspects, and if I had a vote, I’d vote Jeremy Renner for best lead actor; he was excellent.
But anyone that says “Smurfs in Space” about Avatar clearly has no idea what he’s talking about. Gladiator is about a guy in a skirt with revenge on his mind, Titanic is about a boat that sinks (how original!), Return of the King is about a boy that needs to return a ring someplace (really?). Any movie can be broken down to a simple and not-so-original ideal.
“To summarize as to WHY this is important, let me say this. It is my belief that the main goal of a writer is to create a story that submerges the reader/watcher into it, and the true artist in this will tell the stories that are most dear in a way that is completely new.”
By your definition, true artists don’t exist then. “Completely new” doesn’t exist.
The 10 nominations thing seems kind of like a business move. That way more movies get highlighted. Then their DVD boxes can say “Nominated for Best Picture”. I can’t imagine it being really likely that a movie would have won but wouldn’t have been on the ballot of 5 movies but would have been on one that was expanded to 10.
I really liked Avatar but I also don’t think it should win best picture. It’s a gorgeous looking movie and I think that should be awarded but it doesn’t deserve a best picture oscar. I was really happy to see Distrcit 9 get the nomination because it was a very well done movie. My favourite part about it was you didn’t see the aliens trying to speak english or the humans trying to speak the alien language but they can still understand eachother. The Hurt Locker was a bit hit and miss for me at some points but a good movie on the whole.
Anybody who says we won’t remember Up in 30 years is deluding themselves. Do people still remember Snow White? Pinocchio? Dumbo? Sleeping Beauty? Why is that? Are any of them great movies? Sorry to say, they’re all pretty average movies. And I say this loving every single moment of every one of them. Oh, they’re classics of animation (especially Dumbo IMO), but if they had been live action instead of animated with the same script, they wouldn’t be remembered as fondly. Having a Disney stamp does something to a film. Having a film that’s basically marketed towards kids almost ensures that it’ll stick in the mainstream for an excessively long time. Up is yet another in a long line of movies that is ostensibly marketed towards kids but has more than enough themes to keep adults interested and engaged. Because of this, it’ll be around much longer than Avatar or any other movie from this year. Tell me, does anybody even in film class watch Titanic? I hadn’t heard the name this decade until a couple weeks before Avatar came out. What movies from 30 years ago are still being talked about? Which ones were Best Picture nods? Quite possibly the most influential movie of the last 35 years won nothing from the Academy aside from technical awards (Star Wars, 1977). I put very little faith in the Academy to successfully pick out the films from any given year that will stay in the public consciousness for any significant period. My favorite segment out of any movie I’ve ever seen (Pink Elephants) was basically glossed over by the Academy. It’s still considered one of the finest pieces of two-dimensional animation ever produced.
What I’m surprised about is that Invictus didn’t get a nod for pretty much anything. Freeman got a long overdue nom as Best Actor, and Damon got a nom for Supporting, but neither of these two will win, and that’s a damn shame. Damon had one of the best dialect shifts ever put to screen, and Freeman came about as close as anybody in cinematic history to complete physical transformation into a historical character. And it’s a bloody shame that neither of these two will even come close to winning in their respective categories because Invictus got no other noms.
About the strip, I’m surprised to see you say Tom that Jared was the guy putting somebody into a coma. From the way the strip was laid out, I thought that Jared would’ve been put into a coma!
Just want to point out, two largest grossing films of all time -if- you don’t adjust for inflation. If you do, Gone with the Wind and Star Wars hold the top honours, with “modern” amounts of $1.5 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively. Titanic comes in at number six, while Avatar is only nearing being in the top twenty.
Avatar’s box office is impressive, and I’m not trying to take away from that (well, maybe a little, but with ticket prices the way they are now I’m allowed). Just something to consider every time someone says, “The highest grossing of all time!” about their movie.
The other factor bumping Avatar’s numbers are the number of tickets sold to view the movie in 3D. An extra $2 or $3 a ticket really makes a difference.
But, yeah. No one is going to split hairs like that when it comes to awards season.
1942 & before, the Acadamy nomitated 10 Best Pictures, so it is just going back to what it originally did. The theory about the increase this year is that Oscar viewership has been slipping for quite a few years & if they expanded the Best Picture category more popular movies (wider release, bigger box office take) would be nominated. By having more well know movies nominated, more people would be interested in watching to see if there favorite film would win & tune in. Honestly, I think more people would tune in if they just made the ceremony shorter by combining or eliminating a couple of categories. Not to be mean but does anyone except the actual people involved care about Documentary or Animated Short, most likely you haven’t even seen them. And most people can’t tell the difference between Art Direction & Cinematography or Sound Editing & Mixing, so why not combine those categories. In fact, they have to explain those last four categories at the awards every year.
As for Avatar, yes it is an entertaining, innovative, super successful film but it is not Oscar worthy. Hopefully the Academy will right the wrong of the Globes & give Best Picture & Director to Hurt Locker & Bigelow. Besides, Cameron does not need anything more to make his ego & trophy wall bigger!
On the other hand, does a movie that about 5 people saw deserve a Best Picture award? I mean, if the movie is so good, why wasn’t it seen by more than the families of those involved in making the film?
(I’m being semi-sarcastic here as I’m one of the 5 people who saw and loved The Hurt Locker, but I really think that public popularity has to count for something when they hand out these awards.)
I really like the Avatar internet divide. The internet is overwhelmingly negative over this film – if it’s discussed on forums all you get is ‘oh it ripped this off, oh it’s crap except for the special effects’, but critics love it, the rest of the world loves it, and it is such an enormous crowd pleaser that people are coming back to theaters not once, but multiple times. This movie really puts into perspective how little we internet people really have to say.
I mean, didn’t we all think that by now everyone was on the internet? The opinion of the internet was the opinion of the world? Blogs are the new newspapers, after all. The whole iPhone generation thing. Sure, Snakes on a Plane getting huge buzz on the internet but completely bombing at the box office was a hit to our collective internet ego, but that’s ancient history in internet land by now! But a film the internet is so extremely derisive of (Thundersmurfs! Pocahontas in Space! Jake Sully’s gone with the low gravity wind!) winning prestigious award after award? Breaking all records ever, becoming the (unadjusted) highest grossing film of all time? And hearing every person who doesn’t spend their entire life on the internet just rave on and on about this film?
The internet may still be the future, but we obviously aren’t there yet by a long shot whatever the pundits may say.
Anyway, personally I’m rooting for Up, but I’m biased by nature of trade (I’m an animator).
Obviously, I have a vested interest in this – so I might be a little biased – but I STRONGLY disagree that the internet doesn’t matter when it comes to critical reaction to a film and I think you are simplifying your examples to make your point.
The internet is overwhelmingly negative toward Avatar? I think you know that’s not true. Yeah, people have made comparisons to Pocahantas and Fern Gully. But that’s what the internet does – it cracks wise on things. It picks things apart. That doesn’t mean that people who are critical of the film aren’t seeing it. You make it sound like there was some kind of concerted effort to sink Avatar before it got off the ground. I’ve seen no such campaigns.
Critics don’t uniformly love it, either. Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 82% fresh rating. Last I checked, that’s a solid “B,” if you were grading the film.
I think you’re also ignoring the strength of Avatar’s marketing campaign. It’s one of the most expensively produced movies of all time. If you think Fox wasn’t going to advertise the film like crazy in an effort to get their money back, you’re wrong.
If the internet was truly worthless in terms of criticism and fan reaction, why are newspapers laying off film critics left and right? Why have super hero movies suddenly emerged as a genre in the last 10 years? Why are studios exhibiting these films at comic book conventions and fear the backlash of the internet? Because it’s all word of mouth – the most valuable form of advertising there is.
At this point, I’m not even arguing Avatar’s quality. I’m speaking purely of the internet as a communications tool. And I think you’re wrong to assume that Avatar’s success in the face of internet criticism means it’s irrelevant.
The reason Avatar is only rated at 82% on RT is because a lot of critics (and I use that term loosely!) just have to be different than others. They view themselves as too superior for such a mainstream movie; they went into the theater with the preconceived notion that they wouldn’t like it. And also, they think it’s really ‘cool’ to go against arguably the most-hyped movie ever.
I certainly understand people that say the movie is a B or C (acting, story, originality, etc), but to give a flat-out thumbs down to Avatar is simply ridiculous. Those that do are trying to make a point. A stupid and retarded point, but a point nonetheless.
Damn, so much talk about Avatar this week; I have to watch it again! That’s it, I’m watching it again this weekend. 🙂
Are you serious? You really think the ONLY reason a critic would go against Avatar is to be a contrarian? Avatar is so thoroughly flawless, there’s no room for a difference in opinion?
I’m sorry, man. But at this point you’re not just drinking the Kool-Aid. You’re swimming in it.
So you’re telling me that someone could honestly say that they disliked Avatar to the point where it’s a waste of time? That there’s nothing worthwhile about it at all?
Pretty much the only thing bad people say about it is that it’s not very original and that some characters could be developped more. I’m sorry, but that’s just not enough to give it a flat out thumbs down. Remember, Rotten Tomatoes is all about thumbs up and thumbs down, not an actual average of the ratings each critic gave a movie. It’s the percentage of critics who gave a thumbs up to a movie.
Let’s go over a few of the negative reviews on RT:
“…a big, dumb movie built to make money but hardly worthy of serious examination. Avatar isn’t only critic-proof, it resists serious criticism. You might as well analyze a beach ball. ”
“Avatar is overlong, dramatically two-dimensional, smug and simplistic. ”
“Avatar is a phenomenon you can’t ignore, monumentally imposing and done with extraordinary expertise – but the same could be said of the Dubai skyline, and I’m not sure that represents any future worth investing in. ”
“But everything about the story, the setting, the dialog, and the parts that aren’t purely visual is awful. ”
“It’s a remote-control movie experience, a high-tech “wish you were here” scribbled on a very expensive postcard. ”
“big dumb movie”, really? “awful”, really? And since when does money have to do anything when reviewing a movie? Come on… Way to be credible, “critics”. And besides, if you switch to “Top Critics”, Avatar gets a 94% rating, which makes a LOT more sense than the overall rating that’s lowered by these wannabe critics.
The only way someone can give a flat out thumbs down to Avatar is because they’re somehow jealous, have to be anti-populist, or just plain crazy. Actual critics are smart enough to realize that despite its flaws, Avatar more than makes up for them in many other areas.
No disrespect, Andre, but I’m not even going to bother reading those quotes. I think you’ve already demonstrated your research skills maybe aren’t the best. 🙂
We’re starting to talk in absolutes. We’re getting away from the original discussion – which was “Avatar is a good film, but is it really Oscar worthy?”
Personally, I think Avatar is event filmmaking at its best. Even if it were terrible, you should probably still see it just to be a part of the communal experience we actually go to the movies for.
Does that make it a great movie? No. Do I understand why a critic might give it a thumbs down based on its bloated run time, unoriginal plot and flat performances. I totally get it. I don’t think a critic would give Avatar a thumbs down strictly to combat the hype, but I think that could be a factor. The elements of the film that don’t work support that argument. Calling them “jealous,” “anti-populist” or “just plain crazy” isn’t debating the film based on its merits. It’s name-calling.
To some critics, plot, pacing and characterization is more important than hype or visual “wow.” If you’re really into special effects, I think Avatar is the film to beat. If you go to the movies to, y’know, feel something or have your horizons broadened… there are better films out there for that. Avatar lacks emotional sincerity and its plot hits a lot of the same notes we’ve heard before in better films.
Like someone said earlier, the effects will only be impressive until the Next Big Thing comes along. But if the story doesn’t hold up, it doesn’t make for a very resonant experience.
Without a doubt, I can tell you that ultimately, while the visuals were amazing, I’d gladly give up seeing the movie once to see something with a better story. Spider-man 2, for example. Or better yet? Pixar’s UP.
Now, does that make me anti-populist? Heavens no. I usually love popular films. And again, Avatar was ‘okay’. But really, if i can be honest, and i’m gonna be blunt here, it was a like a giant ‘fuck you’ after years and years of hype and promise of something extrodinary, and while that is sorta true visually, I feel gipped. After years of Cameron promsing us something amazing, I was expecting something of T2-or True Lies-like level of awesome. It’s almost like he saw his own films and went “this is not the type of movie I wanna try to make, you know, original, and really friggin good.”
I agree with critics who say it was a dumb movie. Does that make me jealous? Andre, while I’d ‘love’ to be in Hollywood, trust me, making a film like Avatar would be the farthest thing I’d wanna do. Why? because i’d want to be like Billy Wilder or Steven Spielberg(sp?) and make a GOOD movie. A RESPECTED movie. A movie years from now I can look back on and go, I really liked that picture, not just one that ‘pushed the envelope visually’.
So yeah, every review you quoted? I agree 100% with. I’m not a Luddite, I’m not jealous, anti-populist or plain crazy. I just prefer good movies or ‘films’. (there is a distinction, really, if you think about it.)
I completely disagree with you there. Most of the time, I can’t wait for the typical 90 minute movies to end so that I can stretch my legs and get fresh air. With Avatar, I could have stayed there another hour or two, for sure. I felt the pacing was excellent as it never left up the whole time, getting us more and more involved in Jakesully’s transformation. I’d bet Cameron had to cut out at least an hour of quality material in order to come in under 3 hours. There wasn’t a single minute wasted I thought.
More than anything, I feel as though most people who say they didn’t enjoy Avatar went in with that mindset already made up. That’s usually the case. People pre-condition themselves to hate something when there’s too much hype. They just can’t accept the fact that something so hyped can come close to matching all of the hype.
What do you make of the fact that Avatar gets a 94% rating amongst “Top Critics” while it only gets 82% overall? Doesn’t that tell you that less than respected critics felt the need to shout loud and clear that they think of themselves as being smarter than the rest of the population and thus hated Avatar? That’s exactly what it tells me.
There were three movies who left strong impressions on me this year: Avatar (obviously ;)), The Hurt Locker and District 9. The great thing about this year’s Oscars is that there is a good chance that a movie I loved wins Best Picture; it’s been a while since that happened!
You’re right about the Tomatometer. I have to admit that I always look at the top critics thing on Rotten Tomatoes, because I trust the regular one about as much as I trust IMDb ratings, and it has a far higher rating there. And yes, I’ve seen plenty of people actively trying to sink Avatar, or hoping it would. AICN, for example, had talkbacks where people were boycotting this film since before the first poster even came out. IMDb is filled with people chastising everyone else for even seeing this movie. The silent majority on the internet may like it, but almost everyone who blogs, twitters or anything seems to hate the hell out of it.
Anyway, I didn’t mean any offense with it, but I honestly think that the internet’s worth when it comes to promoting or sinking something is completely overstated in the media. Like I said, most of the internet is a silent minority, so if anything gets a lot of press (good or bad) on the internet it still doesn’t mean anything. And this is coming from a person who spends almost all his time hanging out on it typing crap about movies and video games. Sure, papers have been laying off critics, but they’ve also been laying off almost everything else. People are reading less papers, but honestly, that’s a trend since the advent of television and the internet barely made a dent to a continuing trend.
I also have to disagree with you on Avatar’s plot. It’s not original, I have to give you that. But that doesn’t make it a bad plot, and it resonated plenty with me and a lot of people. If anything, it reminded me why cliches exist – because they were originally things that worked well. Also, if you never want to see anything you’ve seen before, why ever watch a film twice?
I honestly don’t understand why there is such a hangup about it having an unoriginal plot anyway. Star Wars was about the naive farmboy saving the princess from the black knight’s fortress! That movie was all about special effects and stealing from old sci-fi serials. I love me some Star Wars, but if it’s fine for that to be a phenomenon then it’s fine for Avatar. Not only that, but how many blockbusters are made these days that aren’t based on books or comics or TV shows or are remakes or sequels or prequels? All that “recycled stories are garbage”, “it’ll be forgotten in five years” and “It’ll be passed over for the next big thing”? That’s just not true no matter how many times anyone types it.
Andre, no offense, but you sound like an “Avatar” fan boy.
Box office does not indicate the quality of a film. So what if only five people saw a film? If the film is well made, has a great story, great acting and editing, then yes, it deserves an Oscar, or to at least be nominated.
And Jason, I agree with everything you said in your last post. I couldn’t have said it better……
I never said the box office indicates the quality of a film, see Transformers 2 as a proof. But when a movie remains #1 at the box office for 2 months with no signs of letting up, shouldn’t that count for something? Not count for everything, but count for something.
And by your own criterias, films like Beauty and the Beast and Up couldn’t even be nominated. Acting? What acting? They’re completely animated!
There has to be more to a movie than grading it based on 4-5 criterias, don’t you think? That could easily lead you to “The sum of its parts is greater than the whole”. I’d rather take a look at the whole thing… “Sure it had flaws, but the movie was great regardless of those flaws!”
I will say one last time that I really do think that The Hurt Locker will win, and I have no problems with this; up until I saw Avatar, it was my favorite movie of the year with District 9 real close behind.
“As much as some people idealistically think the Oscar’s should be about artistic merit, it’s also about business.”
It’s funny how you say that considering one could easily say that Avatar is arguably the most ‘artistic’ movie ever.
And to be clear, my pick for movie of the year is The Hurt Locker, but I wouldn’t be disappointed if Avatar won it; despite all of its faults, it’s still an exceptional movie that deserves to be recognized.
@Andre
Avatar is artistic in technical achievement, but not artistic as a whole film. That’s why you’re not seeing nominations for performances or screenplay. It simply doesn’t connect on those levels.
It basically does one thing really, really well – and that is the special effects.
Your thoughts on District 9 match my thoughts in Avatar. While Avatar was certainly a visual achievement. I felt it needed work in a few key areas it script and plot. I felt D9 was stronger in those areas actually and illbe rooting for that and Up in the Air which was my favorite film of 2009
The star of Avatar was the world of Pandora, and since there wasn’t really any acting done on the part of the world, it’s more deserving of a “art direction” award than anything else.
Are there seriously TEN movies up for best picutre? That’s insane. There’s no way there were ten movies worthy of that that came out this year. Not if movies like Avatar and District 9 are being nominated. And I don’t mean to knock those films, because I heard very good things, though I haven’t seen them myself. I’m sure they’re good movies, but are they Oscar Great? Do they deserve to stand up against movies like Gone with the Wind or Lawrence of Arabia? When I think about the movies nominated in recent years…like the wonderful piece of work that was There Will Be Blood, Frost/Nixon, Slumdog Millionaire, The Queen….. Do movies like Avatar and Disctrict 9 REALLY belong in there? Surely there were better movies than a freaking George Clooney film?
Not that every movie in the past should have been there either (I hated Crash, and it won that year), but….seriously?
my biggest problem with any avatar nominations was the one for best cinematography.
should you really be nominated when most of your shots are created digitally?
@kelly
Cinematography is about camera placement and composition. Even if the objects that are being shown aren’t real, someone still has to make those decisions about how to frame and light a shot.
@Andre
I think we have different definitions of what a screenplay should be. To me, a screenplay should involve plot, dialogue and character development. Can you say Avatar set any benchmarks in these areas? Just because you were entertained for 3 hours doesn’t mean the movie has a brilliant screenplay – especially when the movie relies on its visuals to carry its run time. I could watch a 3 hour porno and be pretty confident it’s not the plot or character development that’s keeping me entertained.
I stand by my assessment that Avatar isn’t artistic as a whole film. And that’s not me hating on the success of the film. I think you’re clinging on to the Screenplay argument a little too tightly by pulling stats on the last 9 Best Picture winners. I never said that a Best Screenplay win or even a nomination was a requirement to win Best Picture. I’m just saying it’s a prominent element in an artistic film.
If you really want to use those 9 films as an example, what other awards did they win?
Gladiator had 12 nominations. One for direction and two in acting categories.
A Beautiful Mind was nominated in 8 categories. One for direction and two for acting. And, by the way, it DID win for Best Adapted Screenplay
Chicago was nominated in 13 categories. One for direction and 4 in the acting categories. Again, you’re wrong about it’s nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Return of the King was nominated in 11 categories and won EVERY SINGLE AWARD it was nominated for. Again, you’re wrong about it’s nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay. It was nominated and won.
Truthfully, now that I’ve dug into it a little bit, I don’t know if I should continue. I’m wondering where you’re getting your facts from.
Million Dollar Baby was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. So was The Departed. No Country For Old Men was nominated and WON Best Adapted Screenplay. Slumdog Millionaire was also nominated for and WON Best Adapted Screenplay. Do you think Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay aren’t the same thing? The only qualifier is whether or not the screenplay was based off existing material, like a book or a play.
Each of the 9 films you listed won Best Picture through a combination of artistic merit, box office success and buzz. Performances, screenplay and direction are major indicators of a Best Picture win. Hell, even Titanic scored two acting nominations.
But Avatar is a different beast completely. 9 nominations, all in technical categories except for direction. It was nominated and will probably win because if its advancement of special effects and because it is a global phenomenon at the box office. But Avatar is not an artistic film. If this movie made $200 million instead of $600 million domestically, it wouldn’t have been nominated for Best Picture. Bottom line.
“Avatar is artistic in technical achievement, but not artistic as a whole film. That’s why you’re not seeing nominations for performances or screenplay. It simply doesn’t connect on those levels.”
No, you don’t see nominations for performances because they’re mostly digitalized. There’s some real-life acting too, but not enough to consider.
And screenplay, I thought it was fine. How often does an almost 3 hour movie keep you interested from start to finish without any boring moments? That indicates great screenplay to me.
Btw, the movie of the year rarely also wins the best screenplay.
2000 – Gladiator won best movie, nominated for screenplay but didn’t win.
2001 – A Beautiful Mind won best movie, not nominated for screenplay.
2002 – Chicago won best movie, not nominated for screenplay.
2003 – Return of the King won best movie, again, not nominated for screenplay.
2004 – Million Dollar Baby won best movie, again, not nominated for screenplay.
2005 – Crash won best movie, also won best screenplay.
2006 – The Departed won best movie, not nominated for screenplay.
2007 – No Country For Old Men won best movie, not nominated for screenplay.
2008 – Slumdog Millionaire won best movie, not nominated for screenplay.
2009 – ?
So… out of 9 years, 1 best movie also won best screenplay, another was nominated for best screenplay and the other 7 best movies were NOT nominated for screenplay.
So, according to you, those other 7 best movies “didn’t connect on those levels”?!?
Whatever. I pretty much think that anyone that thinks Avatar isn’t anything but great is a hater. You know, the type of person that can’t stand when everyone else seems to love something, or as you said yourself a few posts ago, “haters gonna hate”. 😉
I think within the sci-fi genre, District 9 is a far better film than Avatar. Yes, Avatar looked pretty, but District 9 took a road far less traveled in my opinion. I think Sharlto Copely belonged in the Best Actor category for it, but such is life.
I actually think The Hurt Locker walks away with Best Picture. It’s as good as Avatar, but again, on a much different level. And I think AMPAS might look at James Cameron and essentially tell him to be satisfied with making more money than God and call it a day. That said, I’d be thrilled to see any of the above 3 films make it.
I find it interesting that it has been 12 yrs since a James Cameron “masterpeice” has been featured so glowingly by the Academy. That being said, like Titanic (a film very similar – Stunning visually, but a merely average plot and writing) it will walk with a majority of awards, Including Either best picture or director, but NOT both. My true and gut feeling is that he will not win Best Director – Katheryn Bigelow will get that honor for Hurt Locker.
I am excited to see the “Peyton Manning Face” on James Cameron when one of those two awards goes elsewhere – Priceless!
Oh, and how can I forget to mention Kathryn Bigelow’s ex husband IS JAMES CAMERON.
Yea, I really don’t like him.
“Do you think Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay aren’t the same thing? The only qualifier is whether or not the screenplay was based off existing material, like a book or a play. ”
Hmm… you’re right, I only looked at the original screenplay categories… that explains it!
Back to Avatar, I think it’s more than just a visual effects movie. I really think I would have been just as captivated as I was had it been done with real-life actors & locations, not that creating a whole planet was really a possibility… 😉 People keeps saying it’s Pocahontas meets Matrix meets Dances with wolves, but those were all great movies, and as far as I know, nothing else quite mixes up different ideas as well as Avatar did. A movie doesn’t have to be the most original ever to be the best movie of the year. In fact, most best movie winners are usually not that original.
I don’t know, I hate it that people use the visual effects as an excuse to diss a movie.
With all that said, I think I’ll be proven right and Avatar will win it this year. Then again, people will still complain and say it didn’t deserve it, but seriously, If Crash can win it, any movie can.
@Andre
I’m not using the visual effects to dis the movie. Like I said, I think the effects are game-changing in terms of how Hollywood pursues visuals in the next 10 years.
But another movie that was a game-changer in effects was The Matrix and it was nominated for 4 Oscars in technical categories, too.
Wasn’t nominated for Best Picture though. Why not? Good story. Good acting. But compared to Avatar, its box office was a drop in the bucket. $171 million when it was all said and done. Avatar is at $600 million and still climbing after 7 weeks.
I’m not saying that Avatar is a BAD movie. All I’m saying is that the AMPAS is clearly worshiping at the Altar of Box Office Receipts by heaping award nominations onto it. And that’s a little bit sad.
Usaly I find that movies that win are ones I’ve never heard of, didn’t even know they were in theaters and when I rent the are so dull I fall asleep. I would love to see more sci-fi that has good writing like district 9. There are plenty of good scifi novels but usaly only the ones that can look flashy make the big screen and the well written ones don’t get the treatment they deserve. So although there are nominees that desrve it more I hope district 9 gets it because the scifi genere needs the boost a well written Oscar winner can bring
didn’t they already reward cameron for box office and technical achievement when they gave his last rubbish mega-movie, titanic, best picture? when he makes avatar 2, do we have to go through this again?
Hey, I would’ve nominated The Matrix too, one of my favorite movies of all time!
And respecting the massive appeal a movie has isn’t a bad thing; it worked for Titanic, Return of the King and others I’m sure. Did Titanic & Return of the King have that much better acting & screen play than Avatar did?
Remove the visual effects and consider only the acting / writing, Avatar was still very good IMO. Great story, not original, but very good & in-depth, and the acting was definitely more than good enough. I wouldn’t have been shocked to see Zoe whatshername nominated for female lead; she was great. Sure, there’s a layer of digital effects on top of her performance, but with the extent of motion capture going on in this movie, it’s still her! And Sam wasn’t any worse than DiCaprio was in Titanic, or any of the people in Return of the King.
In 20 years, only Avatar will stick out as a masterpiece coming out of this year. We won’t even remember The Hurt Locker, Up! or District 9.
I myself loved avatar, but have mixed feelings on it winning so many rewards. On one hand, as a writer, I recognize that there is no such thing as a truly original plot. And that the best ones are often common ones. I tend to go by the quote of C.S. Lewis, who said “Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it. ”
However, there is a rub to this. C.S Lewis was a good enough writer to use common plots and make them original, to not have them constantly compared to other writers.
And Cameron was less concerned about ‘telling the truth’ and was more fascinated with telling a story like the ones he loved as a kid. It showed, it wasn’t original because instead of finding his own voice on it he wanted to emulate those that shaped him.
And, to put it simply, he is not a good enough artist in the area of writing for him to do this and still create an original vision.
To summarize as to WHY this is important, let me say this. It is my belief that the main goal of a writer is to create a story that submerges the reader/watcher into it, and the true artist in this will tell the stories that are most dear in a way that is completely new.
That is why I feel weird about the idea of Cameron winning anything other than visual effects. Because he does not have the artistic skill in story telling like others do.
Well, it seems to have already been mentioned, but I think Hurt Locker’s got a good shot at Picture and Director, if we go by the most recent award shows. I’m personally really happy that District 9 was nominated, as it was everything that Avatar wasn’t (and was supposed to be). It won’t win, but it’s high on my lists of films that should.
I like the expanded Best Picture category, as it allows for more worthy films to at least get in for a nomination. Gives more options. And it’s also a good thing that Up got one, since it sort of officially ‘allows’ the Acadamy to allow animated films back in that slot. Sure, it’ll have to be happy with just Best Animated (which I actually think should go to Fantastic Mr. Fox), but that was a given from the start.
I’d also like to say I’m not sure what Andre is talking about. Avatar is an enjoyable movie, but far from a masterpiece. The inherent problem with effects-based movies like that is that eventually the effects stop seeming so special. Time goes on, more movies dazzle like that, and how blown away we were at first doesn’t hold up anymore. After a while, the only thing really memorable about Avatar will be Stephen Lang’s badass colonel. And what’s the big deal about motion-capture acting? Doug Jones has been giving great performances covered in prosthetic for years, and that’s a considerably harder thing to do properly (and looks better, in my opinion), but there’s no big hubbub for him.
And besides, in the end one thing is most apparent: The Acadamy completely and totally shafted Moon.
Avatar will be remembered just like titanic is today – with an eye-roll and an awkward admission that “yes, i saw it in the theater.” the award Avatar should really win is for PR – the top-down buzz they managed to create through entertainment mags, tv interviews, and even elaborate product placements (remember that episode of Bones where they’re camping out for it?) was the true milestone.
Up will be remembered just like any other (good) animated film – Toy Story, Lion King, etc. Hurt Locker is a war film, and they tend to have limited appeal anyway. District 9 is a sci-fi allegory of race relations? Again, limited market but it could be remembered to the extent of a film like Gattaca.
“In 20 years, only Avatar will stick out as a masterpiece coming out of this year. We won’t even remember The Hurt Locker, Up! or District 9.”
I dunno about that. I’ve seen Hurt Locker, Up and District 9. ‘Smurfs In Space’ hasn’t induced me to see it yet.
I’m sorry.
I refuse to believe Avatar is that good. Visually it is stunning. It deserves awards for pushing the envelope in the way films can be seen. But as best picture?
“In 20 years, only Avatar will stick out as a masterpiece coming out of this year. We won’t even remember The Hurt Locker, Up! or District 9.” – I’m sorry, I remember when Titanic came out, and people said the same thing. Now days People generally like Titanic but consider it a far cry from being a masterpiece.
Same thing with Avatar.
But I guess it’s all interpretation of what consists of an oscar worthy film. I disagree that it is best picture material. But that’s me.
I’ll reiterate: “Haters gonna hate”.
Like I said, I think Hurt Locker should win, it was great in all aspects, and if I had a vote, I’d vote Jeremy Renner for best lead actor; he was excellent.
But anyone that says “Smurfs in Space” about Avatar clearly has no idea what he’s talking about. Gladiator is about a guy in a skirt with revenge on his mind, Titanic is about a boat that sinks (how original!), Return of the King is about a boy that needs to return a ring someplace (really?). Any movie can be broken down to a simple and not-so-original ideal.
“To summarize as to WHY this is important, let me say this. It is my belief that the main goal of a writer is to create a story that submerges the reader/watcher into it, and the true artist in this will tell the stories that are most dear in a way that is completely new.”
By your definition, true artists don’t exist then. “Completely new” doesn’t exist.
The 10 nominations thing seems kind of like a business move. That way more movies get highlighted. Then their DVD boxes can say “Nominated for Best Picture”. I can’t imagine it being really likely that a movie would have won but wouldn’t have been on the ballot of 5 movies but would have been on one that was expanded to 10.
I really liked Avatar but I also don’t think it should win best picture. It’s a gorgeous looking movie and I think that should be awarded but it doesn’t deserve a best picture oscar. I was really happy to see Distrcit 9 get the nomination because it was a very well done movie. My favourite part about it was you didn’t see the aliens trying to speak english or the humans trying to speak the alien language but they can still understand eachother. The Hurt Locker was a bit hit and miss for me at some points but a good movie on the whole.
Anybody who says we won’t remember Up in 30 years is deluding themselves. Do people still remember Snow White? Pinocchio? Dumbo? Sleeping Beauty? Why is that? Are any of them great movies? Sorry to say, they’re all pretty average movies. And I say this loving every single moment of every one of them. Oh, they’re classics of animation (especially Dumbo IMO), but if they had been live action instead of animated with the same script, they wouldn’t be remembered as fondly. Having a Disney stamp does something to a film. Having a film that’s basically marketed towards kids almost ensures that it’ll stick in the mainstream for an excessively long time. Up is yet another in a long line of movies that is ostensibly marketed towards kids but has more than enough themes to keep adults interested and engaged. Because of this, it’ll be around much longer than Avatar or any other movie from this year. Tell me, does anybody even in film class watch Titanic? I hadn’t heard the name this decade until a couple weeks before Avatar came out. What movies from 30 years ago are still being talked about? Which ones were Best Picture nods? Quite possibly the most influential movie of the last 35 years won nothing from the Academy aside from technical awards (Star Wars, 1977). I put very little faith in the Academy to successfully pick out the films from any given year that will stay in the public consciousness for any significant period. My favorite segment out of any movie I’ve ever seen (Pink Elephants) was basically glossed over by the Academy. It’s still considered one of the finest pieces of two-dimensional animation ever produced.
What I’m surprised about is that Invictus didn’t get a nod for pretty much anything. Freeman got a long overdue nom as Best Actor, and Damon got a nom for Supporting, but neither of these two will win, and that’s a damn shame. Damon had one of the best dialect shifts ever put to screen, and Freeman came about as close as anybody in cinematic history to complete physical transformation into a historical character. And it’s a bloody shame that neither of these two will even come close to winning in their respective categories because Invictus got no other noms.
About the strip, I’m surprised to see you say Tom that Jared was the guy putting somebody into a coma. From the way the strip was laid out, I thought that Jared would’ve been put into a coma!
And here I was assuming Jared was the one that ended up in the coma. Shows how much I know.
@Chris: And here I was thinking he had put Tom in the coma.
Just want to point out, two largest grossing films of all time -if- you don’t adjust for inflation. If you do, Gone with the Wind and Star Wars hold the top honours, with “modern” amounts of $1.5 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively. Titanic comes in at number six, while Avatar is only nearing being in the top twenty.
Avatar’s box office is impressive, and I’m not trying to take away from that (well, maybe a little, but with ticket prices the way they are now I’m allowed). Just something to consider every time someone says, “The highest grossing of all time!” about their movie.
The other factor bumping Avatar’s numbers are the number of tickets sold to view the movie in 3D. An extra $2 or $3 a ticket really makes a difference.
But, yeah. No one is going to split hairs like that when it comes to awards season.
1942 & before, the Acadamy nomitated 10 Best Pictures, so it is just going back to what it originally did. The theory about the increase this year is that Oscar viewership has been slipping for quite a few years & if they expanded the Best Picture category more popular movies (wider release, bigger box office take) would be nominated. By having more well know movies nominated, more people would be interested in watching to see if there favorite film would win & tune in. Honestly, I think more people would tune in if they just made the ceremony shorter by combining or eliminating a couple of categories. Not to be mean but does anyone except the actual people involved care about Documentary or Animated Short, most likely you haven’t even seen them. And most people can’t tell the difference between Art Direction & Cinematography or Sound Editing & Mixing, so why not combine those categories. In fact, they have to explain those last four categories at the awards every year.
As for Avatar, yes it is an entertaining, innovative, super successful film but it is not Oscar worthy. Hopefully the Academy will right the wrong of the Globes & give Best Picture & Director to Hurt Locker & Bigelow. Besides, Cameron does not need anything more to make his ego & trophy wall bigger!
On the other hand, does a movie that about 5 people saw deserve a Best Picture award? I mean, if the movie is so good, why wasn’t it seen by more than the families of those involved in making the film?
(I’m being semi-sarcastic here as I’m one of the 5 people who saw and loved The Hurt Locker, but I really think that public popularity has to count for something when they hand out these awards.)
I really like the Avatar internet divide. The internet is overwhelmingly negative over this film – if it’s discussed on forums all you get is ‘oh it ripped this off, oh it’s crap except for the special effects’, but critics love it, the rest of the world loves it, and it is such an enormous crowd pleaser that people are coming back to theaters not once, but multiple times. This movie really puts into perspective how little we internet people really have to say.
I mean, didn’t we all think that by now everyone was on the internet? The opinion of the internet was the opinion of the world? Blogs are the new newspapers, after all. The whole iPhone generation thing. Sure, Snakes on a Plane getting huge buzz on the internet but completely bombing at the box office was a hit to our collective internet ego, but that’s ancient history in internet land by now! But a film the internet is so extremely derisive of (Thundersmurfs! Pocahontas in Space! Jake Sully’s gone with the low gravity wind!) winning prestigious award after award? Breaking all records ever, becoming the (unadjusted) highest grossing film of all time? And hearing every person who doesn’t spend their entire life on the internet just rave on and on about this film?
The internet may still be the future, but we obviously aren’t there yet by a long shot whatever the pundits may say.
Anyway, personally I’m rooting for Up, but I’m biased by nature of trade (I’m an animator).
Obviously, I have a vested interest in this – so I might be a little biased – but I STRONGLY disagree that the internet doesn’t matter when it comes to critical reaction to a film and I think you are simplifying your examples to make your point.
The internet is overwhelmingly negative toward Avatar? I think you know that’s not true. Yeah, people have made comparisons to Pocahantas and Fern Gully. But that’s what the internet does – it cracks wise on things. It picks things apart. That doesn’t mean that people who are critical of the film aren’t seeing it. You make it sound like there was some kind of concerted effort to sink Avatar before it got off the ground. I’ve seen no such campaigns.
Critics don’t uniformly love it, either. Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 82% fresh rating. Last I checked, that’s a solid “B,” if you were grading the film.
I think you’re also ignoring the strength of Avatar’s marketing campaign. It’s one of the most expensively produced movies of all time. If you think Fox wasn’t going to advertise the film like crazy in an effort to get their money back, you’re wrong.
If the internet was truly worthless in terms of criticism and fan reaction, why are newspapers laying off film critics left and right? Why have super hero movies suddenly emerged as a genre in the last 10 years? Why are studios exhibiting these films at comic book conventions and fear the backlash of the internet? Because it’s all word of mouth – the most valuable form of advertising there is.
At this point, I’m not even arguing Avatar’s quality. I’m speaking purely of the internet as a communications tool. And I think you’re wrong to assume that Avatar’s success in the face of internet criticism means it’s irrelevant.
The reason Avatar is only rated at 82% on RT is because a lot of critics (and I use that term loosely!) just have to be different than others. They view themselves as too superior for such a mainstream movie; they went into the theater with the preconceived notion that they wouldn’t like it. And also, they think it’s really ‘cool’ to go against arguably the most-hyped movie ever.
I certainly understand people that say the movie is a B or C (acting, story, originality, etc), but to give a flat-out thumbs down to Avatar is simply ridiculous. Those that do are trying to make a point. A stupid and retarded point, but a point nonetheless.
Damn, so much talk about Avatar this week; I have to watch it again! That’s it, I’m watching it again this weekend. 🙂
Are you serious? You really think the ONLY reason a critic would go against Avatar is to be a contrarian? Avatar is so thoroughly flawless, there’s no room for a difference in opinion?
I’m sorry, man. But at this point you’re not just drinking the Kool-Aid. You’re swimming in it.
So you’re telling me that someone could honestly say that they disliked Avatar to the point where it’s a waste of time? That there’s nothing worthwhile about it at all?
Pretty much the only thing bad people say about it is that it’s not very original and that some characters could be developped more. I’m sorry, but that’s just not enough to give it a flat out thumbs down. Remember, Rotten Tomatoes is all about thumbs up and thumbs down, not an actual average of the ratings each critic gave a movie. It’s the percentage of critics who gave a thumbs up to a movie.
Let’s go over a few of the negative reviews on RT:
“…a big, dumb movie built to make money but hardly worthy of serious examination. Avatar isn’t only critic-proof, it resists serious criticism. You might as well analyze a beach ball. ”
“Avatar is overlong, dramatically two-dimensional, smug and simplistic. ”
“Avatar is a phenomenon you can’t ignore, monumentally imposing and done with extraordinary expertise – but the same could be said of the Dubai skyline, and I’m not sure that represents any future worth investing in. ”
“But everything about the story, the setting, the dialog, and the parts that aren’t purely visual is awful. ”
“It’s a remote-control movie experience, a high-tech “wish you were here” scribbled on a very expensive postcard. ”
“big dumb movie”, really? “awful”, really? And since when does money have to do anything when reviewing a movie? Come on… Way to be credible, “critics”. And besides, if you switch to “Top Critics”, Avatar gets a 94% rating, which makes a LOT more sense than the overall rating that’s lowered by these wannabe critics.
The only way someone can give a flat out thumbs down to Avatar is because they’re somehow jealous, have to be anti-populist, or just plain crazy. Actual critics are smart enough to realize that despite its flaws, Avatar more than makes up for them in many other areas.
No disrespect, Andre, but I’m not even going to bother reading those quotes. I think you’ve already demonstrated your research skills maybe aren’t the best. 🙂
We’re starting to talk in absolutes. We’re getting away from the original discussion – which was “Avatar is a good film, but is it really Oscar worthy?”
Personally, I think Avatar is event filmmaking at its best. Even if it were terrible, you should probably still see it just to be a part of the communal experience we actually go to the movies for.
Does that make it a great movie? No. Do I understand why a critic might give it a thumbs down based on its bloated run time, unoriginal plot and flat performances. I totally get it. I don’t think a critic would give Avatar a thumbs down strictly to combat the hype, but I think that could be a factor. The elements of the film that don’t work support that argument. Calling them “jealous,” “anti-populist” or “just plain crazy” isn’t debating the film based on its merits. It’s name-calling.
To some critics, plot, pacing and characterization is more important than hype or visual “wow.” If you’re really into special effects, I think Avatar is the film to beat. If you go to the movies to, y’know, feel something or have your horizons broadened… there are better films out there for that. Avatar lacks emotional sincerity and its plot hits a lot of the same notes we’ve heard before in better films.
Like someone said earlier, the effects will only be impressive until the Next Big Thing comes along. But if the story doesn’t hold up, it doesn’t make for a very resonant experience.
Andre,
Without a doubt, I can tell you that ultimately, while the visuals were amazing, I’d gladly give up seeing the movie once to see something with a better story. Spider-man 2, for example. Or better yet? Pixar’s UP.
Now, does that make me anti-populist? Heavens no. I usually love popular films. And again, Avatar was ‘okay’. But really, if i can be honest, and i’m gonna be blunt here, it was a like a giant ‘fuck you’ after years and years of hype and promise of something extrodinary, and while that is sorta true visually, I feel gipped. After years of Cameron promsing us something amazing, I was expecting something of T2-or True Lies-like level of awesome. It’s almost like he saw his own films and went “this is not the type of movie I wanna try to make, you know, original, and really friggin good.”
I agree with critics who say it was a dumb movie. Does that make me jealous? Andre, while I’d ‘love’ to be in Hollywood, trust me, making a film like Avatar would be the farthest thing I’d wanna do. Why? because i’d want to be like Billy Wilder or Steven Spielberg(sp?) and make a GOOD movie. A RESPECTED movie. A movie years from now I can look back on and go, I really liked that picture, not just one that ‘pushed the envelope visually’.
So yeah, every review you quoted? I agree 100% with. I’m not a Luddite, I’m not jealous, anti-populist or plain crazy. I just prefer good movies or ‘films’. (there is a distinction, really, if you think about it.)
“its bloated run time”?
I completely disagree with you there. Most of the time, I can’t wait for the typical 90 minute movies to end so that I can stretch my legs and get fresh air. With Avatar, I could have stayed there another hour or two, for sure. I felt the pacing was excellent as it never left up the whole time, getting us more and more involved in Jakesully’s transformation. I’d bet Cameron had to cut out at least an hour of quality material in order to come in under 3 hours. There wasn’t a single minute wasted I thought.
More than anything, I feel as though most people who say they didn’t enjoy Avatar went in with that mindset already made up. That’s usually the case. People pre-condition themselves to hate something when there’s too much hype. They just can’t accept the fact that something so hyped can come close to matching all of the hype.
What do you make of the fact that Avatar gets a 94% rating amongst “Top Critics” while it only gets 82% overall? Doesn’t that tell you that less than respected critics felt the need to shout loud and clear that they think of themselves as being smarter than the rest of the population and thus hated Avatar? That’s exactly what it tells me.
There were three movies who left strong impressions on me this year: Avatar (obviously ;)), The Hurt Locker and District 9. The great thing about this year’s Oscars is that there is a good chance that a movie I loved wins Best Picture; it’s been a while since that happened!
You’re right about the Tomatometer. I have to admit that I always look at the top critics thing on Rotten Tomatoes, because I trust the regular one about as much as I trust IMDb ratings, and it has a far higher rating there. And yes, I’ve seen plenty of people actively trying to sink Avatar, or hoping it would. AICN, for example, had talkbacks where people were boycotting this film since before the first poster even came out. IMDb is filled with people chastising everyone else for even seeing this movie. The silent majority on the internet may like it, but almost everyone who blogs, twitters or anything seems to hate the hell out of it.
Anyway, I didn’t mean any offense with it, but I honestly think that the internet’s worth when it comes to promoting or sinking something is completely overstated in the media. Like I said, most of the internet is a silent minority, so if anything gets a lot of press (good or bad) on the internet it still doesn’t mean anything. And this is coming from a person who spends almost all his time hanging out on it typing crap about movies and video games. Sure, papers have been laying off critics, but they’ve also been laying off almost everything else. People are reading less papers, but honestly, that’s a trend since the advent of television and the internet barely made a dent to a continuing trend.
I also have to disagree with you on Avatar’s plot. It’s not original, I have to give you that. But that doesn’t make it a bad plot, and it resonated plenty with me and a lot of people. If anything, it reminded me why cliches exist – because they were originally things that worked well. Also, if you never want to see anything you’ve seen before, why ever watch a film twice?
I honestly don’t understand why there is such a hangup about it having an unoriginal plot anyway. Star Wars was about the naive farmboy saving the princess from the black knight’s fortress! That movie was all about special effects and stealing from old sci-fi serials. I love me some Star Wars, but if it’s fine for that to be a phenomenon then it’s fine for Avatar. Not only that, but how many blockbusters are made these days that aren’t based on books or comics or TV shows or are remakes or sequels or prequels? All that “recycled stories are garbage”, “it’ll be forgotten in five years” and “It’ll be passed over for the next big thing”? That’s just not true no matter how many times anyone types it.
Andre, no offense, but you sound like an “Avatar” fan boy.
Box office does not indicate the quality of a film. So what if only five people saw a film? If the film is well made, has a great story, great acting and editing, then yes, it deserves an Oscar, or to at least be nominated.
And Jason, I agree with everything you said in your last post. I couldn’t have said it better……
I never said the box office indicates the quality of a film, see Transformers 2 as a proof. But when a movie remains #1 at the box office for 2 months with no signs of letting up, shouldn’t that count for something? Not count for everything, but count for something.
And by your own criterias, films like Beauty and the Beast and Up couldn’t even be nominated. Acting? What acting? They’re completely animated!
There has to be more to a movie than grading it based on 4-5 criterias, don’t you think? That could easily lead you to “The sum of its parts is greater than the whole”. I’d rather take a look at the whole thing… “Sure it had flaws, but the movie was great regardless of those flaws!”
I will say one last time that I really do think that The Hurt Locker will win, and I have no problems with this; up until I saw Avatar, it was my favorite movie of the year with District 9 real close behind.
That’s it. I’m done on this topic. 😉
That might be best for all of us.
I think we’re starting to talk in circles now.