zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,878
- 31,392
- 146
Well since the Oscars are a popularity contest avatar wins.
and then the other people complain that it's "only for critics" when their shitty Batman movie doesn't even get nominated.
...so I'll go with: you're wrong.
at least it ain't the grammies.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,878
- 31,392
- 146
datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
and then the other people complain that it's "only for critics" when their shitty Batman movie doesn't even get nominated.
...so I'll go with: you're wrong.
at least it ain't the grammies.
Well people complain about everything but in this case the there's a 2 orders of magnitude difference in what they made, and so probably close to that with how many more watched it. People don't watch overly horrible movies that often, hopefully.
Which should win can't really say, but as a rule in everything else... better things tend to become more popular.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,878
- 31,392
- 146
Hurt Locker was fantastic. Realism--in terms of how accurate a particular squad's actions are depicted is completely and entirely irrelevant to the quality of the film. The emotional reality, the characterization are what matters.
complaining about inaccuracies in film realism is nothing new and no one really cares. On top of that, it's not like any of these soldiers were depicted in a particularly negative way. The main character is a bit over the top, but the film would be boring otherwise. No one wants to watch a dull, rule-bound character float about beholden to routine and procedure. You may cry about how that's how real military would act, but you'd be damn bored watching it on the screen.
on top of that, seeing as how the official military-sourced complaints lobbed at Avatar reveal a startling inability to distinguish between nation-less mercenaries and US soldiers, I don't think I'm going to look at the Military perspective as a legitimate critic of a film's particular quality.
Not to disparage the military in any way, of course....but attacking or simply critiquing film really isn't in their best interest.
gorcorps
aka Brandon
- Jul 18, 2004
- 30,741
- 456
- 126
Great acting and they did a good job at making it feel personal. If you have a heart, it's strings were being tugged at.
Avatar was just fun to watch (and only in 3D =P) but the movie as a whole was boring and cliche.
fatpat268
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2006
- 5,853
- 0
- 71
datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
First, my criticism of Avatar isn't politically based. I didn't think the plot was poor because it supposedly was a commentary on the US Military, but because it was your stereotypical "white messiah" type of story and that wasn't even very well done. I do think as a technical feat it was awesome and should win those categories.
As for "The Hurt Locker", I think criticism from a military perspective is not only accurate but called for. The movie portrayed itself as showing a war perspective and so deserves every criticism it gets from military personnel.
The Hurt Locker was inaccurate to the point of distraction for anyone who has been deployed. I'd say it had more inaccuracies than it had things right. You say there was "emotional reality"? It was so inaccurate there was no emotional reality. If you use the war as a backdrop to a story, you can't claim to be accurately portraying the emotional reality of the war if the entire story is so false that no Soldier would feel connected to it.
I should have felt some emotion watching that movie. I didn't.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
If Avatar wins it's only becomes it gets the "political" Hollywood vote: anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-capitalist, pro-environment, etc.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
brblx
Diamond Member
- Mar 23, 2009
- 5,499
- 2
- 0
these two movies should tie for the victory. the prize is a free euthanization for the directors.
also-
fixed. you don't need to be prior service to find this movie absolutely retarded.
also-
fixed. you don't need to be prior service to find this movie absolutely retarded.
Last edited:
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,878
- 31,392
- 146
the dilution by nominating 10 films this year is quite interesting.
One argument (that the Academy gives), is that it is to pay lip service to certain genres that rarely get nominated, (Comedies, Sci-Fi, Animated--though it has it's own category); sort of like the Golden Globes. Romantic Comedies are by far the most popular genre, cheap as hell to make, boat loads of cash in tickets compared to expenses across other genres (ability to release far more of these during a year, being economically more viable over short runs than a massive debt risk like Avatar--which needs to expect several months of consistent international play to be worth the studio financier's consideration), Sci Fi which always has dedicated fan bases, and better writers from time to time.
The Blind Side is that feel good, maybe a little too mellowish, but still well produced? (don't know; didn't see it...) flick that simply makes people happy and so gains a lot of momentum.
Loved Inglorious Basterds. I'd love to see it take it, but I think it will go to The Hurt Locker, which is just as deserving. (I will say for the record, that my favorite "Iraq-War issues" film to date is In The Valley of Elah. Least favorite: Generation Kill (I've heard people call this very accurate. ...not sure if those reviews were from actual soldiers but if that is the case, then I must say what an embarrassing display for our military--and I don't mean soldiers, necessarily, but the entire command structure and heck--for US policy as a whole. It is the anti-BoB; but this is an entirely different discussion!
))....
to me, though....this inclusion of 10 nominations is less about genres than it is about "expected slots." It seems like whatever the Coens do, it's going to some attention each year. Not sure if they got screenplay or directors' nods, (I've paid very, very little attention this year), but adding more film slots gives them an extra category to slide in some sort of nod for them, even during one of their "weak" years.
Kind of like Inglorious Basterds could be opening up a "Tarantino" slot (Interchangeable with the "P.T. Anderson slot," as these two take enough time between solid films, that these two can rotate years--they seem to be 1 film every 3 years, so 2 out of 3 years going on from now, one of these guys will be getting a nod), Cameron just established the "technical achievement, high production slot--which to me is quite legit. Golden Globes usually call up the producers when their "best film" wins, or the larger production crew. It was a little different with Cameron this year...except he had the top producer's spot. Also somewhat unprecedented. kind of like how DeMille worked, no?
One thing that some may not realize is that they also changed the voting system: each voter now ranks films from 1-10, thus ensuring a solid majority that 3 truly deserving films have a somewhat "equal" shot at winning. If I recall correctly, the winner will be determined by "highest percentage of top 3 rankings," or something like that; and not simply the most #1 votes. This sort of justifies the notion that the Academy is voting on "most representative of our values as an Industry," I guess. If the voters more consistently think emotion/writing/character/craft are what deserve the nod, then expect Hurt Locker, Up, Basterds to finish close to the top 3. For art/social critique or commentary/character, then probably Up in the Air, Precious, District 9, An Education, A Serious Man; for quality of production: Avatar, District 9, Basterds, Hurt Locker.
Maybe not exactly like that, but I think it will be cool to see the type of patterns that emerge, reflecting voter opinion, with this new system.
We already know what it takes to win a grammy.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,878
- 31,392
- 146
haha, so again....that argument completely re-hashes the same issues people always have with accuracy, and how irrelevant it is when it comes to FICTIONAL work.
You simply have to ignore that crap (believe me--I know what you're talking about and I tend to agree with you--it's not that I don't respect military making such comments, I absolutely do; it's just that they are misplaced for the intent of this film, which in itself does nothing to disparage military, or soldiers for that matter...so why bother?)
The story has nothing to do with what a bomb squad captain would or wouldn't do, what type of deployment he would experience; it's about a personal reaction to a war environment, it's about the type of emotional wear and tear a soldier tends to take home with them. it's about addiction, pure and simple. It's extremely tense.
I know it sounds simple, but the ability to create such levels of tension, alone, are quickly noticed by jaded critics who (trust me
), have long lost their ability to connect emotionally to most film in a long time. These voters, by this time in their lives have watched SO MUCH film, been within the industry for so long, that you simply can't imagine how differently, and boringly technical they tend to interpret film. Laymen complain about critics all the time because they simply don't understand how they watch film. It's funny, but I didn't realize it until now, but it isn't so much a matter of taste that determines how one may love a film or any piece of art, while another absolutely loathes it--it's a matter of what people see, what they hear; we interpret things differently, connect in different ways to very distinct and often disparate elements within the same work. So basically, I totally get your criticism of the film, but it's completely misplaced when considering an intended work of FICTION. To me, when it comes to importance of military realism, these are the only relevant critiques for a military film:
1. Historical accuracy (Yes, Hitler still loses; both sides are portrayed as objectively as possibly, based on known historical facts, cultural history, etc)
2. No unjust, or biased attempt to either disparage or honor an individual, an action, a unit, a people, etc....for sake of propaganda or agenda.
To me, this is the necessary realism. When it comes to equipment used, specific details in terms of units, strategy, these are important except in the expense of character--as character must drive film. A film story would fail otherwise. I agree that ranking, command structure (chain-of-command is such an essential dynamic within the military, that it pretty much drives much of the plotting in military films. There is ALWAYS going to be a dramatic beat derived from chain-of-command tension, if not a major plot arch--hello Paths of Glory). Of course, these kind of structures can be fudged, fairly I think, if character realism suffers.
As far as "favorable plotting," there has been a noticeable push towards how war is portrayed. In the 70s and 80s, you often got the War is poison, it perverts the mind, it destroys individuals, wrecks us all, and nothing is good. Simply, War is an evil that can not be justified. This was the message of Vietnam according to the larger film industry. According to Oliver Stone, to Coppola, to First Blood (forever perverted by the spin-off, "Rambo franchise"), and this is also seen in "The Thin Red Line," often disliked by those that love SPR. It makes sense...the movement had already switched into the 90s to portray War as another Reality of life--a horrible event for sure, but something that exists, and this is how we deal with it. The military is generally capable and love it or hate it; they must exist and we must understand that there is a necessary system established to insure that the forces sent in to do their job are doing it to the best of their abilities. There is little room to disparage an individual soldier when they are working in their system and performing their duty. The audience seems to prefer this message, and I do to. It seems like the most accurate (or at least "fairest") depiction of military action.
To me The Hurt Locker seems to straddle these two depictions. While Rener does become "addicted," and in a sense losing his self-control and replacing his emotional center with the realities of War, he does work within a system of command, he does his job very well, and we understand that he makes his new reality work for him, he is fully functional.
Sure, I can agree that we should at least try and show how a real sniper would take out his target or scan/secure the perimeter, but arguing that an already-fictional unit wouldn't act in _x_ way is self-defeating, is it not?
The protagonist in Hurt Locker is an adrenaline junkie who becomes, literally, a war junkie. I don't think we can effectively argue that such "a condition" is impossible, so in order to depict this character, realistically, we have to put him in to some situations that a real bomb team commander would not otherwise experience. He has to make choices that he otherwise wouldn't make. ...it's a story, It's not a history lesson.
a film like Saving Private Ryan maintains a more complete sense of military realism because the plotting allows it to. Inglorious Basterds....of course, not so much. Why not complain about how unrealistic it is? Complete, and utter fiction. (...and this actually is adapted from a REAL squad. They weren't vigilantes, never killed a single German as they were primarily intel--but it is explicitly depicting a biographical unit). I mean, if you also disliked Inglorious Basterds for this reason (no unit deployed in WWII would have EVER experienced any of that) that's one thing...but if can look past that unrealism and enjoy it, then you have no legitimate gripe for The Hurt Locker.
And I completely agree with you an all accounts for Avatar. The white hope story is far too tired, and so poorly over-done here that it loses any merit. Sure, it can be done again, but preachy is never good. Last of the Mohicans--good. Avatar, blegh. And yes, in the same light, the level of production on that project is so phenomenal that it deserves serious recognition.
Like Star Wars. garbage writing, acting, story--but changed the medium forever, whether for good or worse. Take your pick!
Last edited:
Neither. They were both only ok. 1st half of Hurt was really good, 2nd sucked. Avatar was to damn long.
datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
I see what you are saying, but I do disagree to some extent. Particularly for a conflict that is ongoing.
Now, I love Braveheart and know that there are a lot of historical inaccuracies in that movie. I'm not asking a movie to be totally historically accurate down to every detail. I am asking for some form of plausibility though.
Since the Iraq war is on going right now, to make such a movie as The Hurt Locker rife with inaccuracies is to do injustice to the conflict, the Soldiers, and the Iraqi's in my opinion. You say that it isn't showing Soldiers in a bad light and that may be true. But the ridiculousness of the scenes is an injustice in my mind. I can't count the amount of times now that I've had to explain to people that this movie isn't an accurate representation at all.
Perhaps I'm too close to the subject matter to see it objectively and see the story that you say is there. I'll admit I most likely am. However, I think you could get the same powerful message and easily write something that is more plausible.
I will say there were two poignant scenes in that movie. One, the grocery store. Two, when he asked for the juice and then gave it to his friend. Otherwise, as you can tell, I'm not a fan
edit: Oh, and as for Inglorious Bastards I haven't seen that one. Of those nominated I have seen Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and District 9. So I guess my vote would be for District 9, which I enjoyed and thought was good though not great (probably a B).
Last edited:
Dr. Detroit
Diamond Member
- Sep 25, 2004
- 8,548
- 943
- 126
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Good lord I think this must have been one of the worst years in movie history if this is the best we can get up there
Avatar was an average film wrapped in rather epic effects.
Hurt Locker was a small, pretty original effort that I liked, but I honestly couldn't even see it being nominated on an average year.
Where are the 'great' movies this time? ^^ And I agree, even though I.B. felt sluggish at times, it was most certainly better written and better acted than anything else on the list, save possibly Up in the Air.
Avatar was an average film wrapped in rather epic effects.
Hurt Locker was a small, pretty original effort that I liked, but I honestly couldn't even see it being nominated on an average year.
Where are the 'great' movies this time? ^^ And I agree, even though I.B. felt sluggish at times, it was most certainly better written and better acted than anything else on the list, save possibly Up in the Air.
Locut0s
Lifer
- Nov 28, 2001
- 22,205
- 44
- 91
Good lord I think this must have been one of the worst years in movie history if this is the best we can get up there
Avatar was an average film wrapped in rather epic effects.
Hurt Locker was a small, pretty original effort that I liked, but I honestly couldn't even see it being nominated on an average year.
Where are the 'great' movies this time? ^^ And I agree, even though I.B. felt sluggish at times, it was most certainly better written and better acted than anything else on the list, save possibly Up in the Air.
I agree it was a particularly dry year but the Oscars are rarely awarded for great film making so much as Hollywood pictures that turn the most heads. If you want great film making you still have to look at the small screen, independent directors and foreign films. Just like almost every other year
mmntech
Lifer
- Sep 20, 2007
- 17,501
- 12
- 0
2009 was a pretty weak year for Oscar movies IMO. Avatar won't win on the sole basis that its a blockbuster. The story is also pretty clichéd. It will definitely pick up best special effects but not best picture.
Haven't seen Hurt Locker so I can't comment on it. From what I've read, I'd put my money on this.
I'm surprised Inglorious Basterds was nominated. Tarantino is probably one of the most overrated directors in Hollywood today. From a technical standpoint, it's just not a good movie. Poorly edited, weak on plot, and weak on character development. I applaud Tarantino from wanting to think outside the box but this was a failed experiment. It's far from being the worst movie I've seen this year but it's not Oscar material by any definition. The fact that it was nominated shows just how slow a year 2009 was.
Up I've been meaning to see. Pixar has a solid track record.
District 9 looked pretty good although I only caught parts of it. The story is Oscar gold but scifi never wins.
Haven't seen Hurt Locker so I can't comment on it. From what I've read, I'd put my money on this.
I'm surprised Inglorious Basterds was nominated. Tarantino is probably one of the most overrated directors in Hollywood today. From a technical standpoint, it's just not a good movie. Poorly edited, weak on plot, and weak on character development. I applaud Tarantino from wanting to think outside the box but this was a failed experiment. It's far from being the worst movie I've seen this year but it's not Oscar material by any definition. The fact that it was nominated shows just how slow a year 2009 was.
Up I've been meaning to see. Pixar has a solid track record.
District 9 looked pretty good although I only caught parts of it. The story is Oscar gold but scifi never wins.
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
I've never been in any military and know how horribly inaccurate the movie is. At least TRY to make it accurate but it just seemed they said f-it and just did whatever the hell they wanted to do.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter