Oscars / Avatar ?

[Questions]

Crikey, who would have thought that after your missus bought you Halliwell's Film Guide for your birthday 4 years ago we would end up here ? Stop being so eliteist and snobby, Avatar was not perfect but is visually stunning....I'm going to buy you some Harveys for your next birthday if you don't stop moaning !

That film guide is bloody good. Who would have thought one of the Spice Girls could write such a thing

 

[vegster]

That film guide is bloody good. Who would have thought one of the Spice Girls could write such a thing

It's just detailed enough to cover all the important films and still just be the right weight to wedge the shed door open.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Cristolph Waltz's acting performance in Inglorious Basterds alone should have won it the best film.

The academy just don't like the great man Tarantino.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Cristolph Waltz's acting performance in Inglorious Basterds alone should have won it the best film.

The academy just don't like the great man Tarantino.

I personally think that time will reflect very favourably on Inglorious Basterds. I am not a major film buff but to me, the opening scene is about as good as film making can get.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I personally think that time will reflect very favourably on Inglorious Basterds. I am not a major film buff but to me, the opening scene is about as good as film making can get.

Have to agree with that.

I think alot of people probably didn't go see this film because of whom directed it and because of its name.

And yet its total rewriting of a sensitive subject, the actors cast in the movie and the portryal of their characters mean in years to come it will become more of a classic film than any of the others it came up against.

 

[Acker79]

A lot of pretencous wank in this thread. A film is supposed to entertain you nothing more.

Not true. It's like saying a phone is supposed to bring you good news.

A film is simply a medium, and each film is made for it's own reason.

Some are made to inform, some to challenge you, some to raise issues. Some tell stories that need to be told even though they're not "entertaining" in the traditional sense. Some are made for art, some made as an expression of some sort of message or whatever art is supposed to be.

Of course, the motivation behind the making of the film should be taken into consideration when reviewing it, imo.

 

[Easy 10]

A lot of pretencous wank in this thread.

Not true. It's like saying a phone is supposed to bring you good news.

A film is simply a medium, and each film is made for it's own reason.

Some are made to inform, some to challenge you, some to raise issues. Some tell stories that need to be told even though they're not "entertaining" in the traditional sense. Some are made for art, some made as an expression of some sort of message or whatever art is supposed to be.

Of course, the motivation behind the making of the film should be taken into consideration when reviewing it, imo.

Somehow I don't think that answer is going to sway looney's views.

 

[Deadly Danson]

For my money Up in the Air, Inglourious Basterds, An Education and in particular Up and Precious were all better films than The Hurt Locker which was ok but didn't offer anything we haven't seen a million times before and Avatar which I walked out after an hour - just not my thing. And where was the oscar nod for Michael Caine for Harry Brown - excellent film imo.

And incidentally Seven trounces them all - one of the best movies of all time.

 

[Mental Lental]

'Moon' was the best film over the last 12 months imo.

LOL! Good call Bro! Having just finished watching the 2010 oscars ceremony in Jappers I was compelled to chip in on this thread with a "where the f*** were the nominations for "Moon"" post.

Seriously that movie should have got nominations for Best Film, Director, Actor, original screenplay and best soundtrack/original score.

To not even have been nominated for ANYTHING is nothing short of scandalous.

 

[Captain Haddock]

That's okay, you judge a film by what others thought of it, I judge a film by what I thought of it.

That is one of the responses of the year so far on here.

First rate.....and I totally share that sentiment.

 

[Simster]

LOL! Good call Bro! Having just finished watching the 2010 oscars ceremony in Jappers I was compelled to chip in on this thread with a "where the f*** were the nominations for "Moon"" post.

Seriously that movie should have got nominations for Best Film, Director, Actor, original screenplay and best soundtrack/original score.

To not even have been nominated for ANYTHING is nothing short of scandalous.

I tend to agree. Top film.

 

[Captain Haddock]

It suggests to me lots of people felt they had to see it, and had to pay more than a regular ticket to pay for the 3d experience.


The criticisms of Avatar are not film snobbery.

The oscar gets award to "the best film" not "the best cinema experience". Avatar was the latter. It was predictable, cheesey, but it was a fun experience. Everyone I've spoken to about the film have said "the effects were amazing, alright it's not the most original story/it's a bit predicatble/cheesy/etc, but wow, it looks great!"

Oscar awarded the film accordingly. It got rewarded for its effects, for the wow factor.

The story, the acting - the "meat and potatoes" of a film - were not oscar worthy. Not because it was a popular film, but because the acting and writing wasn't good enough. It would be a crime for a film that contains neither writing or acting of a standard deemed good enough for oscar nomination to win "best film".

Avatar will, I'm sure, clean up at the MTV movie awards.

Spot on! Couldn't have put it better myself so I won't.

 

[Captain Haddock]

Box office takings are never a good indicator of how good a film is. All it shows is how much money is made. The tickets for avatar were all much more expensive because you're paying for 3D. I heard reports of some tickets at imax 3d places being close to $50 - that's 3-5 times the typical ticket price.

Also, ticket sales don't indicate who bought them. Is it 100 people going to watch it again and again, or 20 million watching it twice?

Why are people watching it? Because they are taking their kids? Because they're boyfriend wants to? Because they've been told it's good by friends? Because it looks good? Because it's the hip film and they don't want to miss out on the conversations?

100million people could have gone to see it once, payed the $20 for the 3d tickets, and walked out with motion sickness after 30mins, and the film would still be said to have taken $2bn

All a box office figure tells us is how much money was made.

Spot on again!

It's worth remembering / considering that box office success will very heavily be influenced by the level of marketing....I agree that millions will have gone to see "the most anticipated film of all time!" or whatever the exact wording was on the cinema and tv trails, because the majority of people on this earth want to belong, to be part of the 'in things', to not feel left out and are insecure enough in their own minds regards to things they are not sure of to not only go because someone tells them they don't want to miss it, but also in many cases to actually be convinced of it's quality...to the point of recommending it (so as not to look like the weirdo-non-conformist-to-mass-culture friend), thus expanding the cycle of undeserved success / coverage / box office the film achieves.

A second point is the certification....Avatar is a film-for-all type, with an agreeable certification to exploit the family market. It's a matter of simple fact that a U or PG will outsell an 18 if the marketing and word-of-mouth etc are equivalent as the market pool is significantly larger.

Thirdly, Hollywood dominates the distribution market so Avatar will have had one of (if not THE) biggest releases ie number of prints / number of cinemas.

Harry Potter No? massively outgunned LoTRs at the BoxOff, but would it have performed so much better if it wasn't on 6 times as many screens?

 

[Captain Haddock]

To answer my own question, yes! But then LoTRs was about two days long so HP could screen more times per hour per print,but you get the point of the question hopefully!

 

[Meade's Ball]

In general, in a snobbish way, i expect things that are the most popular to be basically poor. X-factor is not the best programme on TV. The Transformers remake was not a perfectly-layered investment in cinema and nor have the Harry Potter Chronicles spoken to me of childhood. The Spice Girls were never the best "band" in the world, closely followed by those Take That eternalists. Who sells the most is generally the major producer of easily-digestable throwaway tripe. To not reward these people unbothers them as their bank accounts ripple with self-interest and their homes grow rooms by the day.
I've not seen Avatar. I can live without it. I saw some of Titanic, but was driven to almost drowning myself and ended up drinking a couple of pints as it plodded lovelessly on. The Abyss i didn't mind, and not just because it was a colossal flop. Terminator 2 is cringeworthy when watching nowadays, but still worth the occasional view for some hilarious acting and some classic scenes. Aliens itself is a wonderfully mindless piece of all-action spacewar. Great from start to finish. And Terminator one was brilliant too. Coarse and unhandleable and merciless, like technology itself.
For none of the above would i give Best Film to though on Oscar night. They weren't tenderly-moulded pieces that rendered me helpless or joyous beyond belief. They were action adventures that over time lost their raw edge, or Cameron did. It's the way it goes with the successful in general.
I'd say the same of Tarantino. Inglourious Basterds, apart from that opening Spaghetti Western genre-ode which suggested something fantasical might follow, was crass and thoughtless and narratively loose and also incredibly unfunny. I thought it deserved nothing and long may that continue just as long as the ego of the cinematic knowitall refuses to impossibly shrink at all. Before, he'd make wry reproductions of films and styles he loved. Now it seems to be painedy self-referential, like an Oasis album is with their unchangeable riffs and hairstyles and lyrics of how they once did a hotel room in in the 90s.

I saw The Hurt Locker, and that was a suspenseful piece relevant to the undying war in Iraq. I was glad that won because it kept me mentally active and on edge for the full time it was on. I wouldn't say it was a wildly alternative film by any means, but it gripped and raised questions whilst the action went on.

Now, i don't write off everything that's popular as sometimes it can do well in charts and be quite skillfully put-together. District 9 was good fun. Just as Robocop was. I liked Spiderman 2 and X-2 a lot. Conair is repeatedly watchable. Outkast made the fingers tingle. The Beatles were sometimes alright. Eastenders i watch. BUt in general, that which sells well is forgettable and shite and meant to be just that as long as it catches enough attention for a second long enough to be bought.

 

[Captain Haddock]

Well said, as always, Meady!