Does Avatar deserve a Best Picture nomination/win?

[indy4 155]

It has already been nominated for Best Picture at the Golden Globes, that means we may expect the same for the Oscars.

I think this is one of the most overrated films in recent years. It has wonderful SFX and some wonderful acting (particularly by Weaver and Ribisi), but I think that in terms of substance it is severly lacking. It is chalk full of cliches, and the story seems to be a mix of Pocahontas and LotR. It was predictable, it was a bit too long, and yet it is being hailed, critically and financially.

It reminds me of the couple bad Burton films (ie Batman)--after the beginning I wanted to love it so much, just for the fantastic style and world, but when I think about it I really can't bring myself to say anything good about it other than I like the style.

I vote nothing, it is completely beyond me how Avatar would even get a nomination for Best Picture.

[Quintus 5,399]

Isn't this really a Do you like Avatar poll?

As far as the crusty old Academy is concerned, the movie will certainly meet it's criteria, but of course it is another thing entirely for it to meet one's own.

Lee - who hasn't voted and doesn't really hold much stock in globes and oscars anyway.

[Greg1138 3]

I would certainly say - given the possible contenders, that it should deserve a nomination.....but a win? Just don't know as yet....so to be on safe side I voted second option.

[Wojo 2,453]

If "Best Picture" meant "best visual quality and immersiveness of picture while audio kept on mute, without attention paid to dialogue or story," than nomination and win would be required.

But I think there's more to "Best Picture" than that. I think it means "Best Dadgum Movie Encompassing All Quantifiable Categories of the Dadgum Year." So no to both.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

As far as I'm concerned, most "Best Movie" wins are for movies that I do not care about. At all.

It's the difference between "literature" and "Literature". Apparently, the latter category must be either boring or unpleasant to read.

If something is entertaining, but also thoroughly good, it'd still be considered "literature", because, well ENTERTAINING Literature is just NOT DONE.

The same goes for movies. Entertaining movies are virtually never considered truly good movies by "the Critics"

(eg. those critics who consider themselves the true judges of whether a movie is art or entertainment - it can't be both).

Personally, unless the "Art" is not also entertaining and immersive and such, it is a FAIL.

Even if it's well put-together or has an important theme or is wholly original or something.

How can something be "Literature" when it makes me want to put the book away, never to touch it again, after every single page?

How can something be a truly good Art-sy Movie, when it makes me want to turn the screen off every five minutes?

Anyway, enough about that and onto the question at hand. I thought Avatar was a pretty darn good movie,

very well put-together, with stunning visuals, NO stupid "modern (UN!!!)realistic dark" look and

no insane quick-cuts that prevents you from understanding what's going on.

The story was somewhat predictable, but still it was capably told and at least it had more meaning than "your regular entertainment film".

Do I think it'll win Best Picture? HELL NO! They'll find some sort of movie I never heard of and never ever want to see instead.

Do I think it'll be nominated? I hope so. I hope that somehow Avatar can show the showbusiness world how things are supposed to be done.

They make a movie with realistic and bright colours, totally against what has been seen in most recent films, and the audience DOES COME!

They make a movie where you can follow the action without quick-cutting and numbing the audience's brain and the audience DOES COME!

They make a movie with some meaning in it's story and the audience DOES COME!

For me, Avatar represents a style of movie-making that I haven't recently seen and have sorely missed.

[Ollie 1,061]

I think it deserves a nomination.

[QMM 4]

Academy politics aside, Avatar deserves a nomination because it provided a theater experience unlike any film in a long time.

[Wojo 2,453]

Certainly Avatar is an event movie, of that there's been no doubt. The Phantom Menace was also an event movie.

I suppose they'll make an awful lot of fuss about Avatar hitting the $1 billion mark so soon. Big deal. Its ticket prices cost about 150% more than for normal 2-D movies because of the 3-D surcharge.

[Joe Brausam 215]

Well people are seeing the film in 2D as well, don't forget. Not a substantial amount, I'm sure, but people are. I know many people who have gone for a second time as well.

I think it deserves a best picture nomination AND win, as an "achievement in film making". I have no real justification for that other than it being a true achievement and it should be recognized as one.

[Uni 306]

There was a time when I would've said "no" to both. But given the options over the last year, the dismal state of movies these days--and adding the fact that the Oscars are now nominating a ludicrous 10 films for Best Picture--I don't see how it could avoid getting nominated.

- Uni

[Quintus 5,399]

Do we have the figures for the non-3D sales vs 3D sales? Because I would not be surprised if the majority of folk are seeing it the 'old' way. 3D won't be an option for quite a lot of people.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Certainly Avatar is an event movie, of that there's been no doubt. The Phantom Menace was also an event movie.

I suppose they'll make an awful lot of fuss about Avatar hitting the $1 billion mark so soon. Big deal. Its ticket prices cost about 150% more than for normal 2-D movies because of the 3-D surcharge.

no it doesn't it costs an extra 2 bucks or so, that's not 150%. It's also showing at far fewer theatres and its running time work against it.

[Wojo 2,453]

Oh ok. I'm too used to seeing movies using discounted tickets, so my 150% is with respect to that number.

My theater doesn't have a 2-D option for seeing Avatar, just the $10.50 or so for 3-D.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

most theatres around here have it showing both in 3d and 2d.

I've read that the boxoffice is between 60 and 70% 3D sales vs 2D.

[Wojo 2,453]

I live near a small city on the other side of anything important. If my area is like other similar rural areas, with larger cities about 2 hours away, then if 3D is all there is, then 3D is going to make the money. I'm sure 3D is worth it for this movie over something else.

I'm not sure if I want to see Avatar before I see Sherlock Holmes for a second time.

[sandman609 0]

Certainly Avatar is an event movie, of that there's been no doubt. The Phantom Menace was also an event movie.I suppose they'll make an awful lot of fuss about Avatar hitting the $1 billion mark so soon. Big deal. Its ticket prices cost about 150% more than for normal 2-D movies because of the 3-D surcharge.

no it doesn't it costs an extra 2 bucks or so, that's not 150%. It's also showing at far fewer theatres and its running time work against it.

Some people are just determined to discredit success, no matter how clear its achievements.

[crocodile 8,033]

It desreves a win in "visual effects" category and a nominaton for best score and maybe even a nom in the sound categories. That's it.

Karol

[Wojo 2,453]

Certainly Avatar is an event movie, of that there's been no doubt. The Phantom Menace was also an event movie.I suppose they'll make an awful lot of fuss about Avatar hitting the $1 billion mark so soon. Big deal. Its ticket prices cost about 150% more than for normal 2-D movies because of the 3-D surcharge.

no it doesn't it costs an extra 2 bucks or so, that's not 150%. It's also showing at far fewer theatres and its running time work against it.

Some people are just determined to discredit success, no matter how clear its achievements.

Yup, that's me. Determined to discredit success. That should be my new username.

[Quintus 5,399]

Would that fit? I don't think that would fit.

TWAT would though.

I kid I kid! Geez.

[Wojo 2,453]

Don't worry. I'm just bad mouthing the movie so I hate it in my mind. Then when I go see it, I'll really like it and come back here and say that I love it, and look like a darn fool.

'S'all part of the plan.

[Smeagol 0]

To me it deserves awards for what it achieved in terms of the technology that was developed to create the movie. Besides exclusively that, I can't see anything else that's ground breaking in the movie. The story isn't, the dialog isn't, the characters aren't, the action isn't. There's nothing ground breaking or magical about the movie besides the technology/special effects. In my opinion at least.

[Trent B 337]

I voted on the wrong one on accident....but I think it deserves a nomination but not sure about a win. To me personally I think Star Trek out beats Avatar for best picture of the year.

[Quintus 5,399]

If Avatar does get a nod from the Academy then it is only right that Star Trek should too. It is just as accomplished as Avatar. How so? Well the non-Trekkies like it, including me.

However I seriously doubt Star Trek will be nominated.

[indy4 155]

I think Avatar was probably better than Star Trek, if only for it's fantastic effects, but they're both pretty close IMO.

[Marian Schedenig 8,237]

Nomination/win? Definitely not. It's a nice, unoriginal concept, with a highly detailed world which could have been the basis for some amazing stories but in the end had a solid but thin and obvious story with some really cheap dialogue. It's an entertaining movie, and I'd call it good, but except for the outstanding visual effects, there's nothing remotely "best" about it.

There are worlds between Avatar and something like Inglourious Basterds (the best of the films I've seen in 2009, which aren't many, but also one of the most impressive movies I've seen in a long time).

And no, I'm not dissing Avatar. I really definitely liked it, although at least up to the intermission I seriously wondered if I would still have been entertained without the impressive 3D and CGI.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,489]

Star Trek (2009) is very dumb popcorn entertainment.

Avatar was a better Star Trek film than Star Trek itself. It's very a much a Trekkie story, traveling to an alien planet disguised as the native lifeforms, studying their culture and establishing relations. Only it didn't leave a weird taste in your mouth like all the times Picard and co. broke the prime directive. J.J. Abrams can suck it.

[Datameister 2,056]

Nomination? Sure. Win? Probably not.

[Marian Schedenig 8,237]

Star Trek (2009) is very dumb popcorn entertainment.

Avatar was a better Star Trek film than Star Trek itself. It's very a much a Trekkie story, traveling to an alien planet disguised as the native lifeforms, studying their culture and establishing relations. Only it didn't leave a weird taste in your mouth like all the times Picard and co. broke the prime directive. J.J. Abrams can suck it.

Trek had characters.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,489]

Trek's characters were a joke. Please don't get me started.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Star Trek (2009) is very dumb popcorn entertainment.

Avatar was a better Star Trek film than Star Trek itself. It's very a much a Trekkie story, traveling to an alien planet disguised as the native lifeforms, studying their culture and establishing relations. Only it didn't leave a weird taste in your mouth like all the times Picard and co. broke the prime directive. J.J. Abrams can suck it.

Trek had characters.

yes trek had character that were all established. No new ground was broken. The cast made the film all it could be. For all the b&m about Avatar's plot it was lacking the holes that Star Trek had. Star Trek was written by the same morons that wrote Transformers 2, so really it's not surprising that the story is a piece of shit.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It'll probably win because it's the latest trend in Hollywood to worship Gaia.

[Datameister 2,056]

Not just in Hollywood...

Although I must admit, I was very pleased with the filmmakers handled the Na'vi's reverence for Pandora and its flora, fauna, and arboreal Internet. It wasn't overkill - it was sensitive and not overly moralistic, though it certainly sent a good message for us Terrans.

[Matt C 456]

Nope. The story is a patchwork of other, better movies. Aside from the beautiful, detailed CGI (and the excellent 3D imagery) and good acting, its originality is in short supply.

Again, the Academy will likely award Avatar a nomination, just for the sake of filling up their 10 Best Movie nomination list.

[bondo 33]

Nomination AND win.

[ChuckM 1]

Avatar is nothing special. It's just Dances with Wolves in space with a standard cut-and-paste Horner score.

The graphics are top-notch, so I would grant it an award for that, but otherwise, meh.

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty decent movie and all, but it's getting way more hype than it really deserves.

[Quintus 5,399]

If a movie like Forrest Gump can clean up at the oscars then Avatar has every chance of bagging Best Pic.

[Morn 8]

I don't see how you can give best picture to avatar. Best direction and best FX I guess. But the screenplay is not up to scratch for a best picture award.

[ChuckM 1]

If a movie like Forrest Gump can clean up at the oscars then Avatar has every chance of bagging Best Pic.

Except that Forest Gump actually is a masterpiece. Avatar is an entertaining rehash with awesome graphics.

I wouldn't be surprised if Avatar does win, but I don't think it would deserve it.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I'm not 100% sure Avatar getting a nom or win for best pic is really evident of its quality, judging by what has been given out in the past (and I'd certainly include GUMP in those more dubious selections).

[fommes 154]

Nomination/win? Definitely not. It's a nice, unoriginal concept, with a highly detailed world which could have been the basis for some amazing stories but in the end had a solid but thin and obvious story with some really cheap dialogue. It's an entertaining movie, and I'd call it good, but except for the outstanding visual effects, there's nothing remotely "best" about it.

There are worlds between Avatar and something like Inglourious Basterds (the best of the films I've seen in 2009, which aren't many, but also one of the most impressive movies I've seen in a long time).

And no, I'm not dissing Avatar. I really definitely liked it, although at least up to the intermission I seriously wondered if I would still have been entertained without the impressive 3D and CGI.

My sentiments exactly.

[crocodile 8,033]

Mine too.

Karol

[Wojo 2,453]

"Best Picture" doesn't have to mean what everyone thinks it means. Just because The Academy says it's the Best doesn't mean we all have to worship at that altar. I dare not risk opening the good vs. favorite argument again, but Forrest Gump over The Shawshank Redemption? Chariots of Fire over Raiders of the Lost Ark? Annie Hall over Star Wars? Ok, I'll give you that one, but for the others, are you kidding me?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,489]

Avatar is making record amounts of money and bringing people to the theater in economically troubled times and in a day when the movie business has suffered from the home video market, television, illegal downloading and some generally bad movie releases. Hollywood owes it a debt.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

"And the award for Best Picture of the Year* goes to... Avatar"

*Not the actual best picture, but it made a hell of a lot of money, so go Hollywood!

[Wojo 2,453]

Avatar is making record amounts of money and bringing people to the theater in economically troubled times and in a day when the movie business has suffered from the home video market, television, illegal downloading and some generally bad movie releases. Hollywood owes it a debt.

I want to play too. Stand back.

THE DARK KNIGHT is making record amounts of money and bringing people to the theater in economically troubled times and in a day when the movie business has suffered from the home video market, television, illegal downloading and some generally bad movie releases. Hollywood owes it a debt.

<snaps fingers>

Something's wrong...

[Ollie 1,061]

There was a time when the Academy would honor the year's top grossing picture with a nomination, granted it didn't apply every year. Some have been fortunate to win while others have cleaned up in the various categories outside of best picture.

I was suprised when the TDK was ignored last year but not even receiving a nomination. But I don't see the problem Avatar being nominated for best picture. Cameron may not be the greatest script writer but he does put a lot of effort into his films and pushes the limits at times. He goes out of his way to make sure the audience enjoys their experience without insulting them.

Titanic had a real simple and predictable plot, yet Cameron managed to work wonders with it.

[Wojo 2,453]

Titanic had a real simple and predictable plot, yet Cameron managed to work wonders with it.

Yes and no.

At the beginning of the movie, namely the Southhampton scene, teenage boys everywhere made a wish. It comes true not once but twice during the movie.

But a third of the way through the movie, you become so engrossed in the spirit and atmosphere of the movie, you convince yourself it's too good to be true and it shouldn't end. So it comes as a surprise when the ship hits the iceberg, signaling the end of the party.

This stretch of an explanation is brought to you by

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I certainly think TDK should have been nominated last year (no doubt tons will disagree). Maybe if Batman had referenced the Holocaust in some way...

[JoeinAR 1,949]

They should nominate TDK this year. It wouldn't hurt the Academy to recognise some of the big hits that really are worthy of being considered.

Now granted in this universe another successful film called Transformers 2 might try to make the same argument but it is not worthy of consideration though in some parallel universe it will sweep the Oscars.

Looking back Star Wars really did deserve to win over Annie Hall. Raiders, or On Golden Pond over Chariot's of Fire, and E.T. over Ghandi.

Popular doesn't mean its good, but it doesn't mean it's bad either.

But in this case Avatar has enough going for it to make it worthy of a nomination. Average story, (not below average as some insinuate), some terrific acting, amazing effects, some of us think amazing music. The direction is terrific, like it or not Cameron directs this epic well. There are things in this movie that people take for granted but are more substantial to the plot later in the film. There is little waste.

I'll tell you the effect (I figure it must be one) that impresses me the most is the attrofied legs of Jack Skully. His legs appear to be the limbs of a real parapalegic. Of all the things in the movie, thats the one I keep asking how'd they do that. The rest I took for granted.

[Red 75]

I certainly think TDK should have been nominated last year (no doubt tons will disagree). Maybe if Batman had referenced the Holocaust in some way...

Too true.