Apparently "The Hurt Locker" has detail issues.

Batutta said:
You already have...REPEATEDLY...now you're just gloating over what you perceive as a victory because Avatar lost best picture, ignoring the fact THAT IT WAS NOMINATED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! A lot of people thought Avatar was good enough to be nominated for best picture, which disproves your conspiracy theory that everyone was brainwashed into seeing it, liking it and spreading the word. An impossible thought for you to comprehend, I know. That people have tastes different from your own. That can't be possible. No, what's more likely is that we have all been hypnotized like mindless lemmings.
Click to expand...

Yep, Avatar was nominated for best picture...

Because there were 10 best picture nominations...

Because they decided for ratings purposes, after The Dark Knight, to extend the category to 10 so that they could include popular movies like Avatar...

Which lost...

Because it sucked...

And was only nominated because it made lots of money...

Which was why they expanded the category to include 10 movies...

Which was why Avatar was nominated...

But didn't win in any category that makes, you know, a good movie (script, directing, acting, etc)...

Because it sucked...

And was nominated FOR RATINGS because of its original MARKETING which made the movie make MONEY.

But despite having the largest budget of ALL TIME could not manage to win anything that would depict it as a best picture.

I mean, Hurt Locker, dude? HURT LOCKER? lol

Dude, it lost to HURT LOCKER.

Avatar is LAME. 6,000 esteemed judges in the arts, including Tom Hanks all agree...with me.

I'm gloating, sure, but the argument is over. Stamped and sealed.

Avatar = Money.

Great, so does section 8 approved housing.
 
Chamber005 said:
Avatar is LAME. 6,000 esteemed judges in the arts, including Tom Hanks all agree...with me.

I'm gloating, sure, but the argument is over. Stamped and sealed.
Click to expand...

This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Just the fact that it was even included means the Academy did not think it sucked. You think they put movies up for Awards that they think sucked? Then why wasn't Transformers 2 nominated for best picture?...Your thinking still strikes me as myopically black and white. There can only be two options to every idea. THERE ARE SHADES OF GREY!!! You're making the assumption that people didn't vote for Avatar because they think it sucked. Maybe some of them did and maybe some of them liked it but thought it wasn't as good as something else, and maybe people cast different votes for a million other reasons. Automatically assuming they didn't vote for Avatar because they thought it was a piece of sh*t is a zero sum mentality.
 
Last edited:
The Hurt Locker is a good movie, but award-winning and accurate it is not.

"Hey guys, let's make a movie where we blame the soldier's action addiction and not the people who indiscriminately plant bombs -- and let's fuel action movie expectations instead of artistically working against them to prove a point. Let's really go over the top and have our lead character become a hoodie-wearing white-trash hero who runs through the streets of Iraq, doling out vigilante justice, and endangering the lives of fellow soldiers with no actual consequence."
 
sbryan said:
The Hurt Locker is a good movie, but award-winning and accurate it is not.
Click to expand...

Award-winning it is. Here's a run-down of all the awards that The Hurt Locker has won…

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/awards

As for accuracy, that's not high on the list of reasons I go to the movies, unless of course I'm watching a documentary. And I'm pretty sure Apocalypse Now wasn't a spot-on portrayal of war either, but it didn't cause me to enjoy it any less.
 
I should have said Oscar-worthy it is not.

Filmmakers, when tasked, always say they're simply telling a story and are apolitical. That's crap of course. They handheld the camera to feign actuality. They used an actual conflict instead of a hypothetical one. They used current military uniforms instead of earlier issue. Why? Because they thought the audience wouldn't recognize the same military on TV! That is how little they think of their audience and they get rewarded for it!

If you're not going to take the time to get the details right to the best of your ability, don't make movies. Don't lecture anyone else about your craft, either.
 
If there is a standard better than the decisions made by the nominating and voting Academy membership when it comes to what is or isn't "Oscar-worthy" I'd like to know what it may be...

...even if we go ahead and reduce it to the obvious level of personal taste and opinion, it seems to me that the subjective opinions of the professional membership of the actual organization that distributes the awards trump the subjective opinions of non-members who occupy the role of spectators.
 
I agree hurt locker is a good film but nothing that I would give an oscar to, I wouldn't give it to avatar either. but you know what, I don't decide that...so what the hell, congrats to all the people involved in the making of all the award winning films, because filmmaking is a cooperative effort!
 
Let me correct myself, I think that this film isn't best film worthy, but I think that some of the elements of this film (when I talk about elements I talk about cinematography, screenplay, art direction, etc...) are Oscar worthy.
 
Sad Max said:
If there is a standard better than the decisions made by the nominating and voting Academy membership when it comes to what is or isn't "Oscar-worthy" I'd like to know what it may be...

...even if we go ahead and reduce it to the obvious level of personal taste and opinion, it seems to me that the subjective opinions of the professional membership of the actual organization that distributes the awards trump the subjective opinions of non-members who occupy the role of spectators.
Click to expand...

It's actually quite simple. Take a film that hit all its technical marks and ask yourself: Does it inspire and motivate? Or resonate? Or provide classic, cinematic escapism? And don't answer those questions from the point of view from today. Answer them from the point of view of 30 years from now.

You're not picking selections for just the year. You're picking films for perpetuity. You're picking films for today's 3 year olds to discover 14 years down the road. You're saying this is the best we had to offer. This is the culmination of our creative ability and dedication.
 
Sad Max said:
If there is a standard better than the decisions made by the nominating and voting Academy membership when it comes to what is or isn't "Oscar-worthy" I'd like to know what it may be...

...even if we go ahead and reduce it to the obvious level of personal taste and opinion, it seems to me that the subjective opinions of the professional membership of the actual organization that distributes the awards trump the subjective opinions of non-members who occupy the role of spectators.
Click to expand...

Haha, you think its all subjective? You think all 6000 academy members watch ALL the movies.

Its politics. Actor A happens to be friends with nominated Actor B...so Actor B gets the vote.

Its also, rallying and gift giving. You dont think for awards such as the Golden Globes...members of the Associated Press arent bestowed luxurious gifts? You wonder how some films are even nominated...

There is nothing truly subjective about any of the major awards shows. Popularity, money, and pull are the true deciding factors.
 
"But [Avatar] didn't win in any category that makes, you know, a good movie (script, directing, acting, etc)...

Because it sucked...

Avatar is LAME. 6,000 esteemed judges in the arts, including Tom Hanks all agree...with me."


Delusional?

Not being voted best picture = "sucked?"

And even Tom Hanks agrees with you?

Strange conversation.

Anti-Imperialism Sells
AVATAR (2009)
 
sbryan said:
It's actually quite simple. Take a film that hit all its technical marks
Click to expand...

Not so simple; even whether or not a given work 'hits all technical marks' wanders into subjective territory. Is the plane of focus on what I identify as the subject of the shot? If not, was that an aesthetic choice or a technical error? Is the color grading correct? Well, what's 'correct?' Maybe the director was aiming for a particular effect using what I'd consider poor color control (Marty S., I'm looking at you). Sure, there are obvious and easily-identified errors that we can feel pretty damn sure weren't actual conscious choices - and there are also choices with which we may disagree mightily, that are not errors and still representative of a film 'hitting all its technical marks.'

sbryan said:
and ask yourself: Does it inspire and motivate? Or resonate? Or provide classic, cinematic escapism?
Click to expand...

This should read Does it inspire and motivate me? Or resonate with me? Or provide classic, cinematic escapism for me? Since of course these are all purely personal and subjective responses without hard real-word quantification.

sbryan said:
And don't answer those questions from the point of view from today. Answer them from the point of view of 30 years from now.
Click to expand...

Which of course no one can do, since 2040 is just as unimaginable for us right now, as today was back in 1980.

sbryan said:
You're not picking selections for just the year. You're picking films for perpetuity.
Click to expand...

Perpetuity? Let's not get carried away. The Pyramids at Giza were built 'for perpetuity' and look at the shape they're in, now...

sbryan said:
You're picking films for today's 3 year olds to discover 14 years down the road.
Click to expand...

They'll discover whatever they discover whether I vote for one candidate or another. This is not why people vote, what may or may not appeal to today's three-year-olds somewhere down the road.

sbryan said:
You're saying this is the best we had to offer.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's what you're saying. I wouldn't say that it means anything beyond this is what got the most votes, this year.
 
Last edited:
Decided to join in... weird direction this thread is taking.

First Films are subjective... and second... well there's not other point.

I mean I've had this debate with friends 'this movie sucks, here's why'.

I would respond 'well it sucks to you, films are subjective'

'no it just sucks over-all, terrible characters, this that...'

'well YOU didn't like it, I'm sure other people do'

'no, it just sucks in general, all these people agree with me, it's a fact'

C'mon. I didn't like avatar, I enjoyed the experience of it and I saw it twice, but I didn't like it. I really enjoyed hurt locker and I personally feel it should have won. But this is the problem with the oscars, however it is they chose the films, everything is still subjective! There's no black and white. We're writers, just like there aren't black and white characters, the same goes for films!

Just because it won best picture doesn't mean it's flawless, neither does it mean everyone will like it or enjoy it...
 
1. Technical marks. As in, are there egregious storytelling devices. Poor choices that stick out. See The Departed, an oscar-winning film that's already dated and was an amateur outing for Scorsese to begin with.

2. No. Use your expertise to choose what Americans should watch. That's what you use your talents for. Could you not recognize the lasting quality of Saving Private Ryan over Shakespeare in Love. I mean, really?

3. Again, you're refusing to make an actual choice and use your talent to recognize art that lasts.

4. Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur, and The Godfather are as close to eternity as any of us will see. Mark it. (Other evidence of me-centered logic)

5. Are you not aware of Oscar movie nights? Starting points for genres?

6. And you haven't questioned why any of the recent picks are transient at best? Why people tune out for years at a time?

7. Don't nitpick. It was quite clear in context: "You're saying this is the best we had to offer. This is the culmination of our creative ability and dedication."

We refers to industry professionals. Our, again, refers to the same thing.
 
^ if you are unable to recognize that the contents of your list are uniformly on subjective territory, I don't think I can help you.
 
If you respected everyone's decisions in the process, films couldn't be made. They are the result of conscious choice after conscious choice.

You respect subjectivity when it's convenient.
 
The problem with complaining that movies aren't Oscar-worthy is that the Oscars go on regardless. They vote for nominess from all the eligible films from that year and then vote on the nominated films. If they all are subpar then you get all subpar nominess. It's not like they're going to say, well screw it, this year sucked so we're not handing out awards. The Oscar's are a reflection of what the industry had to offer that year. So they are Oscar-worthy. For the year 2009.
 
The problem with complaining that movies aren't Oscar-worthy is that by the very nature of the process there is only one group whose opinion is meaningful: the voting membership of the body handling the awards. Outside that perimeter it's an entirely meaningless conversation.

And there's probably room to question exactly how meaningful the conversation is, within that perimeter.
 
my subjective opinion is that Avatar, Inglorious Basterds, UP, and Up in the Air all should have won Best Picture before The Hurt Locker did... and yes, I've seen all of those movies.
 
Sad Max said:
The problem with complaining that movies aren't Oscar-worthy is that by the very nature of the process there is only one group whose opinion is meaningful: the voting membership of the body handling the awards. Outside that perimeter it's an entirely meaningless conversation.

And there's probably room to question exactly how meaningful the conversation is, within that perimeter.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's like complaining that the local rotary club voted Starbucks to be the best coffee shop in town. The people IN THAT CLUB are giving THEIR OPINION. Everyone else is just a spectator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top