Oscars 2009

[ZB9]

Re: Oscars 2009

I can see Hurt Locker winning Best Picture. That makes sense...but Avatar should have won Best Director as well as every other award it was nominated for

[aholbert32]

Re: Oscars 2009

I thought it was the 10th best film of the ten movies nominated for best picture.

And yes, I watched all of the nominees.

Does that mean I thought the movie was horrible? No.

It was 8th out of the 9 I've seen. I think it was better than the Blind Side and I havent seen "A Serious Man".

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Oscars 2009

A Serious Man was god awful.

[CMH]

Re: Oscars 2009

It was 8th out of the 9 I've seen. I think it was better than the Blind Side and I havent seen "A Serious Man".

A Serious Man was god awful.

I agree that this is where it gets a bit tough for me as well.

I've gone back and forth a bit with Avatar, The Blind Side and A Serious Man.

Hurt Locker is my number one. From there I can't really choose between District 9, Up and Inglorious Basterds (they are all great for their respective genres and one day I like animation more while others I like sci-fi). Then I have Up In The Air with Precious and An Education battling it out for 6th and 7th.

Right now, I like Blind Side 8th and A Serious Man 9th, but Avatar does offer a few things that A Serious Man does not so I guess I could say it was the 9th or 10th best film in the category. There are things about A Serious Man that I connected with despite not being Jewish.

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Oscars 2009

Yeah, ASM had alot of good disjointed scenes, but when you put them together it really did not feel like a wonderful or even arguably good movie. The beginning had absolutely nothing to do with anything and the Coehn bros were quoted as saying it was there just for "tone." If that isn't pretentious enough, the ending was equally as lame. In between the first and last scene were some interesting moments but did it just not feel coherent enough to warrant anything special IMO.

[JayBee74]

Re: Oscars 2009

Politics won. Sandra Bullock from The Blind Side, lol! That was like a glorified Disney movie. She was nothing special at all. I thought it was ridiculous she was even nominated. I would have given it to Helen Miren.

I'm a little naive-what politics were involved in giving Bullock the Oscar, and why did she haul in the Golden Globe and Screen Actor Guild awards as well? All three bodies were involved in a conspiracy to give their highest honor to a mediocre performance?

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Oscars 2009

I'm a little naive-what politics were involved in giving Bullock the Oscar, and why did she haul in the Golden Globe and Screen Actor Guild awards as well? All three bodies were involved in a conspiracy to give their highest honor to a mediocre performance?

Being as her performance was not Oscar worthy, I have to think other factors came in to play. Its better that than a bunch of organizations making horrible decisions.

[aholbert32]

Re: Oscars 2009

Being as her performance was not Oscar worthy, I have to think other factors came in to play. Its better that than a bunch of organizations making horrible decisions.

I thought it was nomination worthy but as with every other Oscar win timing had the most to do with it. Streep in Julie and Julia was good but not good enough to win, Mirren won a few years ago, Mulligan was too new (I loved he in this role and thought she should win). Same goes with Sibibe for Precious. So that leaves Sandra Bullock.

It always happens this way. Denzel lost for Malcolm X and The Hurricane but won for Training Day (His worst performance out of the 3). Shoot he wouldnt have won for Training Day if Russel Crowe wasnt going nuts and making a fool of himself during previous award speeches during that year's award season (Crowe won the Golden Globe and SAG awards for A Beautiful Mind that year). Same thing happened to Scorcese and Pacino. Its more about timing then performance.

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Oscars 2009

I thought it was nomination worthy but as with every other Oscar win timing had the most to do with it. Streep in Julie and Julia was good but not good enough to win, Mirren won a few years ago, Mulligan was too new (I loved he in this role and thought she should win). Same goes with Sibibe for Precious. So that leaves Sandra Bullock.

It always happens this way. Denzel lost for Malcolm X and The Hurricane but won for Training Day (His worst performance out of the 3). Shoot he wouldnt have won for Training Day if Russel Crowe wasnt going nuts and making a fool of himself during previous award speeches during that year's award season (Crowe won the Golden Globe and SAG awards for A Beautiful Mind that year). Same thing happened to Scorcese and Pacino. Its more about timing then performance.

Yeah, it was politics. Likely the same reason Hurt Locker director won.

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Oscars 2009

I can see Hurt Locker winning Best Picture. That makes sense...but Avatar should have won Best Director as well as every other award it was nominated for

Agreed. Best Picture to me is simply the best film period. I can see why Hurt Locker would be chosen over something like Avatar even though Avatar will be considered a technological standard/masterpiece for years to come. Sort of like how Wizard of Oz lost back in the day to Gone with the Wind. GWTW might perhaps be the better picture, but Wizard of Oz is the thing still getting airtime all over the place today.

Noone at the awards embodied the dedication/genius/desire/skills necessary to be a director more than James Cameron. Not only did he envision the entire premise and the movie himself (he wrote the screenplay to the film), he spent years creating a new technology, working and directing his actors in ways never done so before (see the video someone posted awhile back chronicling the filming process of Avatar) and put in the manpower and genius necessary to deliver the most successful film of all time. But even he knew he wouldn't win on Sunday. He was quoted as saying it would make a better story to give it to his ex weeks before the Oscars.

[Bellsprout]

Re: Oscars 2009

I think we should all know by now that if the Academy gets the chance to make history, they're going to do it. Bigelow was good enough to be nominated, and once that happened nobody else had a shot because of the history she would make.

[aholbert32]

Re: Oscars 2009

Yeah, it was politics. Likely the same reason Hurt Locker director won.

Politics is the wrong word. Like I said, its more timing. Was Cameron's directing better than the Bigelow's?....maybe. Was it extremely better? No. So if I'm a member of the Academy and I cant decide whether to vote for Bigelow or Cameron, I'm going to take into account that Cameron won for Titantic and probably vote for Bigelow. If Cameron never won an Oscar, he would have won that category easily.

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Oscars 2009

Politics is the wrong word. Like I said, its more timing. Was Cameron's directing better than the Bigelow's?....maybe. Was it extremely better? No. So if I'm a member of the Academy and I cant decide whether to vote for Bigelow or Cameron, I'm going to take into account that Cameron won for Titantic and probably vote for Bigelow. If Cameron never won an Oscar, he would have won that category easily.

I mean it was a strategy of maneuvering not based upon merit.

[Blzer]

Re: Oscars 2009

I can see why Hurt Locker would be chosen over something like Avatar even though Avatar will be considered a technological standard/masterpiece for years to come.

See, here's where I think your opinion on the matter is flawed, though you're not the only person to share these sentiments. You see, Avatar has an unoriginal story. I think that both you and I can agree on that point. Without the technical aspect, it's nothing worth mentioning. That's of course taking out 90% of the movie, so I can't just say that (much like saying without Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight is nothing... though I would disagree on that point).

What I'm saying is that Avatar is groundbreaking, yes. But how will it stand apart from the next movie that does this in five years? Think that five years ago, King Kong was "this" movie. Granted, I feel that story had a bit more originality (in terms of the subtext, not the redone concept) compared to that of other modern day movies, and in which case I think it will stand the test of time a little more than Avatar will. Think about it... when the next great special effects movie comes, what will Avatar have to hold it in higher regard, or at least consider it as a classic, to this next movie? The Dark Knight will still have something, The Matrix will still have something, King Kong will still have a little something... but Avatar is nothing more than a bare-bones effects spectacle. Because of this, I don't see how it can be any more groundbreaking than the next movie that just ups the ante. Outside of the director's name and the box office numbers (greatly impacted by the director's name), this movie should be forgotten.

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Oscars 2009

See, here's where I think your opinion on the matter is flawed, though you're not the only person to share these sentiments. You see, Avatar has an unoriginal story. I think that both you and I can agree on that point. Without the technical aspect, it's nothing worth mentioning. That's of course taking out 90% of the movie, so I can't just say that (much like saying without Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight is nothing... though I would disagree on that point).

What I'm saying is that Avatar is groundbreaking, yes. But how will it stand apart from the next movie that does this in five years? Think that five years ago, King Kong was "this" movie. Granted, I feel that story had a bit more originality (in terms of the subtext, not the redone concept) compared to that of other modern day movies, and in which case I think it will stand the test of time a little more than Avatar will. Think about it... when the next great special effects movie comes, what will Avatar have to hold it in higher regard, or at least consider it as a classic, to this next movie? The Dark Knight will still have something, The Matrix will still have something, King Kong will still have a little something... but Avatar is nothing more than a bare-bones effects spectacle. Because of this, I don't see how it can be any more groundbreaking than the next movie that just ups the ante. Outside of the director's name and the box office numbers (greatly impacted by the director's name), this movie should be forgotten.

I disagree with the people that say Avatar is nothing but special effects. The basic story while based around a done before premise was still wonderfully creative in many different aspects. The world was more fully realized than perhaps anything before it, the characters were memorable/believable, and concept of living life through an avatar is based very much in science (read numerous articles chronicling how experts predict such a thing might occur in the future). Above all these pieces worked to make a great science fiction premise. What set it over the top was this combined with a new realm of 3d animation worked in a way that delivered an experience that is simply unprecedented and is a game changing movie that will make people reconsider the utilization of 3d technology and its ability to truly enhance the art of motion picture.

The film simply is groundbreaking and innovative production that succeeds as an art piece. Jim Cameron is a master at mixing technology and story and is perhaps the greatest sci fi director of all time. Avatar is simply a game changer. The Dark Night, King Kong, all those you mentioned sans the Matrix are not.