You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Hurt Locker wins all, pleases Atom

Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:00am

Post 1 of 50

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Yuh.

Although- cinematography goes to Avatar and best screenplay to Hurt Locker? Really?

Last edited Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 7:23am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:01am

Post 2 of 50

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Terrible terrible year.. James Cameron just got screwed over. Damnit.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:04am

Post 3 of 50

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The best film won. It wasn't politics, the best thing made won. To anyone who wants to pass judgment on the wins, see every film nominated and then make your criticisms. Because, for the most part, the best films and performances won. Hell, Mo'Nique won for Precious. The only films I really hadn't seen were The Blind Side and An Education, and the only award that bugged me was cinematography, which I felt was nothing special in Avatar, versus the lighting/angles in Harry Potter.


Thank god. Evman, I guess the #callingit didn't quite work out for you. biggrin

Last edited Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:08am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:05am

Post 4 of 50

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You've got to be kidding. Avatar was a good movie- but never an academy award Best Picture contender, and JC's directing never 'Best Directing' material- at least in the same league as the other nominees.

It was an admittedly weak year, but Avatar got the rather undeserved 'Best Cinematography'- I feel no sympathy for it.

Thank god. Guess............you know.....................Atom was right after all- all is well in the world. smile
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:11am

Post 5 of 50

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

While I'm glad that Avatar didn't win, and I expected Hurt Locker to win, I still wanted A Serious Man to get it. Avatar winning for cinematography makes total sense (Seriously, that movie in 3D is like the most immersive thing, and he developed the technology. It was a gimme, same with visual effects), and Hurt Locker is a better film, so since it was obviously between those two for both best picture and best director, I prefer the way it turned out.

This just proves that having 10 nominations for best picture means absolutely nothing. I'd prefer it if the rest of the nominations weren't just for show, and actually had a chance against the films that are pretty much chosen in advance to be the forerunners.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:19am

Post 6 of 50

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Sandra Bullock for best actress? What the hell?

I also can't believe Hurt Locker won best script over Inglourious Basterds which has some of the best dialogue ever written.

I would also like to direct a personal "Dude, shut the hell up." to Ben for this wonderful sentence:

ben3308 wrote:

The best film won. It wasn't politics, the best thing made won.
Guess that means Inglourious Basterds is the best picture then, because that's the one that resonated the most with me. You are just wrong if you preferred anything else, because clearly you haven't watched it right.

Notice how stupid that sounds to someone that has a different opinion to mine.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:29am

Post 7 of 50

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Inglourious Basterds was completely deserving, and most deserving without much of a doubt only for Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor. It was snubbed on one. But I feel like the others were pretty up-in-the-air. I really, really enjoyed it and have hated all other QT movies- but I don't know that it was 'better' as a memorable, powerful movie as Hurt Locker was. Both were in the top 3 of all the nominees, though.

Avatar was only deserving completely of Visual Effects, which it won.

Up with Giacchino, Andre Desplat for Mr. Fox, and Horner for Sherlock Holmes were all a tie for me- incredibly hard to decide- because all are so fresh and masterful, but Giacchino is deserving based on not winning beforehand.

The biggest snub in my book was missing out on nominating A Serious Man for Cinematography, Editing, or any Sound Awards- I feel like it deserved most of them pretty equally to The Hurt Locker.

It was a weak year, but The Hurt Locker was an unexpectedly strong film. If A Serious Man had more of a legitimate chance, I'd say it entirely deserved it- but the Coens will have another one of those- it's doubtful to me that Kathryn Bigelow will make another Hurt Locker, if that makes sense.

That and the Streeper losing to Sandra-ducking-Bullock. But.....I'm also just an unflinching fan of the Streeper, so. smile
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:38am

Post 8 of 50

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Nope, Inglourious Basterds should've won best picture. It had the best script, amazing cinematography, brilliant acting and incredibly precise direction.

A Serious Man had horrible pacing, no real point (and unlike Burn After Reading, it didn't make good use of that), too many Jewish references to be understandable by someone who knows nothing about the religion, but great acting.

Hurt Locker was a fantastic war movie (albeit inferior to past losers like Saving Private Ryan) with great acting, writing and directing. It is not really anything other than a case study, though, and although it offers a fascinating look at what these guys do, it's not the sort of thing that will have any lasting impact on... anything. Well, before the Oscar, anyway.

Avatar was based on an overdone story arc, featuring decent acting (except Zoe who was great) and average writing. It featured the best special effects ever created and one of the most incredible fictional worlds ever seen on screen. It also revolutionized the way movies can (and will eventually) be made. It's basically Star Wars.


Thus, Inglourious Basterds should've won. By the way, I'm only pretending that my opinion is fact here to make a point.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:43am

Post 9 of 50

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Way to just sweepingly discount every movie, Pooky.

Look: Inglourious Basterds was great. I didn't want to give it credit before I saw it- and I genuinely hate all other QT films- but it was refreshingly slick and fun and well-written. But it didn't have amazing cinematography, editing, etc.

It has solid technicals, solid acting (with the exception of excellence by Christoph Waltz, and solid pacing- but nothing extremely standout. A great movie- but not the 'best' picture.

I mean, how can you not see the obviousness of some of the other nominees? A Serious Man? I mean, I'm a southern Christian good ol' boy and I found the movie perfectly acceptable with all the Jewish references.

And, I mean, it had amazing technicals. Not just solid like IB, but cinematography and editing with purpose complimentary to the script and actions of the actors. It's crazy that you discount even this to me...

Even to the extent of being facetious for the sake of a point- your generalization of ASM bothers me. smile

Last edited Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:46am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:44am

Post 10 of 50

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Exactly!

Also, what the hell just happened to the thread title?
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:51am

Post 11 of 50

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Heh, just to clear up that I wasn't hoping that Avatar would receive best picture. Just saying that Cameron must feel like crap after investing ten years of his life into a project that got little recognition at the largest award ceremony. Than again, it's been praised everywhere else. And he earned a butt load of money.

I really thought Inglorious was deserving, but that's mostly because I wasn't much a fan of the Hurt Locker. Oh well, as Bobby Miller said, Inglorious Basterds it the only film that will be talked about or remembered ten years down the road.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:52am

Post 12 of 50

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Wait, don't you mean Avatar?
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 5:56am

Post 13 of 50

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Wait, don't you mean Avatar?
Nope. Though there's that to wink
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 6:08am

Post 14 of 50

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

A Serious Man was a total bore of a film. It's cinematography and acting were spot-on, but the film generally felt very "Idle". Like it could've been an episode of Twilight zone, except stretched out for hours.


/Inglorious Basterds should've gotten screenplay
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 6:20am

Post 15 of 50

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

I'd be willing to put money on The Hurtlocker. I'll quote this post after the Oscars, I'm callin' it.
I predicted 15/24, not bad.

I did not like Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin as hosts together much. Inglorious deserved screenplay in my opinion. The Hurt Locker was well written, and brilliant, but it was not as much of a feat as Inglorious Bastards.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 6:22am

Post 16 of 50

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Guess that means Inglourious Basterds is the best picture then, because that's the one that resonated the most with me. You are just wrong if you preferred anything else, because clearly you haven't watched it right.
I didn't prefer The Hurt Locker over Inglorious Basterds - the latter was my second favorite film I saw in theaters in 2009 (and I saw 57 films in theaters!) behind 500 Days of Summer. I LOVED Inglourious Basterds.

There is the fact, however, that at times it was drawn out, too kitsch, etc. I enjoyed all of these things, and I thought they made it the most entertaining, most succinct film of the year. In many ways it was 'the best'.

Let me clarify then to say that as an Academy-Award film, The Hurt Locker was better than Avatar. IB was my personal favorite, but I think the winning film was the best one.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 7:29am

Post 17 of 50

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

In their little time, I thought Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin were great. The hosting was definitely cut down this year, but I still felt like it worked and made sense.

The incessant and hilariously uncalled-for repetition of bashing Meryl Streep and the super-serious-deadpan Clooney/Baldwin stare downs were some of the best -perhaps also funniest- moments in recent Oscar memory.

They didn't have to go for huge potshot gags (John Stewart), pre-recorded segments (Chris Rock), or edginess (Ellen DeGeneres) -all of who I liked as hosts- but instead kept it classy and succinct. And '1960s buddy hosts'-throwback----y. And I thought that worked for them. I don't much like the new format everything is in, but it's an improvement of the change that started last year. Although I did love Hugh Jackman as host last year- similarly classy and throwback-ish- but more in the Gene Kelly energetic way.

You spice a little Hugh Jackman into the Baldwin/Martin combo next year and I think you've got a winner. wink
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 7:36am

Post 18 of 50

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Hugh Jackman was SO campy. Not to mention, Gayer than San Francisco in July.


I think John Stewart did the best job in recent memory.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 7:42am

Post 19 of 50

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

If you think Jackman was CAMPY, I can't even fathom how you dealt with Jon Stewart's SNARKY sense.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 9:07am

Post 20 of 50

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Surprised that Avatar didn't clean up, for reasons I've stated elsewhere, but rather pleased.

Hurt Locker was a really good film, although not 'best of year' material for me personally.

I think it's a bit of a shame that Renner is getting all the recognition, when I actually far preferred Anthony Mackie's performance.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 9:20am

Post 21 of 50

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'm pretty happy how it turned out, although I did expect Avatar to win Best Picture and James Cameron for Best Director. Not that their neccessarily my personal choices, but it seemed to be obvious. Would have liked to have seen Inglourious Basterds as the winner of especially screenplay and best picture though. Still, I felt there should've been more love for District 9, which I thought was simply amazing (along with a Oscar nom for Sharlto Copley) - but I guess a South-African sci-fi film never really had a shot at the Oscars smile
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 9:26am

Post 22 of 50

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Jackman doesn't have a very popular show on "comedy central" for a reason. That's because the man is not funny. How hard is that to fathom? wink
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 11:40am

Post 23 of 50

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Thrawn wrote:

Terrible terrible year.. James Cameron just got screwed over. Damnit.
Also...

Given that Cameron's main innovations and breakthroughs with Avatar were in cinematography and visual effects, surely the film won exactly the awards he would have wanted to win? He certainly hasn't spent 10 years working on the script, but he did spend 10 years getting it to look right - something that the Academy recognised in a sensible fashion.

I'm still surprised that they didn't give it best picture, though. Clearly I'm becoming too cynical in my old age!
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 1:34pm

Post 24 of 50

Mantra

Force: 1888 | Joined: 25th Nov 2002 | Posts: 551

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Up with Giacchino, Andre Desplat for Mr. Fox, and Horner for Sherlock Holmes were all a tie for me- incredibly hard to decide- because all are so fresh and masterful, but Giacchino is deserving based on not winning beforehand.
I think you mean Hans Zimmer for Sherlock, not Horner.

In my opinion one of the best films (and certainly best actor of last year) were completely overlooked when 'Moon' was totally ignored in the nominations. I'd also put in Clint Mansell's score for Moon as well.

Mantra
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 1:58pm

Post 25 of 50

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Christoph Walz won, I'm very happy for him and that oscar is well deserved.

Personally, I'd say Avater got just the right oscars in the places where it actually was awesome. It didn't get the ones where it simply wasn't, like "best film" or "best director".

As for the Hurt Locker. I thought it was a good film. But not more. But I guess being american is part of the necessity to understand why the film is seen as "best picture" material. To me, it was just a good, but completely unmemorable film.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 2:03pm

Post 26 of 50

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

The first half of Hurt Locker seemed unusual and very noteworthy. I was really impressed with its style, restraint and cold simplicity, plus its reluctance to 'explain' the behaviour of the main guy.

The second half becomes far more traditional, unfortunately, starting with the bizarre hijacking of a civilian vehicle into town (which felt like it would be more appropriate in Point Break), and culminating with the "well, duh!" revelation that going to war is more engaging than cleaning gutters and doing the washing up.

It's a bit like District 9, in fact - a novel, innovative first half that does some interesting new things, then a second half that still works as entertainment but which becomes a lot more generic.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 3:34pm

Post 27 of 50

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I think one has to determine what is meant by "Best Picture". Is it the most entertaining? The most technically sound? The most compelling storyline?

I agree with the folks who say HL was a very good albeit forgettable film. Avatar on the other hand will have a huge impact on future film and will be talked about for decades. One cannot dismiss the number of people who paid to see it either. Hard to not take those things into consideration when picking "Best Picture"

As far as JC "getting screwed", my limited sympathies lie elsewhere.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 3:49pm

Post 28 of 50

The Nemesis2161

Force: 1040 | Joined: 21st Mar 2007 | Posts: 218

VisionLab User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

While Hurt Locker was good, yes, it was scarily inaccurate when it comes to American disarming bombs, I mean, c'mon. If you're going to pretend that you did research, at least get the minor technicalities right. The US does not use wire clippers to disarm bombs, google it.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 4:05pm

Post 29 of 50

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

The Nemesis2161 wrote:

While Hurt Locker was good, yes, it was scarily inaccurate when it comes to American disarming bombs, I mean, c'mon. If you're going to pretend that you did research, at least get the minor technicalities right. The US does not use wire clippers to disarm bombs, google it.
Man, next thing you're going to do is tell me Avatar is fake too!
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 4:17pm

Post 30 of 50

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +2

One of the things that's always bothered me with the Oscars is precisely the fact that there is such a thing as an "Oscar movie" or "Oscar bait". In my mind, a movie doesn't have to be serious, emotional, calm and featuring something foreign to be the best movie of the year. The fact that something like Chariots of Fire can would win over something like Indiana Jones, for instance, kind of proves that to me. I mean, okay Indiana Jones is campy and tongue-in-cheek, but that's part of moviemaking too! Same goes for Inglourious Basterds.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 4:27pm

Post 31 of 50

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I love the fact that there's such thing as an 'Oscar movie' because it is, quite usually, a film that transcends mere entertainment and instead aims to hit us at our cores. If you're American, The Hurt Locker will probably hit you harder. If you're Jewish, or happen to have read The Book of Job, then A Serious Man will have a pretty deep impact.

The 'Oscar movies' normally are a created genre of any film that has a salient, somewhat mainstream appeal but goes above and beyond mere entertainment and thrills. It digs deeper.

Maybe that's not as 'good' for you, but in terms of what I think Oscars should be given to, it's right on the money. Join the Academy when you get older and vote otherwise, if you disagree. Because I fully intend to. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 6:35pm

Post 32 of 50

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

One of the things that's always bothered me with the Oscars is precisely the fact that there is such a thing as an "Oscar movie" or "Oscar bait". I mean, okay Indiana Jones is campy and tongue-in-cheek, but that's part of moviemaking too! Same goes for Inglourious Basterds.
Exactly and in that respect I lost respect for the Academy in 1978 when they didn't give EVERYTHING to Star Wars. I can't say I'm not a bit disappointed that Avatar didn't take all, but we all saw this coming (I was even disappointed that it only got 9 nominations razz). I'm sorry Ben, but if you're going to call your award "Best Picture" it should be given to the best picture, not the best picture of a certain kind. In ruins the integrity of the whole award.

And am I the only one who can't stand how they sneak in some technical awards for their favorite Oscar bait films? I mean Sound Editing and Sound Design for Hurt Locker? Really? Just like Slumdog got the same ones last year, when WALL-E, yes WALL-E came out. Surely even the Academy aren't that thick? If you weren't going to give them to Avatar, give them to Ben F***ing Burtt for Star Trek. Everyone knows he is the worlds single greatest sound designer.

This is pretty spot on if you ask me: A Trailer for Every Academy Award Winning Movie Ever
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 6:39pm

Post 33 of 50

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

It's not 'Best Picture' though.

It's the best picture as determined by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Avatar may have melded science well to art, but there are other films that further transcend the 'art' of filmmaking - ones that can resonate and hit us deeper, films that touch our souls and instill in us an emotional connection. It's hard to say that this happens every year - it doesn't. But 'Oscar films' exist in a category because they are the films that get closest to this.

If you'd be more pleased if films were voted on these same values, but with more emphasis on entertainment value, then watch the Golden Globes - that's pretty much what they're there for. biggrin

I'm not saying that I'm not biased. Because, in the end, 'Academy Award' type movies aren't my favorite, but they're the kind I'm looking to make when I get older and wiser. Oscar films highlight an importance in filmmaking, an ability to drive a message and conjure some meaningful result in the viewer. They use story and filmmaking poetics to drive things more important than the film itself. Whether or not you think this is what filmmaking should be about is irrelevant - the Academy Awards are given to films that have importance not just in the world of filmmaking and entertainment, but the world overall.

Why is good architecture, for instance, something we muse at and celebrate and study? Because it blends a vague definition of 'art' with something we use and access everyday. Academy-Award films are given credence because, in many ways, they seek to do the same thing: help to define the 'art' in the visual form, and give us some insight, some utility, some disparate connection with something or someone else that proves meaningful in our lives. The reason they are important, as a result, is because they can do all these things artfully, and with subtlety. For this reason, I celebrate and applaud most Oscar films.

Last edited Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 6:45pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 6:42pm

Post 34 of 50

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Also bear in mind that "films that connect with us", the us is in fact the members of the academy. Not you, not the average joe.

Some people agree, some don't. There's no science and no truth to it.


There's nothing to lose "respect" for. I'd say respect other people's opinions, even if you might not share them.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 6:50pm

Post 35 of 50

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Staff Only wrote:

And am I the only one who can't stand how they sneak in some technical awards for their favorite Oscar bait films? I mean Sound Editing and Sound Design for Hurt Locker? Really? Just like Slumdog got the same ones last year, when WALL-E, yes WALL-E came out. Surely even the Academy aren't that thick? If you weren't going to give them to Avatar, give them to Ben F***ing Burtt for Star Trek. Everyone knows he is the worlds single greatest sound designer.
There seems to be some confusion between the Sound Editing and Sound Mixing categories - they almost always seem to be exactly identical - which was the case this year as well, when the only addition in the Sound Mixing category was TF2, if I'm not mistaken. And while that not have had a sound mix that didn't really touch my soul, I found it was far more technically impressive than The Hurt Locker and should have therefor won the award. From my point of view at least.

Well, at least Bridges finally got his Oscar - I haven't seen Crazy Heart yet, as it hasn't premiered here. But I might just watch The Big Lebowski again when I get home.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 6:57pm

Post 36 of 50

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

On a sidenote, I liked how James Cameron cheered when his Ex got her oscar. When she was announced, he yelled something like "Yes! Hell yeah!" and seemed genuinly excited.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 7:53pm

Post 37 of 50

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

[quote="Tarn"]

Thrawn wrote:



Given that Cameron's main innovations and breakthroughs with Avatar were in cinematography and visual effects, surely the film won exactly the awards he would have wanted to win? He certainly hasn't spent 10 years working on the script, but he did spend 10 years getting it to look right - something that the Academy recognised in a sensible fashion.
While I'm sure he wanted to win in those categories, I also think he really wanted to have been personally awarded with best director, or received best picture for his work. I mean, who wouldn't, but he has had this idea for 10 years, and has worked his butt off for it. Considering it is the highest grossing film of all time, it would have been icing on the cake.

But you can't have it all I suppose.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 8:00pm

Post 38 of 50

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

But you can't have it all I suppose.
No? I seem to remember one of his movies winning like 13 Oscars one year, three of which went to him personally.

He got exactly what he deserved this year. Giving him anything more would just be giving him an award for making a lot of money.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 8:38pm

Post 39 of 50

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I agree with most of the sentiments regarding Avatar. Designed for VFX and Technical awards, which it rightly won. The Cinematography award a little more controversial, though interesting that the academy have acknowledged the live digital framing. An event for the history books.

Hurt Locker, however - I thought was horribly boring. Interesting beginning that fades into lameness, bordering on Team America levels of ridiculousness. At least Inglorious Basterds, another horribly over-hyped, witless structural abortion of a movie acknowledged that element.

Real shame that Moon didn't even get a nomination (Thanks to Sony). Ah well.
-Matt
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 9:33pm

Post 40 of 50

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Meh.

I don't have a problem with Avatar not winning best picture and director even though I think it should have. I do have a problem with The Hurt Locker winning... simply because it wasn't even close to being the best film. smile I've only seen five of the nominees so far, but Avatar, Inglorious Basterds, and Up are all much better movies. If you're not going to give it to Avatar, at least give it to the next deserving one.

The Hurt Locker is obviously a startling take on the war in Iraq. But it doesn't mean it was "best film" material. It starts out interesting, but falls apart long before the third act. I don't like the ending at all... [spoilers] where he looks his baby in the eye and says that there is only one thing he loves. Not his wife, not his kid, but diffusing bombs in a war zone. The guy willingly leaves his family so he can get go back to the thrill of diffusing bombs. Sure, he wants to help his country, but he's putting himself in position to be killed. What would that do to his wife and kid? [/spoilers]

I am happy that a woman won best director. But honestly she wasn't the "best director". Cameron was. I mean, isn't the award for "Best Achievement in Directing" or something like that? I'm not a fan of Cameron at all, but it's pretty obvious he did the best directing job, putting together a massive project like Avatar. But since he's already won, I'm happy nonetheless for Bigelow.

I don't think I need to explain why Inglorious Basterds should have won Best Original Screenplay. smile

I'm definitely pleased with most of the other awards... the acting, the technical stuff, etc. Except for sound editing and mixing. The Hurt Locker? Really? You're telling me The Hurt Locker has better sound than Star Trek, Avatar, Transformers, and Up? I think not. smile
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 10:10pm

Post 41 of 50

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The Hurt Locker though, regardless of being the 'best' film, was better on almost every technical editing, cinematography, acting, lighting, sound mixing, storytelling, scripting, and direction-of-acting level than Avatar was. Maybe the overall effect made you like one more than the other- but pretty cut-and-dry on individual bases those facets were superseded by a better movie- The Hurt Locker.

Now I'm not saying that's what makes it the best picture- it isn't entirely. But if you're comparing apples to oranges for why Avatar lost, it's pretty simple- there was a better movie than it in the running. Several, actually. Probably all but The Blind Side. Not that any of these were the 'best', but they were clearly better movies- even District 9, which I extremely disliked.

Avatar was a fun, enthralling movie and theater experience- but not much past that. More on the side of thrilling mediocre action movie than anything else in my book. But then again, I've always been biased. I'm just in awe people legitimately think/thought it not only was going to win but that it deserved to. Not because The Hurt Locker was that good, but because Avatar just wasn't.

Also, Cinematography going to Avatar bothers me deeply. Not bad, but just incredibly mundane and troubling. I have a feeling that one went with more of a confused voting mass of the Academy as to what exactly cinematography is.

For my money Roger Deakens work on A Serious Man went unmatched- but of the nominees Harry Potter 6 clearly deserved to win. Beautifully shot, expertly-lit, and stylistic and moving in an unparalleled way that held the movie together through some spots- that's something you don't see cinematography in movies do that often, and I thought for sure it would win it.

I guess it went more towards a progression in technology this time. Which is........a shame. Because the craft, prowess of the cinematographer, and overall cohesive 'look' of Avatar just isn't that strong- it's the art direction within this that bolsters it. Don't get me wrong- I'm impressed by the tech- but there are plenty of shots- I'd say about 40% of them, where there's no grandeur or CG landscape for the cinematographer to fall back on- and those shot ache of poorly-staged overlighting, overly-videoy camera settings, and just not-so-bad-but-not-that-great-either angles and movement.

I dunno, I suppose that's more down to taste- I just really don't understand the motivation behind Avatar's win without seeing it as compensating for it losing almost all other awards. Which isn't cool- because HP6 was beautiful and some of the shots have still stuck with me even now. Notably the slow dolly backwards over foggy, rainy hills during Aragog's eulogy by Slughorn. Just.........beautiful- finally a cinematographer who knew how to use the whimsical, surreal videoy look of digital shooting to the advantage of the film's art direction and tone.

But that's just me.

And jawajohnny- 'Best Director' does mean being able to put together large projects, yes. I completely agree- the ability to direct things and hold them together is a large part of it. But also, a director's job is ultimately to direct the actors- and in Avatar this was exceedingly mediocre- most of the performances and line-deliveries (granted, from only so-so actors to begin with) just scream of 'baaadddddd'. Now, yeah, there are the likes of Sam Worthington and Siqourney Weaver- who've proven through their other work in mediocre projects they can act themselves to greatness even without a director- but as far as all the actors and acting as a whole- James Cameron just proved himself mediocre-at-best on Avatar.

Now I'm not saying this is always the case with him- Titanic, which is undeniably schmaltzy, still has pretty great acting through-and-through from a range of different skill-levels of actors- and is additionally a large feat of filmmaking to handle. And in this case I think his Oscar is warranted. (Although I would've loved to see Curtis Hansen win for LA Confidential, one of my favorite movies, that year.)

But Avatar didn't have the solidity in acting and filmmaking that Titanic did- no doubt a concession necessary in order for JC to oversee his visuals come to fruition- but one that ultimately affected his chances at the Best Director Oscar.

I mean, if anyone, I'm most impressed with Quentin Tarantino as a runner-up for Best Director. And he's a guy I absolutely despise- but in my book he's monumentally more-deserving than Cameron.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 10:31pm

Post 42 of 50

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

It's Roger Deakins. Not Deakens. How many times do you have to mess it up?
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 11:09pm

Post 43 of 50

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Considering how the academy works, though, Tarantino will eventually win an oscar for a mediocre movie because he "was due" after being shunted on Inglourious Basterds, Pulp Fiction and so on, as will basically everyone else.
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 11:27pm

Post 44 of 50

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Way to address a completely unrelated point there, Atom. No one's contesting Avatar not winning best picture. Simply that Hurt Locker was arse, and shouldn't have won over the other contenders.

It's incredible the lengths you will go to write a paragraph about Avatar not winning something.

-Matt
Posted: Mon, 8th Mar 2010, 11:27pm

Post 45 of 50

Paradox Pictures

Force: 889 | Joined: 18th Mar 2008 | Posts: 387

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

On a sidenote, I liked how James Cameron cheered when his Ex got her oscar. When she was announced, he yelled something like "Yes! Hell yeah!" and seemed genuinly excited.
He may have been both excited for her, and sad because he didn't win. It was still nice to see him not being mad.
Posted: Tue, 9th Mar 2010, 3:49am

Post 46 of 50

Gnome326

Force: 10 | Joined: 21st Mar 2005 | Posts: 436

Windows User

Member

I felt as though Inglorious Basterds should have won best editing and best sound design. Hurt locker was very good and I won't complain in reguards to its best director and picture awards but there were other nominations it won that I really felt it was lacking compared to the other films it was up against. And while I thought the film was perfect the way it was I just didn't feel the nature and technique required to put the film together merited all the praise it has received. But as a total package it is a very good film
Posted: Tue, 9th Mar 2010, 12:13pm

Post 47 of 50

Paradox Pictures

Force: 889 | Joined: 18th Mar 2008 | Posts: 387

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Wow. Everyone was thinking that Avatar, after making 2.5 billion, was going to win. I hadn't evan heard of The Hurt Locker until last weekend.
Posted: Tue, 9th Mar 2010, 6:02pm

Post 48 of 50

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

This video pretty much sums up the best picture category in recent years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFicqklGuB0

(Not totally true, but still very funny.)
Posted: Tue, 9th Mar 2010, 6:16pm

Post 49 of 50

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

This video pretty much sums up the best picture category in recent years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFicqklGuB0

(Not totally true, but still very funny.)
Yeah, pretty awesome. While it doesn't account for stuff like Return of the King (one of my favorite picks for a true "best film of the year"), I find it very accurate. Already posted though, previous page. wink

Staff Only wrote:

This is pretty spot on if you ask me: A Trailer for Every Academy Award Winning Movie Ever
Posted: Tue, 9th Mar 2010, 7:22pm

Post 50 of 50

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Awww, my bad, missed that. Consider that post a nod to it then.