5 Reasons Why Avatar Should Not Win Best Picture
The year 2009 was a good year for American cinema, with many laying a good chunk of the recognition at the feet of James Cameron’s sci-fi epic, Avatar. The film has been nominated for nine Academy Awards (including Best Picture and Director), eight British Academy Film Awards, and four Golden Globes. It has also received awards and nominations from over 25 different film associations, and just recently surpassed Cameron’s previous film Titanic as the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide. With such a reputable track record, you would think that it would be a shoo-in for winning Best Picture at the Oscars. Think again.
Before any of the Na’vi fanboys jump the gun, allow me to set the record straight. I loved Avatar. I was enthralled the entire 162 minutes. Did it deserve to be nominated for Best Picture? Of course. However, it doesn’t deserve to win. The ‘King of the World’’s 2009 blockbuster was the subject of fervent anticipation, just as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was. The difference was Cameron had already delivered, with his 1997 critically (and financially) successful Titanic. Michael Bay was simply an artisan of explosions, witty one-liners, and sensationalism, with a focus on financial gain. We all knew what we were in for with Bay, but we all expected something from Cameron. And besides, if you hadn’t seen Avatar within two weeks of its release, you were considered out of the loop.
Without further ado, these are the five reasons why Avatar should not win Best Picture. This is not a clear-cut Oscar prediction, but a simple conjecture regarding the buzz surrounding the film that exploded at the box office, and its place in the Best Picture category.
1. Star Wars didn’t win Best Picture
It’s no secret that Avatar employed revolutionary visual effects like, as many critics happily recall, Star Wars did back in 1977. Both are regarded as technological breakthroughs in respect to their generations, and it’s true. My father described his experience of sitting in the theater watching the original Star Wars, and it sounded remarkably similar to the experience I (and millions of others) had with Avatar. Roger Ebert called it “an event”, and that’s exactly what it was. With such a large array of similarities, it’s only expected that Avatar be nominated for Best Picture, just as Star Wars was. Viewers should note, however, that the film lost to Annie Hall that year for the Oscars’ top award. It’s easy to assume that the same will happen with Avatar.
Now that’s not to say the two films are one in the same. They’re not. But we should be open to looking at this year’s Academy Awards with a historical frame of reference in mind. Take the 1975 Academy Awards for example. Jaws was up for the Best Picture grab that year, but lost to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Majority of us know that Jaws is more of a visually sustaining crowd-pleaser than Cuckoo’s Nest, but Cuckoo’s Nest is an all-around better movie than Jaws. The same thing applies when comparing Star Wars and Annie Hall, as well as Avatar and a number of other Best Picture contenders this year. The bottom line? Traditional movie elements and substance over pretty images and on-screen surreality, which brings up my next point.
2. Lacks traditional story elements
It’s common knowledge that plot, character interaction, theme, and overall emotional strength is paramount in defining a film’s caliber. Visuals aren’t everything, and I fear a good bit of Avatar’s recognition is being produced solely on that, and that alone. Don’t get me wrong, director James Cameron’s use of new motion-capture animation technology is impressive, and the pictures created were beautiful on the silver screen. But the audience was captivated by images, not characters. That’s not to say the images weren’t extraordinary, but we’re supposed to be drawn to the protagonist, not the technology.
Avatar is a milestone in a fair number of ways. But when it comes to story, character, and what used to make a good movie, it’s just the same old blockbuster.
3. Concept can be attributed to Pocahontas
You’ve probably read this somewhere already. A good bit of Avatar’s detractors are claiming the film takes a lot of its storyline from other movies. You know how it goes: guy meets girl, both fall in love, men want to destroy girl’s home, guy turns native, guy fights on girl’s side. Many are calling the film’s script a deliberate rip-off. Now I don’t know about that, as I’m sure the concept can’t be that story-specific, however, Avatar’s plot looks strangely similar to that of Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas. Take a look at this rendition of the Pocahontas script. It pulls no punches, yeah, but it’s funny nonetheless. Many fingers have also been pointing to Poul Anderson’s 1957 novella Call Me Joe, which many have claimed to be the source of Cameron’s 2009 blockbuster. Check out a plot synopsis of Call Me Joe:
“Call Me Joe centers on a paraplegic – Ed Anglesey – who telepathically connects with an artificially created life form in order to explore a harsh planet (in this case, Jupiter). Anglesey revels in the freedom and strength of his artificial created body, battles predators on the surface of Jupiter, and gradually goes native as he spends more time connected to his artificial body.”
Vaguely familiar, yes? You decide. This is also not the first time Cameron has been accused of plagiarizing other material. When he released The Terminator, writer Harlan Ellison “sued the production company claiming the ideas were already in a couple of Outer Limits episodes. The matter was settled out of court, and Ellison got (and still has) a credit on The Terminator.” Although only a few suspect Cameron of plagiarizing other works, it might be something the Academy should consider.
4. Political and religious controversy
Sure, this may be overshadowed by the film’s groundbreaking visual effects and monumental influence, but the Academy may shy away from Avatar because of the political and religious controversy surrounding it. You may remember when the Vatican newspaper and radio station disparaged the movie for its depiction of nature worship, saying that nature appreciation is important, but shouldn’t take the place of religion. But that’s not all the criticism Avatar has been subject to. Armond White of the New York Press wrote that James Cameron “misrepresents the facts of militarism, capitalism, imperialism”, and that the imagery in Avatar “implies that the World Trade Center was also an altar (of U.S. capitalism), yet this berserk analogy exposes Cameron’s contradictory thinking.” White, in conclusion, adds “Cameron offers sci-fi dazzle, yet bungles the good part: the meaning.”
Although many doubt such a thing, a healthy amount of people believe the Academy avoids controversy at all costs, snubbing praiseworthy films for much ’safer’ ones. If you’re calling me crazy, read this article by our good friends over at In Contention. Penned back in 2008, the feature provides insight into why the Academy might fear controversy. Who would want to place a high honor at the feet of something that caused so much conflict? If this is the case, Avatar may not fit the mold for Best Picture. Besides, if such a film caused such a fuss, does it even deserve the Oscars’ top award? Something to think about.
5. Up against films that are infinitely more canny
Let’s be honest, Avatar is not the best out of all the Best Picture nominees. Although it enjoyed a fair amount of critical acclaim, it doesn’t stand a chance against much stronger films. The Hurt Locker, for example, was bleeding raw and gritty. The drama was real, none of it overdressed by music or sensationalism. Inglourious Basterds, however quirky and eccentric, is an expedient addition to the Tarantino filmography. The film’s quixotic director altered history to his own liking, and we loved it. The Best Picture category is littered with phenomenal entries this year, a good number of which trump Avatar in all aspects except one. I think we all know what it is.
The bottom line: Avatar was a good movie. I may even dub it ‘great’. But this year produced a lot of great movies, a fair chunk being overall better films than this one, and that’s okay. Avatar will go down in history as the technological breakthrough that it is, and it will have an overwhelming influence on the future of American cinema. It’s a shoo-in for Art Direction, Cinematography, Sound, Visual Effects, and maybe even Best Director. Who knows? We’ll find out March 7th. Personally, I hope Inglourious Basterds will take home Best Picture, but I’m pretty sure The Hurt Locker has it in the bag.
Who do you think will win Best Picture? Give us your thoughts in the comments below!
Comments (52)
I’m more or less down with your thinking, but that opening three paragraphs are a mess and not even properly connected with the business at hand.
Also, Avatar has three things that are appealing to the business of filmgoing:
1) Box Office – which means it was a movie that brought a lot of non-film goes to the movies
2) 3D – which hollywood is certainly betting on as an anti-piracy measure which again means more people going to big Hollywood movies in the cinema instead of Bittorrent
3) Visuals – yea it sure is pretty. And pretty new with all of its underwater irridescent colours and all that.
But yea, no surprise, the story, characters and originality simply aren’t there. Avatar is a successful, yet over-hyped technology demo that was eaten up by audience who go to the movies for comfort-food, not a challenge or even something new (beyond the visuals and themepark ride).
Many see all the box-office records as a major plus for this type of filmmaking. It rather scares me.
Posted by Kurt on February 8th, 2010I believe that if Avatar wins BP, it will send a bad message. I believe it will continue to devalue the importance of the Academy Award. In some ways though, this has been the trend with the AA’s for a long time. A lot of the movies that really were the best, or greatest, or most influential of that year did not win. Citzen Kane didn’t win. Raging Bull didn’t win. Star Wars didn’t win like you said. Pulp Fiction didn’t win. Oftentimes a movie that doesn’t win earns a better reputation than the ones that did. The Academy Awards needs to continue to be that slightly stodgy conservative organization that just never quite seems to be completely hip to what is really good.
Posted by Maopheus on February 8th, 2010who do you think should win?
Posted by Mike on February 8th, 2010i don’t think it should win best picture because of its lack of originality. don’t get me wrong, i loved the movie, but we’ve all heard its story before.
Posted by Christi Johnson on February 8th, 2010I’ve only seen three of the nominated films- District 9 Inglourious Basterds and Up (and at least one more after this week since Netflix is sending A Serious Man). Of the rest there are just 2 that I don’t care to see and that I’d be upset seeing win. The Blind Side and Precious. Avatar is a wild card in the mix, and thinking about this only makes me want to get out there and finally see it.
Posted by Mason on February 8th, 2010@Mason, how can you be upset if Precious or the Blind Side won without seeing either of them? They may actually be great movies. Precious, I’ve heard, is raw, real, and emotionally draining. I’ve heard positive things on the Blind Side as well. I’ve yet to see them, but I plan on it. I think you should view all the movies before “being upset” about any of them winning this way you’d have reason to be upset.
Posted by Sean C. on February 8th, 2010Sorry Crews but Avatar really will win. It’s the greatest achievement in film making this year, even if it isn’t the best.
Posted by Billy Boyd Cape on February 8th, 2010I don’t have anything new to bring to the table so I’ll say this: Avatar is visually awesome but everything else is lame and I’ll be very disappointed if (when?) the Academy gives it Best Picture. There are at least six more deserving films on that nomination list.
And to clarify, Avatar doesn’t lack traditional story elements, its problem is that it has way too many of them.
Posted by Nate on February 8th, 2010I really want avatar to win, because the discussions on the internet after wards will be amusing to read…
Posted by Matt on February 8th, 2010Inglourious Basterds should win, but I don’t think it will. If its between Hurt Locker and Avatar, I think Avatar is much more deserving personally.
Posted by bullet3 on February 8th, 2010Hey there Kurt, I’m a big fan of Row Three. In regards to your remark on the first three paragraphs, my comments were geared towards the ostensible comparison going on between Avatar and Transformers 2. They both were released in 2009, both involved budgets beyond $200 million, both primarily rely on visuals, both were helmed by directors who aren’t strangers to extraordinary financial success in their films, and both enjoyed a ridiculous amount of box office domination. However, I noted that a large majority of the online community had higher hopes for Cameron. Bay is all blockbuster, and barely scratches the surface with his work, thematically.
My point is that I threw Avatar a bone, saying that, although the two blockbusters were in comparison with each other, it was painfully obvious that Cameron was capable of more as a filmmaker than Bay. Avatar is, and was expected to be, a better movie than Transformers 2.
You also stated that box office, 3D, and visuals are three things that appeal to the business of filmgoing. However, these three things should not appeal to the Academy. Story, characters, and originality, three things you said that Avatar lacked, should be instrumental in the choosing of Best Picture, which brings up something that I may not have been crystal clear about in my article.
My second and third point are not meant to contradict each other. The purpose of my second point was to illustrate how Avatar’s visuals overshadowed what we all look for in a story, and how the personality of the protagonist, the depth of each character, as well themes and morals aren’t very important aspects. They’re lost in the pretty images, and if Avatar was to not have a storyline and simply be a bunch of blue people flying around, audiences would still be in awe.
My third point discussed how many believe the overall concept of boy meets girl, they fall in love, boy goes native, was stolen from other works such as Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves. It was not meant to reflect upon how well it executed the concept, just the fact that it may have been plagiarized. A large majority of what I said was speculation, and I may be totally off the radar for all I know. If you believe so, please feel free to point out said ignorance.
Posted by Crews on February 8th, 2010i do also hope I.B, will win best picture, But realistically speaking there are practically no logical chances for Avatar to loose. When we talk about such a crazy amount of box office numbers worldwide, the oscar Committee has no other choice than to comply with the public demand. Otherwise we might be talking for a Coup here. I mean.. Imaging the day after Avatar looses oscar for best picture. Sure Oscars are not about the most profitable movie of the year, but when you nominate that film one might say the dice are loaded from the start..
Posted by KYriakos on February 8th, 2010@Billy Boyd Cape,
Just because Avatar was expensive doesn’t mean it was the greatest achievement in filmmaking this year. 3D isn’t new. This use if it is the most technically ambitious, but it’s not new. It’s a gimmick. The fact is, Cameron had the freedom and budget to really take his time and put as much detail into the thing as he wanted. ANY big effects division could have pulled those effects off given enough time. Most effects houses don’t have $400 Million over the course of 4+ years to work on a film. Just because Cameron took his time to make more detailed effects doesn’t mean he’s a better filmmaker than Tarantino or even Blommkamp.
I enjoyed Avatar as much as everyone else, but it was for the spectacle of it. I was frequently embarrassed by the dialogue and even the look of the creature designs. Those effects put into the hands of a truly imaginative director could have been so much more. Instead we got space marines and giant blue cats running around the Amazon.
I feel like the level of tension that Tarantino created with dialogue alone was a greater achievement. I feel like Bigelow making a war film that wasn’t preachy and was willing to admit that soldiers may actually enjoy war was more of an achievement. I feel like Pixar making you feel intense emotion for a character in only the first 15 minutes of a film was more of an achievement. And Blommkamp making a thoughtful Science Fiction film that kept you thinking while shooting pigs and blowing up heads was more of an achievement!
Technical proficiency is not enough to create a memorable film. You need heart, character, and a story that stands on it’s own as something people will remember for years to come. Avatar has the technology to create the illusion that you’re getting more than you think you are, but I don’t feel like I ever need to see it again. I’ll be watching many of the other nominated films for years to come. I guarantee that Avatar will look dated in only a few short years. That’s what the Oscar voters need to take into account.
Posted by Fatbologna on February 8th, 2010@Crews, “You also stated that box office, 3D, and visuals are three things that appeal to the business of filmgoing. However, these three things should not appeal to the Academy. ”
I’m not so sure if history backs this up. They awarded “The Greatest Show ON Earth,” “Return of the King’ and “Titanic” all of which were spectacle and high-visual / business of show type movies. I do think the Academy does award the ‘this is good for business’ ever now and again.
Posted by Kurt on February 8th, 2010I guess my main issue (and it should be the academys) is HOW BLOODY CALCULATED Avatar was in the story-telling department, it is constricted by formula and whatnot. It tells the story OK, sure, and emphasis on visuals, but all the time and energy went into the latter, the former was a (admittedly well constructed) clothesline to hang all the 3D and visual-wankery on.
Posted by Kurt on February 8th, 2010i find it amusing that theres still people who find the time to go back and keep railing on avatar with the same 3 points as if theres anyone left to be converted either way
Posted by Goon on February 8th, 2010It’s not about converting, Goon. Just talk is all. A phenomenon like Avatar only comes along once ever 5 years or maybe even 10, its certainly worthy of conversation until the well runs dry. Yes, it may be almost there, but The Oscar Stuff keeps things alive. What else are we going to talk about? Dear John and Leap Year?
Here is hoping that The Wolfman is as good as it can be.
And to echo the sentiments above, it would be really, really, really nice if Inglourious Basterds won the award, after all it is a love letter to cinema and going to the movies and the power of film. Would be nice to see it awarded with the industry’s highest accolade. People will still be watching and enjoying the hell out of IB 20 years from now. Avatar will be replaced with better graphics and higher tech. The story isn’t going to keep people coming back. The Hurt Locker is very, very solid filmmaking, and is really rewarding in the Cinema, but it will likely be a footnote after some time. After all, how many folks are re-renting or buying Wages of Fear these days? It’s about the same effect, and don’t get me wrong both The Hurt Locker and Wages of Fear will always be a good evening at the movies, but people tend to forget this type of film after about 10 years….
Posted by Kurt on February 9th, 2010I guess the most interesting part of the Avatar phenomenon for me is how split I feel about that film. I really, really enjoyed it while I was in the theater. The story actually DID keep me fairly enthralled throughout. On the other hand, my enthusiasm for the film diminished the longer I thought about it after leaving. It really is the closest thing to a roller-coaster ride in the theater you can get. But I also went to Six Flags as a younger lad and had a fairly similar experience. It’s a curio. It’s a ride. It’s a tech demo. It’s a marketing device. It’s NOT a serious film.
That’s just my not-so-hidden pretentious little film snob deep down inside screaming at me to hate Avatar though. I really don’t hate it. I just sort of hate what it portends…
As someone passionately in love with films of the 60s and 70s from all over the world, Avatar is almost like a twist of the knife for me. It shows just how far away from “real” films we’ve come.
Inglorious Basterds pulls the blade out, licks the blood off, and cuts me a nice slab of cake with it…
Ignoring the greatest love letter to classic film in favor of something that represents the potential beginning-of-the-end to said classics would hurt. I know that classic film will never completely die, but it’s fading fast. Tarantino’s always been against all of these technological advancements while Cameron has obviously done much the same as Lucas and tried to advance them as much as possible. More power to him, but I prefer the old shit. That’s just me.
As far as I’m concerned that’s the central battle at the Oscars this year. District 9, UP, and Hurt Locker are all great films but we all know that those 2 films are the main contenders here. One thing I will say though: This has been an absolutely excellent year for films. The very fact that I care at all who wins anything is a pretty big deal for me, let alone the fact that I care about at least 4 of the contenders!
Looking forward to seeing the end results…
Posted by Fatbologna on February 9th, 2010“Would be nice to see it awarded with the industry’s highest accolade. ”
The AMERICAN industry Kurt. Although after seeing The White Ribbon, I think Basterds is worthy of the industrys highest accolade, the Palme D’Or.
Posted by Henrik on February 9th, 2010I can’t believe that anyone still cares about the Academy Awards. They are a thinly disguised marketing tool the film industry uses to boost box office, and enhance their image. It’s usually an “important” movie that wins awards, rather than a “great” movie. Don’t buy the hype, screw the Academy Awards, and enjoy the movies instead.
Posted by paulm on February 9th, 2010Henrik: True.
But (and I’m rationalizing and backpedaling here) if there is an award that gets non-movie people to watch a movie it is the Oscar and not the Palm D’Or. Since North Americans are less adventurous in their world cinema (just a guess) I consider it a more influencial industry award than the Palm D’Or.
But the Palm is generally (Fahrenheit 9/11 notwithstanding) given to a better film, yes.
Posted by kurt on February 9th, 2010‘its certainly worthy of conversation until the well runs dry. ‘
it ran dry before you were even done your 80 minute monologue during your podcast. i mean you’re beyond the rot/Collapse point now, enough is enough. find something new to rag on all day.
and besides if i may poke, so much of the crap you claim about Avatar is exactly whats wrong with Cashback. awful characters and the director is far more concerned with his presentation, which is absolutely ridiculous and frequently insultingly shallow sexist, pretentious. i still think THAT is one of the worst films of the past decade. even thinking of it makes me want to spit.
Posted by Goon on February 9th, 2010that reads harsher than it should, probably a reflection of a work issue or two
– youll hear about it eventually kurt, heh.
Posted by Goon on February 9th, 2010so the Stars Wars generation grows up and their influence MAKES the Academy accept Sci Fi as part of the Best Picture category; D9 and Avatar get nominated in the expanded category, BUT AVATAR SHOULDN’T WIN BECAUSE STAR WARS DID NOT!!??
Your logic is all wrong, Star Wars paved the way for Sci Fi to win.
“Its not the story, its how you tell it” Avatar has reused story themes but they are told in an effective way and the main relationships pull the audience in, period. Star Wars, Scarface, etc. all have reused plots.
Prepare for Avatar to win because all of the other films will split votes, or, none but Avatar will garner a majority. Its like an election, the best choice doesn’t always win, just the choice that can get votes from different groups.
Its an open race, Precious has construction problems, The Hurt Locker didn’t live up to the hype and has factual problems also, Basterds is to weird for Academy voters, Blindside is to cheesy, etc. and so on.
Whats interesting about your article is with all the things you listed you would think the film would be shit, yet it isn’t. You say its story is basic, yet it has political and religious complexities?! Maybe in your own write-up you reveal it is a film with many levels and therefore it should win?
Avatar takes a political stand were The Hurt Locker avoids it, why? Because political stands in Iraq War films kill their box office, see In The Valley of Elah. (way better than The Hurt Locker could ever dream of being) Why honor a film that avoids making a stand? Basterds plays with history creates a whole new subgenre, but it deserves to win?
Don’t get me wrong, I like many of the films this year but none are more worthy than the others, including Avatar.
Posted by rus in chicago on February 10th, 2010“Ignoring the greatest love letter to classic film in favor of something that represents the potential beginning-of-the-end to said classics would hurt. I know that classic film will never completely die, but it’s fading fast. Tarantino’s always been against all of these technological advancements while Cameron has obviously done much the same as Lucas and tried to advance them as much as possible. More power to him, but I prefer the old shit. That’s just me.”
This whole paragraph makes no sense. You are talking about art but confusing ideas and tools. Avatar’s story and structure is way more “classic” than Basterds. Basterds is a homage to classic cinema (really B movies) but not classic, its post modern. The technology used in Avatar is just an extension of filmmaking tools the same as when sound was added, color, etc. The lighting, art direction, etc. of Avatar is very classic, think Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind.
Posted by rus in chicago on February 10th, 2010@rus in chicago:
You’re completely twisting my words around here, and not a single one of your accusations made a lick of sense. If you had read my first point carefully, you would have realized that I was not saying that because Star Wars didn’t win, Avatar wasn’t going to win. In two very concise paragraphs, I summed up why, with a historical frame of reference in mind, it’s easy to assume Avatar will not win Best Picture. My first point was really a jumping off point for my second point. I just felt the need to lay the groundwork by referencing past Academy Award ceremonies.
And yes, both Star Wars and Avatar reused plots. 90% of all films from the 70’s and on have reused plots. But the difference is, Avatar didn’t even do a good job of covering it up. It was painfully obvious that they stole the storyline from Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves. And yes, the story is basic, but no, I did not claim it to have political and religious complexities. The Passion of the Christ had political and religious complexities, however, all Avatar does is misrepresent militarism, capitalism, and imperialism. Take careful note: a misrepresentation, not a complexity.
And you said that The Hurt Locker didn’t live up to the hype, Basterds was too weird for Academy voters, and Precious had ‘construction problems. First, The Hurt Locker was an independent film with a limited run. There was no hype, and it still became one of the most acclaimed films of the year. Second, Basterds is obviously not too weird if it got nominated for the Academy’s highest award. And third, what in the world are ‘construction problems’? Do you mean formula-wise, concerning story and plot devices?
Obviously, my logic is not ‘all wrong’, yours is. I appreciate you chipping in your thoughts on the discussion, I really do. However, I’d suggest fine-tuning your facts. And by the way, Avatar’s story and structure is not way more ‘classic’ than Basterds. Inglourious Basterds may be paying homage to classic cinema, but Avatar is plagiarizing classic cinema. And no, Avatar is not even in the same ballpark as Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind. It’s ignorant to even suggest such a thing.
By the way, Star Wars didn’t pave the way for sci-fi films to win. It paved the way for sci-fi films to get nominated.
Posted by Crews on February 11th, 2010I think AVATAR will win best picture not because it actually IS the best movie but because of Camerons lobby in the industrie. I also think that the fact that AVATAR is now the highest-grossing movie ever made will help to win the prize.
Posted by Rolf on February 12th, 2010Anyway, as the decisions of the Academy and furthermore the awards themselves are very questionable we should not care about it that much. No Best Picture award has ever made a film better. Like Mr. Cheel says “It is what it is”, right?!
“with a historical frame of reference in mind”
-your historical frame of reference is flawed – Star Wars OR ANY SCI FI FILM would never have won in 1978. The affect Star Wars has had on cinema, culture etc ALLOWS Avatar to win now. That is the way you should be thinking of it, but you don’t, and you assume your ideas are gospel.
“Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves. And yes, the story is basic, but no, I did not claim it to have political and religious complexities. The Passion of the Christ had political and religious complexities, however, all Avatar does is misrepresent militarism, capitalism, and imperialism.”
-you fail to mention that Avatar is the first film to tie ecological plot devices completely to the story structure (if they are removed the story falls apart) I like how you leave that out for your purposes, and fail to see how that has appeal to the worldwide audience and academy voters. The Hurt Locker avoids all political, religious layering, yet,it deserves best picture more than Avatar? This is fact due to all of the highly charged political Iraq films doing poorly at the box office. The Hurt Locker filmmakers stated this. You need to support your arguments better.
“Second, Basterds is obviously not too weird if it got nominated for the Academy’s highest award.”
-sure, the group called the Academy that likes basic story structure and devices like Avatar has is going to go for the “rewriting of history” and the “multiple layers of references” in Basterds. Just like they “got” Pulp Fiction’s different structure, oh wait, they didn’t, they give a screenplay Oscar for that. Did I just support my argument?
“And third, what in the world are ‘construction problems’?”
- the dream sequences in Precious are the quality of a film student,i.e., construction problems.
“Avatar’s story and structure is not way more ‘classic’ than Basterds. Inglourious Basterds may be paying homage to classic cinema, but Avatar is plagiarizing classic cinema.”
-you don’t even know what you are writing anymore. Basterds isn’t classic, its post modern, its a deconstruction, it takes what you say is classic and reinterprets it through a contemporary filter. Get it? The title cards, cartoon characters referencing decades of genre film characters, its all a post modern homage. How else does Basterds Hitler exist and is accepted by the audience. Do you see the light yet?
And what is this idea that “the lost soul going over to the other side” storyline is so plagiarized in Avatar. Have you watched Run of the Arrow? Do you know how Dances with Wolves stole their story in a much greater way than anything Avatar did. Are you saying that we are to never get another movie with this story line? How fucking boring is that. Really. I guess no more road movies like Thelma and Louse, or King Lear stories, or man child Forest Gump stories. Lets just never tell stories that are familiar because that never happens in life, wait it does!
Avatar is the hero’s journey – the most classic of all film structures. You keep confusing the look with structure, two separate things. In this way, Avatar is closer to Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz then Basterds. Prove me wrong. And the art direction and lighting in Avatar is very classic, completely romantic, there is nothing “out there” with that. You confuse the tools used to create Avatar with the structure and concept behind it.
“And no, Avatar is not even in the same ballpark as Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind. It’s ignorant to even suggest such a thing.”
-now who is misquoting who? I made the reference in terms of classic look and structure. Go on and try and prove to me how Avatar isn’t similar to the classics I mention in terms of the philosophy they took with art direction and lighting. Go ahead. You can’t because the only thing Avatar does that isn’t classic is the process and camera they used to capture the image. the story, lighting and everything else is very classic.
“By the way, Star Wars didn’t pave the way for sci-fi films to win. It paved the way for sci-fi films to get nominated.”
Posted by rus in chicago on February 12th, 2010-you’re an idiot if you don’t think that a sci fi film will not one day win best picture. Good Sci fi is only the human condition dealing with future environments and technologies, that’s all. The movie going public, and academy, will accept it over time (probably this year). Kind of like they accepted horror with Silence of the Lambs. Hey look, I support my arguments! And if that is the case, your statement above is ridiculous especially since Star Wars was already nominated, therefore that task has already been achieved.
I think we’re splitting hairs here, to be honest. I’m not going to respond with an essay; I’ve already illustrated where I stand when it comes to Avatar and the Best Picture category. You bring up a fair number of strong points, a large portion of which I wholeheartedly disagree with, but they’re strong points nonetheless. The fact of the matter is, although up to it’s neck in influence and profit accumulation, Avatar doesn’t deserve to win Best Picture. That’s simply where I stand, and as much as I’d like to continue with you, I’m going to leave it at that.
Posted by Crews on February 12th, 2010good debate, always enlightening
Posted by rus in chicago on February 13th, 2010First, I think it’s perfectly acceptable to reuse a classic storyline as long as you make it your own. To write off Avatar as a Pocahontas rip off is dishonest. There’s much more going on in this movie.
Posted by Mike on February 16th, 2010And the characterization is great. How else could you sit in a theatre for 3 hours? Only the most infantile mind could be entertained by visual FX alone for that long. The story drives the FX, and the FX drive the story. That is a rare thing. Transformers is the complete opposite. Michael Bay is a hack, whereas Cameron is a genius.
I think Avatar should win Best Picture because it’s motivating people to get off the couch and go out to the cinema. None of the other nominees have done this. I live in Toronto and the IMAX theatre is still selling out 2 months after it’s release! That’s what movies are about, right? The cinema experience. And there hasn’t been a greater cinema experience than Avatar. It really is movie history in the making and it should be acknowledged.
Yes, 3d is nothing new, but in the hands of a storytelling genius it feels new. Transformers will look dated in a few years, but that’s because it was made by a wannabe storyteller. Avatar will last because it’s creator has vision. Cameron made Aliens in 1986 and the movie stills blows away big FX movies made today. That’s because Cameron is one of the only directors of our age who can tell a good story with big special FX. Most directors can’t handle movies this big. Only a few have the scope, and Cameron deserves to be acknowledged for that.
Avatar will win BP but, I have a feeling that Best Director will go to Katherine Bigelow just to make everyone happy.
Inglorious Basterds is definitely not Tarantinos’s best film, so I don’t think it will win. Everything he has done since Pulp Fiction has been self indulgent, especially Kill Bill which should have been one movie. IB wasn’t terrible, I thought his use of extended pacing to build tension was interesting, but not best picture worthy.
I agree with Mike on some points; namely that Avatar and Cameron deserve the recognition, but I must say that Inglourious Basterds is actually more of a return to the great Taratino than a drift towards Kill Bill non sense. I liked Kill Bill Volume One, but if they had simply left it at that I would have been far happier with the result. Anyway, this post is about Avatar and in my opinion Avatar should not win Best Picture because all of those people who got out there and saw Avatar and it was the only movie they were willing to shell the money out for need to realize that Avatar was not the best movie in 2009. There are probably as many as a dozen that I would consider better and although many are not groundbreaking, by giving Avatar the Best Picture award they are saying that you have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make a great movie. Casual moviegoers will get the wrong message about the film industry.
Posted by Dave on February 21st, 2010I agree with Sean, however Cameron should win Best Director. He should win because he had the vision to create this film. He had the guts and endurance to ss that vision through. He directed what no else has yet directed. He is a visionary, risk taker and pioneer. He desrves the award.
He is a jerk though because he told EW that he supports eco-terrorists. It’s hard to believe an intelligent person supports bombing and murder to protect plants.
Posted by joe pug on February 21st, 2010Oddsmakers are showing Hurt Locker with a better chance of winning. I doubt it however, as Hollywood, the international marketing machine, needs Avatar to win it as there is a lot of money to be made (and jobs created) from the new generation of 3d films.
All great films need to have an element of one not knowing what will happen next…definately not the case with Avatar. For bang for the buck ‘The Hangover’ should win the Oscar. Cameron is a commercial genius at making cliched mainstream sappy films that no one can really object to seeing once his publicity machine pushes them over the ‘Tipping Point’.
Posted by scott/hongkong on February 26th, 2010FilmJunk, fuck you and all for which you stand.
Posted by Miles on March 8th, 2010Avatar should have won best picture because it’s a good movie! Period!
Posted by bardoe on March 8th, 2010fuck you all for not liking this piece of art. how is it a cliche? you think hurt locker or precious or even blindside wasn’t? how many movies out there are about wars, down in luck people in bad neighborhoods, and orphans being taken in. this movie kicked box office ass out of any movie ever. why? because it holds true to what movies are all about, taking you to a world outside of reality and leaving you with a piece of it when you finish the movie.
Posted by badoes on March 14th, 2010i highly agree with that
Posted by Shiroki on April 14th, 2010More atacks on avatyar by film sophisticates?
AVATAR won best pic at the Golden Globes: if it lost at the Oscars it was because of its political topicality.
Its success world wide is due to a combination, but story is definitely a reason why its been loved from Alaska to zimbabwe.
OH and ive seen Terminator and the Ellison stories,..and i still cant see the connection…
Posted by brian on May 9th, 2010But AVATAR and Pocahontas…strange that P didn do half as well…why not?
‘Let’s be honest, Avatar is not the best out of all the Best Picture nominees. Although it enjoyed a fair amount of critical acclaim, it doesn’t stand a chance against much stronger films. The Hurt Locker, for example, was bleeding raw and gritty. The drama was real, none of it overdressed by music or sensationalism’
yes lets be honest…what makes a film thats ‘bleeding raw and gritty’ better? Nothing!
if you like gore, than your prefer films dripping with blood, but thats no sign its agood film.
Drama was ‘real’? What does this mean? On that score Moby Dick is a failure, as is Lord of the Rings…
AVATAR is better than Hurt Locker in being more politically honest: HL white washes the Iraq invasion…AVATAR confronts economically in with a few words. It found room for Iraq war in a film that was ostensibly about something else…thats owing to its epic scope
Posted by brian on May 9th, 2010Crews:
‘And yes, both Star Wars and Avatar reused plots. 90% of all films from the 70’s and on have reused plots. But the difference is, Avatar didn’t even do a good job of covering it up. It was painfully obvious that they stole the storyline from Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves. And yes, the story is basic, but no, I did not claim it to have political and religious complexities. The Passion of the Christ had political and religious complexities, however, all Avatar does is misrepresent militarism, capitalism, and imperialism. Take careful note: a misrepresentation, not a complexity.’
theres your problem…you find AVATARs take on militarism and capitalism troubling…why? Cause it critiques them…it shows how they REALLY behave…just ask any tribal elder in the amazon of borneo!
Posted by brian on May 9th, 2010I agree, Star Wars never won best picture, and it was an epic film. Avatar was visually stunning but wasn’t the best movie that I’ve seen.
Posted by Sandra on May 12th, 2010Avatar is by far the best movie this year, even though Hurt locker won movie of the year. If this was the People’s Choice Awards then Avatar would dominate because people went and saw Avatar many times. Hurt Locker was inaccurate and boring. I was literally watching the time to see how much more of this crap I would have to take. The guy writing about how great Hurt Locker is should get medicated. Who cares if Star Wars didn’t win the movie of the year? What does that have to do with Avatar? Star Wars should have won movie of the year just like Avatar should.
Posted by Ben on May 14th, 2010I concur with Ben entirely, regardless of what anyone says about Avatars sub standard plot and similarities between Dances With Wolves and Pocohontas. I’ve sat though Avatar many times and still enjoy it. Whilst watching Hurt Locker I found it very hard to believe that it ran for 96 mins, I was going to time it, but didn’t have the strength to sit through it twice. You can pick a movie to bits but in the end isn’t a movies performance at the box office some indication of it’s caliber as a movie? Avatar should have won, just as Star Wars should have won. The fact remains, in another 10 years the majority will remember Avatar, precious few will remember Hurt Locker.
Posted by Dez on May 15th, 2010I have no idea how they didn’t pic that movie as the best picture of the year the graphics were amazing
Posted by Mandy on May 20th, 2010I think we should be more easy on the movies like avatar. Some critics say that these movies are not life related, but what the hell is that. I think if a movie touch the audiences heart, that may be with its story line that may be with its technology or with some other things that movie should be considered for best picture in academy award. Its just my personal opinion that this year avatar deserved the best picture.
Posted by Julie on May 21st, 2010Avatar should won best picture because it’s a good movie and i personally like the American cinema progress in 2009 what they did in Avatar and i deny with this point that it should not win the best award we must appreciate them for this great progress.
Posted by Mary on May 21st, 2010Your points are well constructed but still i think Avatar should have won the best picture anyway. Its storyline is good and its a milestone for the special effects and the best way to treat this type of movie is giving the best picture award. Most importantly, there was no good competitor, yes you may tell about ‘hurt locker’, but i don’t think that deserved the best picture.
Posted by Jackie on May 30th, 2010At the end of Avatar, Cameron should have had Jake awaken with split consciousness in both the human & navi character. This film was desperately in need of some type of ‘wow’ realization moment for the viewer to make it great. It was a fun action film (better than I expected) but didn’t have any plot or character insights to make it an oscar winner.
Avatar & District 9 were two polar opposites in science fiction last year. Avatar lingered on so many cheesy Navi scenes that another blogger said surpringly resembled a typical hollywood yoga class. I just starting shutting and grabbing the popcorn during the navi communion sequences. District 9 was totally amazing realstiic science fiction in comparison.
The Hurt Locker was a 3-star movie, no idea why it won as best picture. If either District 9, Inglorious Bastards or Serious Man were slightly more mainstream they would have taken it.
Posted by scotthk on June 3rd, 2010Ah!!! At last I found what I was looking for. Somtimes it takes so much effort to find even tiny useful piece of information about on 5 reasons why avator should not win best picture. Nice post. Thanks
Posted by Rebecca on June 12th, 2010avatar may not have been best picture quality, but neither was the hurt locker… regardless of it’s gritty reality styled drama, it was also the lowest grossing movie to ever win an oscar… there were plenty of movies that were done better than hurt locker, and yet they still lost (district 9 and star trek, to name 2)… goes to that the oscars, and pretty much all of those awards shows are shams… it’s just a way to pat oneself on the back, or snub an ill-liked celebrity… just my 2¢…
p.s.- i’ve heard hurt locker was good from some, and bad from others, i may even eventually watch it… but it certainly isn’t 1st on my list…
Posted by percival on June 19th, 2010Avatar is really good but form its not award winning. Anyway people have different tastes.
Posted by Stray Arrow on August 5th, 2010Leave a Reply