|
The 82nd Academy Awards
Member Since: 11/7/2009
Posts: 9,863
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Celestial
Avatar is not a ****** film. It will be classified as a Blockbuster, but Avatar was unlike every other Blockbuster film at the Box Office. They always have massive opening weekends, and then its downhill from there. Avatar had a mediocre opening to say the least. Some people went as far as saying it was a flop... It has very small drops week on week throughout its run, hence it has become the highest grossing film. It did so through positive public reaction, it captivated the general populace.
The Oscars are Elitist, you might admire that they make their choices independent from public influence but I don't. The reality is that they don't give a **** about what normal people think, after all the Academy are far superior to regular folk.
For an event that is highly concerned about their Ratings, they aren't going to attract many viewers by honouring movies that the viewers have never seen.
|
The Oscars this year attracted 41.6 million viewers in the USA, 5 million more than last year (maybe cause of the Avatar buzz), but overall in the past year, it ranged on 35 ~ 40 million, although in 2008 it was 31 million, it's still an attractive award show and they are not so concerned about ratings like the Grammys have been and many other music awards....
The Oscars and the Academy would lose it's credibility on awarding every mainstream movie that had outstanding performance in box office (just like the Grammys have been losing or many awards, specially music awards, that have been putting many categories onto popular voting).
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/10/2009
Posts: 1,291
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Celestial
Avatar is not a ****** film. It will be classified as a Blockbuster, but Avatar was unlike every other Blockbuster film at the Box Office. They always have massive opening weekends, and then its downhill from there. Avatar had a mediocre opening to say the least. Some people went as far as saying it was a flop... It has very small drops week on week throughout its run, hence it has become the highest grossing film. It did so through positive public reaction, it captivated the general populace.
The Oscars are Elitist, you might admire that they make their choices independent from public influence but I don't. The reality is that they don't give a **** about what normal people think, after all the Academy are far superior to regular folk.
For an event that is highly concerned about their Ratings, they aren't going to attract many viewers by honouring movies that the viewers have never seen.
|
I think you're confused. Being a blockbuster does not improve the quality of the film, I couldn't care less about the how much the film made. What makes it a good, or even a great film outside of the effects?
I don't either. The general public to is too simple-minded and too easily satisfied to be given that much an influence over the Oscars. It would look more like the MTV Movie Awards if they did so with Avatar and Twilight/New Moon sweeping just because people liked it enough to see three or four times when in truth those are poor films. They last thing they need or want is to lose credibility.
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 2/19/2003
Posts: 34,484
|
Actual DISCUSSIONS? On ATRL?!?!?
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/24/2008
Posts: 14,256
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BabyImAStar
I think you're confused. Being a blockbuster does not improve the quality of the film, I couldn't care less about the how much the film made. What makes it a good, or even a great film outside of the effects?
I don't either. The general public to is too simple-minded and too easily satisfied to be given that much an influence over the Oscars. It would look more like the MTV Movie Awards if they did so with Avatar and Twilight/New Moon sweeping just because people liked it enough to see three or four times when in truth those are poor films. They last thing they need or want is to lose credibility.
|
I never said that being a Blockbuster improves the quality of a film. They make the most money, but usually the storyline is weak, and they are heavily dependent of effects. Avatar was different from the majority of Blockbuster because it appealed to a wide range of people. Nearly everyone I know thought it was a very good movie, and the majority of people who liked it thought it would be the usual over hyped tripe that Hollywood releases. I for one liked the storyline of Avatar, it really highlighted the ignorance of Human Nature. We are exploitative, we take whatever we want and don't give a **** about the consequences. Ironically the films 'savages' (as the colonel referred to them) were far more advanced and intelligent than the supposed civilised humans. I liked that the Na'Vi appreciated the world around them, there was balance, harmony. I believe in the Gaia Theory so that struck a cord with me.Being a Blockbuster is never a good thing when it comes to the Oscars.
New Moon may have been popular but nobody expects it to win an Oscar. It has a very low average on imdb, Avatar has 8.5 after over 200,000 votes. I've seen the Hurt Locker, but the messages in that film are very subtle. I'm sure that many people of lesser intelligence will watch it and be entirely clueless as to what differs it to every other film that contains warfare at its heart.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/24/2008
Posts: 14,256
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vini
The Oscars this year attracted 41.6 million viewers in the USA, 5 million more than last year (maybe cause of the Avatar buzz), but overall in the past year, it ranged on 35 ~ 40 million, although in 2008 it was 31 million, it's still an attractive award show and they are not so concerned about ratings like the Grammys have been and many other music awards....
The Oscars and the Academy would lose it's credibility on awarding every mainstream movie that had outstanding performance in box office (just like the Grammys have been losing or many awards, specially music awards, that have been putting many categories onto popular voting).
|
Of course I agree, I don't want them to award films on the basis of their Box Office popularity if the quality isn't there to back it up. Avatar has had a lot of critical acclaim, hence it was nominated for so many awards. We havn't had a movie that has created as large an impact as this in Years, both in terms of public awareness, and the changes that the huge success of this film will bring to the movie industry. IMO the fairest option would have been to award Avatar with Best Picture, and Kathryn Bigelow with Best Director.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/1/2007
Posts: 15,659
|
You're acting like AVATAR is a bad film. It was LOOOOVED by the same critics that loved The Hurt Locker.
AVATAR hate appeared out of nowhere and stayed
Quote:
Originally posted by Celestial
I never said that being a Blockbuster improves the quality of a film. They make the most money, but usually the storyline is weak, and they are heavily dependent of effects. Avatar was different from the majority of Blockbuster because it appealed to a wide range of people. Nearly everyone I know thought it was a very good movie, and the majority of people who liked it thought it would be the usual over hyped tripe that Hollywood releases. I for one liked the storyline of Avatar, it really highlighted the ignorance of Human Nature. We are exploitative, we take whatever we want and don't give a **** about the consequences. Ironically the films 'savages' (as the colonel referred to them) were far more advanced and intelligent than the supposed civilised humans. I liked that the Na'Vi appreciated the world around them, there was balance, harmony. I believe in the Gaia Theory so that struck a cord with me.Being a Blockbuster is never a good thing when it comes to the Oscars. .
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/23/2007
Posts: 16,416
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Raguabros
I think the award should be given to the BEST performance, objectively the BEST performance out of the nominees, not just because they're new, not just because the actors that performed are loved... The Mo'Nique situation demonstrates it, it shouldn't be a politically correct win. It should be a win based on the quality of the performance.
|
You can't compare the best supporting actress category to the best actress one. In the first one, newcomers are perfectly welcomed, while in the second one you have to have a career and a great year to deserve it, be popular, etc. That's why Carey and Sidibe didn't win.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2010
Posts: 21,811
|
How many viewers did this year Grammy have?
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/7/2009
Posts: 9,863
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dancefloor
You can't compare the best supporting actress category to the best actress one. In the first one, newcomers are perfectly welcomed, while in the second one you have to have a career and a great year to deserve it, be popular, etc. That's why Carey and Sidibe didn't win.
|
Such a mistake. So wrong.
The Best Actress/Actor category is actually Best Actress/Actor IN A LEADING ROLE and the Best Supporting Actress/Actor is actually Best Actress/Actor IN A SUPPORTING ROLE. It depends on which role you took in the movie, not if you are a newcomer. So, Meryl Streep last year was nominated for Best Supporting Actress, but she was one with established career and popularity yet she didn't win cause she didn't give the best performance out of the other nominated, or at least not according to the voters, she wouldn't be nominated for Best Actress just because she's an established actress, she was in that category cause she played a supporting role in the movie...
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2008
Posts: 5,798
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Raguabros
Have you not read the arguments in the thread?
|
Most of them. Im talking to those who said Sandra didnt deserve it. I agree meryl is a great actrss a legend but Sandra is great 2 and deserved to win as well as the rest of the nominees. Im not trying to cause a fight im just stating an opinion
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/10/2009
Posts: 1,291
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Celestial
I never said that being a Blockbuster improves the quality of a film. They make the most money, but usually the storyline is weak, and they are heavily dependent of effects. Avatar was different from the majority of Blockbuster because it appealed to a wide range of people. Nearly everyone I know thought it was a very good movie, and the majority of people who liked it thought it would be the usual over hyped tripe that Hollywood releases. I for one liked the storyline of Avatar, it really highlighted the ignorance of Human Nature. We are exploitative, we take whatever we want and don't give a **** about the consequences. Ironically the films 'savages' (as the colonel referred to them) were far more advanced and intelligent than the supposed civilised humans. I liked that the Na'Vi appreciated the world around them, there was balance, harmony. I believe in the Gaia Theory so that struck a cord with me.Being a Blockbuster is never a good thing when it comes to the Oscars.
New Moon may have been popular but nobody expects it to win an Oscar. It has a very low average on imdb, Avatar has 8.5 after over 200,000 votes. I've seen the Hurt Locker, but the messages in that film are very subtle. I'm sure that many people of lesser intelligence will watch it and be entirely clueless as to what differs it to every other film that contains warfare at its heart.
|
You certainly were making that out to be by saying it wasn't ****** film and then going into how much it sold as if that was supposed to be a valid point. Not once did you go into what makes a great film, so yes you were saying that.
The storyline in Avatar was weak, but no one realizes that because they were fed the sugary effects. That's why it appealed to so many people because it was visually beautiful and the environment was very well thought out. But it was overly preachy (The Hurt Locker is not nearly as preachy) using the same message that other films have used (which I understood the first thirteen minutes of the film, Wall-E had a better environmentalist message), the plot was very cliche and predictable, plus I hate the Mighty Whitey Trope (just as much as I hate the Magical Negro plot device) . I don't even want to go into the Deus ex Machina at the end. He could have at least executed well or better than those that's been done before it, instead of letting it fall behind in its shadows. The Lion King in it's Hamlet-esque plot is an example of how well it something like that can be done. Of course he knew that everyone would fall in love with effects that he could make up for it. The only themes I liked in whole is how humans repeat the same mistakes and the corporate greed. And it won in what exactly what he should have, he's always been great in those things. James Cameron has done far better with The Terminator 1 and 2, and Aliens, and they were phenomenal. The Hurt Locker was one of the better films especially for an action film, it was well-acted, very well shot, and I see why it won Best Picture and Best Director.
But many people (namely girls) thought it was a good film and think it's deserving of an Oscar and they are regular folk.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/24/2008
Posts: 14,256
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BabyImAStar
You certainly were making that out to be by saying it wasn't ****** film and then going into how much it sold as if that was supposed to be a valid point. Not once did you go into what makes a great film, so yes you were saying that.
The storyline in Avatar was weak, but no one realizes that because they were fed the sugary effects. That's why it appealed to so many people because it was visually beautiful and the environment was very well thought out. But it was overly preachy (The Hurt Locker is not nearly as preachy) using the same message that other films have used (which I understood the first thirteen minutes of the film, Wall-E had a better environmentalist message), the plot was very cliche and predictable, plus I hate the Mighty Whitey Trope (just as much as I hate the Magical Negro plot device) . I don't even want to go into the Deus ex Machina at the end. He could have at least executed well or better than those that's been done before it, instead of letting it fall behind in its shadows. The Lion King in it's Hamlet-esque plot is an example of how well it something like that can be done. Of course he knew that everyone would fall in love with effects that he could make up for it. The only themes I liked in whole is how humans repeat the same mistakes and the corporate greed. And it won in what exactly what he should have, he's always been great in those things. James Cameron has done far better with The Terminator 1 and 2, and Aliens, and they were phenomenal. The Hurt Locker was one of the better films especially for an action film, it was well-acted, very well shot, and I see why it won Best Picture and Best Director.
But many people (namely girls) thought it was a good film and think it's deserving of an Oscar and they are regular folk.
|
That is a valid point. If the film was not so well received by both fans and critics alike then it would not have performed as well as it did. I've already mentioned that, so I shan't go into it again. What makes a great film? That cannot be defined, but for me a great film is one that gets me to question things and make me more open minded. I always feel that Movies can be influential if they are done right, and IMO Avatar was. They have the power to change people, even if that change is only short-lived. I agree that it was predictable, but nearly every film I see is to one point or another. Originality does not exist, ideas are constantly recycled, but that doesn't make them any less potent.
I love the bit at the end of your post btw, what would stupid girls know
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/24/2008
Posts: 14,256
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Raguabros
You're acting like AVATAR is a bad film. It was LOOOOVED by the same critics that loved The Hurt Locker.
AVATAR hate appeared out of nowhere and stayed
|
Someone who agrees with me
Thanks Raguabros
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/23/2007
Posts: 16,416
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vini
Such a mistake. So wrong.
The Best Actress/Actor category is actually Best Actress/Actor IN A LEADING ROLE and the Best Supporting Actress/Actor is actually Best Actress/Actor IN A SUPPORTING ROLE. It depends on which role you took in the movie, not if you are a newcomer. So, Meryl Streep last year was nominated for Best Supporting Actress, but she was one with established career and popularity yet she didn't win cause she didn't give the best performance out of the other nominated, or at least not according to the voters, she wouldn't be nominated for Best Actress just because she's an established actress, she was in that category cause she played a supporting role in the movie...
|
I MEANT... no matter if an actor with a 40-year-old career is nominated in the best actress in a supporting role against a newcomer, the chances of a newcomer to win are high, just as much as the one with experience. However, in the LEADING ROLES newcomers may be nominated against people with long careers, and even do a better performance, but still their chances are not that high because the leading role tends to go to people that has been in the business, not newcomers or young people, that's why Gabby and Carey didn't stand a chance.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/10/2009
Posts: 1,291
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Celestial
That is a valid point. If the film was not so well received by both fans and critics alike then it would not have performed as well as it did. I've already mentioned that, so I shan't go into it again. What makes a great film? That cannot be defined, but for me a great film is one that gets me to question things and make me more open minded. I always feel that Movies can be influential if they are done right, and IMO Avatar was. They have the power to change people, even if that change is only short-lived. I agree that it was predictable, but nearly every film I see is to one point or another. Originality does not exist, ideas are constantly recycled, but that doesn't make them any less potent.
I love the bit at the end of your post btw, what would stupid girls know
|
No it isn't. The quality of film should never be determined by how much it has made nor should it be a deciding factor. There have been a lot of films that have done well as the Box Office that have lacked in quality only to be received well by fans and critics.
It can't be defined because a lot of things go into it. Great acting and great writing definitely goes into the pot, along with good themes and execution. Most of Tarantino's films comes to mind when I think of great films. He is great at casting for his movies, he has some of the best dialogue (though I do admit his writing as a whole is sometimes overdone, and I also understand why consider him overrated even though I think he's one of the better directors of today). Jackie Brown (underrated most of the time) was a wonderful homage to Blaxploitation films. Pixar films are also wonderfully done especially the way they tackle adult themes while still maintaining the appeal to the children (I hate the fact they've never won Best Picture in any of their films). I think you have to hit everything just right.
I don't mind a message just as long as it doesn't become over preachy.
I know that originality is very hard to come by today, that's why I said the execution too was poor. It's definitely not one of his better films.
|
|
|
|
|