The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Hurt Locker vs Avatar - judged purely on merits?

Hurt Locker vs Avatar - judged purely on merits?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
I have been fortunate to have the time to catch up with the both of the hot favourites for the Oscar Best Picture award, Avatar and Hurt Locker.

As we know Hurt Locker took home the prize this year but in my view the wrong film won.

I think both were very good films, not great but certainly up there. Both had some continuity problems and neither successfully avoided including some quite clichéd characters.

Visually there was much to commend them both, but for me the stand-out was Avatar which soared with some glorious moments and some very original cinematic art.

Acknowledging the subjective nature of my appraisal I did wonder why a film, which in my opinion was noticeably more deserving of the gong, missed out.

I thought about the controversy Avatar generated. To many right wing commentators in America and here in Australia it was anti-US and anti-human. China also stripped it from many cinemas because of its message of struggle against progress and government.

The Hurt Locker on the other hand had a very different message. It did not touch on anything controversial but instead showed the American soldiers engaged in heroic struggle against an almost universally suspect population and a viscous, cold-blooded enemy.

To run the line that the least uncomfortable film for the Academy voters won instead of the more deserving I would have to show that a non-American audience, might have voted differently.

In other words does one's political persuasion or one's nationalism dictate how one might view the quality or lack thereof of a particular film and did it have an impact this time?

So I was wondering if anyone who has seen both movies might like to offer up their preference and, if so inclined, their political leaning.

Happy to go first: Avatar, slightly left.

Even if a vote is not in the offing then any discussion of the merits of either would be of interest.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:30:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I haven't seen Hurt Locker yet I found Avatar to be a hell of a visual ride, but not much more.

I thought the plot "message" was pretty obvious but not likely to change anybody's opinion either way. It's no more critical than many other contemporary films - this one just had lots more publicity.

While the cinematography had some breathtaking moments I felt like I was inside some sort of computer game. Not much in the way of acting performances or even character development.

To be fair, maybe Gone with the Wind was probably much the same.

I also found the 3D a bit distracting, particularly for objects out of focus in the foreground.

Still it was a fun way to spend a couple of hours.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 12:35:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditto on wobbles.

Haven't seen Hurt Locker yet coz it's only showing in select theatres which all are miles from me.

I really think people saw WAY too much into Avatar. It was entertaining. About sums it up for me. Really tho, the locals shoulda killed every human and buried them in a large hole with all their gear. They'll be back, and carpet bombing from space.
Posted by StG, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 6:20:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the responses.

I may have to bow to my fondness for science fiction when I say I found Avatar a superior film. It certainly didn't have the weight of a Blade Runner nor the grit of District 8 but for me the immersion factor was a big plus. I was completely captured and when a film does that to me at my age then I have to give it credit.

I can see what you mean by feeling you were in a game wobbles however it is widely acknowledged that Blade Runner had a huge influence on computer games and the genres are closely linked.

What I tend to find irritating are those 'game moments' that appear in films, those where the director has a very obvious eye on the how Play Station might extend the profits of the film. A prime example would be the rocket 'pod' race in the Phantom Menace along with the unfortunate inclusion of Jar Jar Binks, roundly condemned for its obvious clutch for the merchandising market
Although there were glimpses of this in Avatar they didn't stand out.

So how to judge the strength of a movie? Ultimately some weight has to be given to box office takings because even with the best marketing in the world a dud is still a dud. To gain the kind of numbers Avatar has managed must mean a lot of people have had their buttons pushed and are recommending the film to others as a must see. Bums on seats have produced box office takings of over $2 billion compared to $20 million.

Ultimately these awards are American and I suppose they should be allowed to vote however they please especially when they have citizens dying in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Added to that Hurt Locker also won at the BAFTAs.
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 2:15:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have found this little teaser from Peter Martin;

Did Australia's voting system cost Avatar the gong for Best Picture?

Probably.

Oscar voting used to be first-past-the-post.

This year for the first time since 1943 they decided to use Australia's preferential voting system.

“Voters will rank order the ten nominated films. If any film has a majority of voters picking it as top choice, it's elected. If not, the film with the fewest first place votes is eliminated and that film's supporters are counted as voting for their second choice. Repeat until some film has majority support.”

It made the US-based Australian economist Justin Wolfers proud.

And it would have cost Avatar the Oscar if, as is likely, it

(a) received more first-preference votes than any other film; but

(b) when it came down to the wire most voters didn't want a high-tech sci-fi film to win.

Do you think?
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2010/03/did-australias-voting-system-cost.html
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 2:17:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WTF?

Avatar is a bad-cowboys-v-good-indians movie set to a 1970s YES album cover backdrop
Posted by WTF?, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 4:16:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy