Wow! holy upset! ....Oscar spoiler alert......

[pepperbear]

I expected AVATAR to walk away with the best picture award and cameron to bag director. I really need to see HURT LOCKER now.

edited to add: by the way, I think the broadcast was a complete snoozefest. Why all the time for those actors to honor the nominees who were already honored by the nomination?

[babylonsister]

1. I'm shocked, too. I bet James Cameron is really shocked!

:rofl:

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

2. I'm glad. I was sick of seeing James Cameron's smirk. Something about him grates my nerves.

[4lbs]

165. Why? James Cameron has gone public with his desire to see Hurt Locker and Kathryn Bigelow win.

He says they deserve it, over his own movie.

So, what about that smirk again?

By the way, "The Hurt Locker" was the odds on favorite to win, and Kathryn too, so I don't see how it's an upset that they did.

[Grand Taurean]

3. Is it considered to be an anti-war film?

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_hurt_locker_as_propaganda

[Better Believe It]

6. I saw it and I didn't think it was much of an anti-war film. Avatar was an anti-imperial war film

and it contained other powerful and progressive messages.

[icee]

19. The Hurt Locker was given the award because the US

Defense Department pushed some buttons. Did you notice Hanks rush through the presentation, not even giving the movie names. He knew who was going to win. Total bullshit.

[cascadiance]

27. With the speech given for visual effects (Avatar's last award) I think they knew too...

The speech seemed to try to say what Cameron would have said had he got Best Director or Best Picture...

[Grand Taurean]

33. And you know this how?

[icee]

42. I did that stuff for three years.

[zbdent]

140. link

[harkadog]

36. He rushed through the presentation because it was

two minutes to the hour. They were out of time.

[icee]

44. Baloney. The academy could have pushed over the alloted time

a much as a half hour.

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. Get help

You're unhinged.

[icee]

58. I worked in the industry, slick. I live 25 miles from most of the

big studios. You sit in front of a computer in East Jesus.

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. And you still manage

to get it wrong. Sad.

[icee]

74. I'll know what insiders think by 7:00 tomorrow morning.

[alcibiades_mystery]

80. Yes, I'm sure they'll rush to your door

to tell you it was all a government plot.

:rofl:

Ridiculous.

[icee]

85. No, I'll make some calls to people who already know now.

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. ROFL

Sure you will. Let us know right away!

:rofl:

[icee]

100. You'll know tomorrow no matter what I say.

[msanthrope]

96. Remember, keep the tinfoil shiny side out......n/t

[goclark]

151. Fantastic! We love the 411

Let us know, I live in LA and we love Hollywood! : )

[CTyankee]

168. I live on the East Coast and I say hooray for Hollywood!

My youngest daughter lives in North Hollywood and I love the greater Los Angeles area. I love cities where there are very creative, artistic people and L.A. is that. I love the art museums...I even rescheduled a visit there so I could see the bust of Costanza Bonarelli by her lover, Bernini, on loan at an exhibit at the Getty...talk about obsessed!

There are so many good people drawn there by their artistic creativity that there are always boiling point creative projects going on...you can find so much if you look. It is really a world's great city and I appreciate it a great deal...I am a big supporter, goclark...

[goclark]

171. That's how I feel about LA, it's my kinda town

So many people put it down and say we are crazy to live here because we have Earthquakes and lots of wild people here.

It's really big enough that you can live a quiet life but you still know that "bright lights- big city" and the LA LAKERS here for you.

I LUV LA!

There are so many exciting things to do if you want to and if you just feel lazy ~ go to the Beach, ride along the coast, go to step on the Star's STAR on Hollywood Blvd., it's so much to do.

I would compare it to New York and Paris.
I get the same feeling when I'm in those cities but nothing compares to LA for me.

And I love seeing the movie stars!

I've seen,, to name a few ~ Elizabeth Taylor her eyes were so beautiful, they appeared to be almost purple -- I saw her in the 60's at a football game.

Edward G. Robinson at the airport

Ray Charles, Johnnie Mathis ( interviewed him when I was a teenager) Stevie Wonder, Halle Berry and on and on.

My all time favorite was MAY WEST!
I saw her in a fancy restaurant in Beverly Hills.

Everyone was relaxing and having drinks before dinner.
All of a sudden, in walks May West and two handsome Blond escorts ~ she was a knock out ~ simply A STAR!

She had on a tight fitting white dress and a full length mink wrap.
Her face was smooth like a China Doll.

She stood in that door with her hands on her hips.

She poised for about one minute waiting for her table.

When the staff was showing her to her seat, she swayed those hips from side to side and shock off the wrap.

As the wrap was headed for the floor, the two Escorts smoothly caught it and the entire restaurant stood up and clapped for her.

Now she was a movie STAR!

And Paul Newman in the early days ! handsome---------------!

[CTyankee]

175. LOVE that story!

There is a reason that the U.S. leads the world in sheer output of film and TV...yes, much of it is crappy but you take the good and leave the rest alone...what's the big deal? I also know photographers and musicians and studio people out there and like them a great deal...

I also love NYC, lived there in my young, salad days when the pace of the city didn't exhaust me the way it does now. But I still go to exhibits at the Metropolitan Museum since I can hop on a train here in New Haven...

On the other hand, I lived in the D.C. area for 9 years and grew to really dislike it. At first the politics of the place was fascinating but it soon wore thin. In the late 70s, early 80s there was not as much cultural activity as there is today but to me it is still much too suffused with politics.

[goclark]

178. You are right about DC, I feel the same way

I was there during the days of the Inauguration and without that -- other than the Public Buildings and Museums, it is boring to me.

I like "bright lights, Big City!"

But just don't care that much for Chicago -- don't know why but it just doesn't have the same sense of "excitement" to me.

[CTyankee]

179. I moved to D.C. in the fall of '76. They had a brand new subway system at that time.

Coming from New York, I was shocked to hear that the subway "closed" at 6 p.m. How could that be? Well, because everybody is home by 6 p.m. so why do you need a subway?

Good lord, I thought, what have I gotten myself into....?

On edit, let me add that I really enjoy riding the subway in L.A. with my grandson...it feels so right...

[Codeine]

72. You're full of it. nt

[icee]

75. Says a poster named codeine? Yeah, right.

[Codeine]

103. This from the fellow who says

Avatar should have won based on attendance?

By your rubric Fox News is the best news, American Idol is the cream of both television and musical arts, and McDonald's is the greatest food in history.

The fact that you're throwing around dark conspiracy theories while calling long-time DUers "pro-war" because they didn't like Pocahontas Meets the Smurfs makes it even more delicious.

As one of my favorite posters likes to say "That shit is MONEY!"

[icee]

109. Well, now that your leveraging with the board, I'm not interested

in talking with you anymore.

[Codeine]

113. You're not talking to anyone.

You're throwing a nerdrage tantrum, and I'm quite enjoying it.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Codeine]

119. Lol. Never taken a narcotic pain pill in my life.

No need to start now.

[tammywammy]

157. lol

:rofl: Great reply.

[Tunkamerica]

131. codeine the name of a band.

i don't know if they took the name because of it, but yr leaping to conclusions that may very well be false.

[Codeine]

149. That is precisely the origin of my username.

Love those guys.

[cherokeeprogressive]

118. Wow. 25 miles away from most of the big studios.

That's WAY cool!

However...

NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL would members of "The Academy" sit tight and let the government dictate which movie wins the Oscar. No fucking way in hell.

Dispute that.

[icee]

121. Sure they would. Things are not as nice as you make them. The

DOD had Jack Valenti in their back pocket.

[cherokeeprogressive]

126. LOL! That means what? Did he rise from the grave and put in his $.02?

Seriously...

[Garbo 2004]

135. Dude, you're an anonymous poster on a messageboard.

For all we know you're the one sitting in front of a computer in East Jesus talking big.

[tallahasseedem]

153. OMG...

Another one who works in the "industry." Those who do usually don't get up in arms like this, they debate the point intelligently. "Slick?" Yeah. :eyes:

[Toasterlad]

177. I Spent a Week In East Jesus One Night.

[Tunkamerica]

129. speaking as someone who works on the other side of television

live events always go long and the oscars is probably the worst, though rain delayed nascar is my least favorite because you can sit in delay for 3 hours and then they cancel the damn thing.

I didn't see the oscars because i was at work, but going long is not the worst thing in the world and it happens all the time. We're (and they're) used to it. American Idol goes long all the time and the Oscars are a once-a-year event.

That being said the director may have rushed Hanks. Hanks was being a nice guy if he listened to the director.

[harkadog]

124. So now you were in charge of producing the show. OK

BTW it was 1/2 hour overtime. It had been scheduled for 3 hours.

[HughMoran]

170. Psych

O

[Cetacea]

57. Smart politics. Break the Glass Ceiling so no one complains.

[Garbo 2004]

60. Defense Dept didn't support the movie, pulled production assistance in 2007 but

now they're pulling strings with the academy?

Cameron isn't the most popular guy in town.

[icee]

64. Link

[Garbo 2004]

78. LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-et-hurt-locker26-2010feb26,0,6078776.story

[icee]

82. Your link supports my allegations--not yours.

[Garbo 2004]

110. Fact : DOD pulled production assistance from the film as I said.

All you have is unsupported allegations.

[icee]

112. I'll know tomorrow.

[alcibiades_mystery]

128. Sleep it off

[icee]

65. Link

[fishwax]

.

:rofl:

[WeDidIt]

150. BULLSHIT, Hanks rushed through the presentation because of Cabelvision

There was a dispute between Disney and Cablevision. Cablevision said no matter what, they would cut away at midnight Eastern. Hanks named the movie at precisely 11:58 Eastern.

[rapturedbyrobots]

76. hahah

avatar was a whitey saves the savages war film. if it were anti-imperial it wouldn't have needed whitey mc marine to save the day.

[zbdent]

141. I heard that it was panned by conservatives because it was a film where

a guy was doing his job (conservative mantra), and suddenly, he's converted to the plight of the oppressed (FILTHY LIBERALS!!!!) ...

[PatGund]

4. No surprise

The academy doesn't award best picture to SF/F movies, only "serious" ones.

[JI7]

9. ddin't the titanic win ?

[Touchdown]

21. Titanic was much close to the actual event than Braveheart, which won in 1996.

At least the timeline in Titanic was spot on with the actual events. Braveheart? Not so much.

[Orrex]

67. Why should historical accuracy have anything to do with it?

:shrug:

[cascadiance]

81. Titanic wasn't really "Sci Fi" or "Fantasy"...

It was more analogous to a film like "Flight 93" or "World Trade Center".

Yes, Cameron is known for making many other sci fi films like Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss and even one of the crappy Piranha sequels when he was starting out. But Titanic wasn't a sci-fi flick in my book. It had many of the production values of a sci-fi flick, which he is good at, but it WAS NOT a science fiction film.

[Touchdown]

83. The point is that SF/Fantasy doesn't get best pictures.

I was assuming a snarky dig at Titanic and some "loose historical interpretation" allegation. Braveheart, on the other hand took a lot of creative license, which makes it closer to a fantasy film than Titanic.

[cascadiance]

89. One could also argue that Gladiator was a fantasy film with logic on Braveheart too...

Ridley Scott was another director of many momentous Sci-fi films like Blade Runner, Alien, etc. that had to do more of a "historical" film to win best picture, kind of like Cameron had to make Titanic as a historical drama to win too.

[Touchdown]

94. Got it! #2... Forrest Gump is a pure fantasy film.

It may be "set" in historical events, but it is a fable.

[cascadiance]

101. Even "A Clockwork Orange" could be argued as being a "sci fi" flick...

If one is too broad with one's definitions...

[Touchdown]

107. "Future shock" is a sub-genre.

But fantasy is much less rigid than Science Fiction. By that definition, from magically healing legs, to being in the right place at the right time... every time, Forrest Gump fits... not to mention the fact that he fathered a kid who would eventually see a dead Bruce Willis for 2 hours before we figured it out.

[cascadiance]

122. Not really disagreeing with you at all...

But it seems like Hollywood wants to give rewards to films more "grounded" in reality (actual events, etc.), than those that try to create fictional scenarios. They don't mind fictional stories within those historical timelines, but they can't accept something which totally posits a plot outside of historical timelines.

An example of this is how "A Beautiful Mind" (which was a script adapted from a book by actually a person who used to go to the high school overseas many years ago that documented John Nash's life) actually used creative license to the extent where it actually distorted the original book's account of Nash's life to make "a better story" even though it was supposed to be telling the story of his life. And this script won best adapted screenplay over LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring that year which I thought did an incredible job of recreating Tolkien's first book of that trilogy with a few minor exceptions like leaving out Tom Bombadil's subplot, etc.

Another example of how Hollywood exhibits favoritism of films that try to "represent reality" no matter how much they "bend" that reality over stories that clearly don't try to claim to be "real" and let people experiences stories that only relate to people's experiences through metaphor.

[Orrex]

92. Well...

I don't see how it can be called a fantasy film, since there were no supernatural elements in it other than dreams. Loose historical accuracy doesn't equate to a fantasy film in my book.


But I take your point about Titanic. I missed what you meant the first time around.

[Touchdown]

99. I wouldn't call it fantasy either (Braveheart)

I was just saying if the historical accuracy argument is being used, Titanic cannot be accused of it... despite the obvious fantasy of poor boy getting the rich chick to strip for him.

[Orrex]

106. Oh, come on.

Who among us hasn't had a beautiful rich woman pose for a charcoal sketch?

I mean really!

[kaybea]

142. One of my favorite demotivational posters

/]

[SidDithers]

147. nevermind, we agree further downthread...

:hi:

Sid

[Touchdown]

13. Return of The King for 2003.

Once... they did.

[cascadiance]

48. And there were many traditional Hollywood folks that objected to this win too...

Yes, I do think that Fantasy and Sci Fi films are unfairly pushed down the ladder.

Yes, the vast majority of Sci Fi and fantasy films are exploitive crap in many cases just to get people excited about gratuitous special effects roller coaster rides.

But there are many where the filmmakers really do take these genres seriously, and do try to make really timeless works of arts that can be uniquely accomplished with this sort of genre. Those who've followed the old Star Trek history can understand the timelessness of that series, being able to watch even the original series and finding many episodes that still has relevance and meaning today with themes and story lines that apply to events then and to events now.

I do believe that Avatar will be looked on like Star Wars in the years to come much like Star Wars was (when it didn't win best picture), but is arguably far more remembered in the decades to come. It is timeless in its message, and though having direct relevance to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars now, also has relevance to many conflicts and situations in the past like wars in South American rain forests, North America when it was colonized, and probably other conflicts in years to come where our planet's vanishing ecospheres and indigenous cultures are threatened again and through doing so threaten humankind's very existence. That's the power that metaphor through Sci Fi or Fantasy offers, by not being tied to being judged too much on how much it measures to an actual event, but more how its relevance works through metaphor and analogy.

Some that reject the exploitation of this genre and avoid watching it or appreciating its value when done right (like Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings trilogies, or other films like Gattaca, District 9, Fahrenheit 9/11, the recent Battlestar Galactica, etc. have done to be more than just exploitive special effects fests). Other genres certainly also have momentous films to be honored too, but the rejection of this genre using oversimplified logic at times is troubling.

[Touchdown]

61. True. Although I remember Annie Hall, winner in 1977...

I had to look it up. Star Wars I knew was released in 1977.

Just for shits.. The others, Annie Hall (Winner), The Goodbye Girl, Julia, Star Wars, The Turning Point.

[Orrex]

87. Annie Hall is a better film than Star Wars by any reasonable measure

I'm a great fan of both, and in fact I've watched both within the last month.

[cascadiance]

115. It really depends on what you are measuring...

No. It wasn't as well acted. But too many people just use acting as a barometer to what's the "best picture".

One of the Lord of the Rings films got best "ensemble acting" award for Golden Globes I think. That kind of fits. The real great sci-fi flicks don't necessarily have the best actors, but collectively, they are well acted and directed and rank up there with many of the others. There are a few exceptions, like Sigourney Weaver in Aliens, but it isn't very often where one actor drives a sci-fi film. It is the story, and how well the film is made as a total product that makes it either a good film or a great film. But really great sci fi films add so many of the other qualities of a great film such as sound and soundtrack, script, editing, etc. along with decent acting. But often times that's not enough to overcome those that obsess that only a films' leading acting performances and how they fit together in a decent script is a measurement that should be focused on on whether it is a "best picture" or not.

I would wager that if you grouped people together, FAR MORE would know the film Star Wars than Annie Hall. Star Wars created a lot of new directions in films, not just its story line.

Avatar, with its very life like 3-D characters, set some new barometers for future films for what it accomplished with that. Peter Jackson set the bar earlier with his Gollum character in the LOTR series, and Cameron took it that much further with Avatar. It is hard to give someone like Zoe Saldana an actress award in Avatar to go along with her character as Uhura in Star Trek this year (though most people wouldn't know that), since the creation is just as much the artist that helps model her character as her performance now. Before it was more just the artist, but through better technology, they are enabling actors and actresses to put more of their own talent into the final product than before of compelling artificial characters.

[babylonsister]

23. Star Wars? ET?? I'm sure there are more, though I

sort of understand, not being a big sci-fi fan. Having said that, I did see Avatar and loved it.

[Touchdown]

29. None of those won best picture.

The only on e I can think of is LOTR: Return of the King in 2003.

[Onceuponalife]

127. Sure they do...if they're good...

like Return of the King which won Best picture.

[Phoonzang]

5. The Hurt Locker wasn't all that great...

It drags something fierce. Avatar was robbed.

[MadBadger]

12. [phone]

[icee]

25. Not only that, but the technicals were extremely bad. Read some

of the comments by real bomb experts. They said it was all phoney.

[erpowers]

164. Mainly Agree

I agree with you that The Hurt Locker was not that great. I rented it mainly due to the buzz surrounding the movie. A number of people in the media were claiming it was a great movie. When I watched the movie I was very disappointed. The main problem for me was that the movie seemed really unrealistic. The people in the film seemed to do things that they would not have done in real life in a real war.

I slightly disagree with you on whether Avatar should have won best picture. I really did not like either film. I thought Avatar was overrated and way too long. So I did not think it should have won based on the movie itself. If it was between Avatar and The Hurt Locker then Avatar should have won.

[kentuck]

7. The Hurt Locker is a powerful film.

It is more modern warfare. De-fusing bombs in Iraq. And the courage and insanity of war...

[Odin2005]

8. WTF?

AVATAR is awesome! Those idiots! :grr:

[icee]

28. Avatar has now changed movie making history.

[Lyric]

86. You're James Cameron, aren't you?

:rofl:

[icee]

91. I don't like James Cameron. He is mean to actors.

[proteus_lives]

31. It was Dances with Wolves in space.

Maybe if they had an original scirpt......

[icee]

10. You just watched government power in Hollywood. The Hurt

Locker had grossed 12.5 million. Avatar probably made that in 15 minutes. By all means go out and see a movie that celebrates the talents of a bomb unit in the grossest military mistake in American History.

[Phoonzang]

16. Probably blow back against the popularity of Avatar. What better way

to humble Cameron than to pick his ex-wife? Morons.

[icee]

32. That, and to aggrandize the Iraq war.

[fishwax]

22. what does how much money each grossed have to do with it?

:shrug:

[icee]

34. A movie is not made for the judges. A movie is made for the

views. That phoney piece of crap The Hurt Locker brought in no one. Avatar set a new record that may never be beaten.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

39. So a movie's grosses determine its artistic quality?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

46. What the hell are you smoking?

You are obviously pro-war. I am anti-war.

You assumed this because I saw The Hurt Locker, unlike you, and can truthfully say it's not a pro-war movie?

And since you think money equals artistic quality, you have no right to speak about anything of artistic value -- at all.

[icee]

50. Money in the movie equates to attendance, which is why movies

are made. A movie about a bomb squad defusing bombs that never would have had to be diffused had the US not invaded Iraq, is pro-war by definition.

[fishwax]

55. attendance and box office receipts are not the only reasons movies are made

That's simply an absurd statement.

[icee]

62. The world is not as altruistic as you seem to think.

[fishwax]

63. when did I say the world was altruistic?

:crazy:

[icee]

68. If they are not made for money or attendance, what is the alternative..

for Green Stamps? What?

[fishwax]

77. communication, personal obsession, argument

all the other things that art is made for ...

Of course you have to have money to make a picture, but not everyone who makes a movie is expecting (or even hoping) to have a blockbuster or to make a huge profit ...

[icee]

84. Oh, yeah, right.

[fishwax]

88. lol

:shrug: :crazy:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

56. Again, how does attendance equal quality?

It clearly indicates popularity, but popularity does not necessarily equal quality.

A movie about a bomb squad defusing bombs that never would have had to be diffused had the US not invaded Iraq, is pro-war by definition.

Because there were no other wars to base it on, right? And it's not possible at all that the movie is about the horrors of war through soldiers' eyes instead of a propaganda piece?

Your lack of artistic sensibilities is rivaled by your lack of logic.

[icee]

71. To each his own.

[cali]

138. bullshit. bullshit and more bullshit.

actually it's more like dog shit that you're liberally spreading on these threads. and grab a clue, genius, not liking Avatar, and thinking The Hurt Locker is a better film, does not mean that one is automatically pro-war. duh.

damn, I hate stupid.

[fishwax]

51. not all movies are made to be blockbusters, either, and ticket sales don't always indicate quality

The Oscars are often influenced by ticket sales, but how much money a film makes is irrelevant to whether or not it should win an Academy Award.

[fishwax]

52. delete -- double post

[Starbucks Anarchist]

26. You clearly haven't seen the movie.

It's not pro-war at all.

[icee]

40. I've been in war. I know a little about bomb squads. I know that

had the United States Government not gone into Iraq, there would be no Hurt Locker. I'll avoid the movie like the plague.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

43. So you're criticizing something you haven't seen.

:rofl:

As someone who has seen the movie, it is pretty far from pro-war propaganda.

[icee]

45. I won't see it either. And I know a bunch of vets who won't see it

either.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

49. Then just remain ignorant.

[Torgo Johnson]

98. Well, by that logic.......

had the United States Government not gone into Korea and Vietnam, there would be no M*A*S*H". Therefore M*A*S*H is twice as bad as The Hurt Locker because it is both pro-Korean War and pro-Vietnam War.

[icee]

102. That could be right.

[Torgo Johnson]

114. Is James Cameron responsible for the deaths of 1,517 people?

Is Steven Spielberg reponsible for the deaths of millions of Jews??

[icee]

120. Get as abstract as you want. Hurt Locker was a film glorifying

war. This appears to be something that fascinates you. Don't worry: Iran is imminent.

[ButterflyBlood]

137. Wow, a new level of stupidity

You state that a film you have admittedly never seen is one glorifying war. :rofl:

I have seen the movie, so I can say things with authority. You can't, shut up.

[onenote]

144. is there some sort of prize on DU for being the 1000th poster to claim war with iran is "imminent"

Because if there is, you may have just won it. Its a very longterm competition.

[Rebubula]

146. LOL...

...your resume just keeps getting better....

25 miles from studio; in the business; know LOTS of people and good connections PLUS - you have been in war and know about bomb squads.

I predict that you will be on the cover of the next edition of Internet Tough Guy.

[tammywammy]

158. bwah n/t

[MadBadger]

11. That wasnt an upset really at all.

[NYC Liberal]

14. I didn't. Avatar sucked. I was rooting for Up In The Air.

And I wish A Single Man had been up. Hurt Locker was a great film though.

[Metric System]

15. Avatar and The Hurt Locker were the 2 front-runners. And Bigelow was a sure bet after the DGA win.

[cascadiance]

66. Avatar had won the Golden Globes though...

And in Cameron's speech for the Director's award, he did a acknowledge that he was surprised that he won the award that he thought Bigelow was going to win then. I think Bigelow referred to him more indirectly in her speech tonight.

[cascadiance]

17. I do believe that Avatar is Cameron's best film though (better than Titanic or Aliens)

I think it is a film that reaches people on so many levels.

In another year, I'd easily have been a big "Hurt Locker" fan to win it, but this year, my choice was Avatar. But "The Hurt Locker" wasn't a bad choice. Just not as momentous an achievement as I think Cameron worked with his film. Had Cameron not taken a lot of Oscar booty for Titanic, I think he might have won tonight. I think this was probably the most special film he's made from his personal point of view, though he probably won't come out and say it.

Katherine Bigelow is going continue to be a great director in years to come, and I hope she pushes the edge more and more, like Cameron did with his film, that I think got more right wingers PO'd at him.

I also think the Academy took the "safe way" out for documentary film by picking "The Cove" instead of "The Most Dangerous Man". Probably was a hint when "Capitalism: A Love Story" wasn't getting a nomination there.

[Mudoria]

18. Good choice by the Academy

[icee]

20. The most horrible choice by the academy in its history.

[Mz Pip]

35. I didn't think

"Shakespeare in Love' deserved Best Picture or "Terms of Endearment".

Haven't seen "Hurt Locker." Probably won't as I do not like war movies.

[Grand Taurean]

38. "Bicentennial Man" was robbed by "American Beauty".

It was satire. Not worthy any positive recognition.

[icee]

47. I agree on Shakesspeare.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. Avatar is shit

It won for what it should have won for: visual effects. Otherwise, it's sentimental pap and a replay of Dances with Wolves, which should never have beaten out Goodfellas anyway.

[icee]

53. Stick to gangster crap and pro-war crap. I go for the positive, not

the negative.

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. Gahahah

This is hilarious.

[Codeine]

108. Yep. Everything about your posting style screams "Positive!"

:rofl:

[CBR]

145. LOL!!! nt

[cali]

139. Avatar was a war movie. and it truly glorified war and violence

as did Inglorious Basterds- but even more so. Look at all those lovingly filmed battle sequences. but because the good guys won, fools refuse to see that it celebrated violence.

[aikoaiko]

24. Votes might have been spread too thin

I saw The Hurt Locker, I liked The Hurt Locker, but it was a conventional.

Perhaps, as my wife said, there were things in the film someone like me couldn't see but insiders could appreciate.

[2Design]

30. heh this group make Little Miss Sunshine nomination and I thought

it was the worse

[Cetacea]

59. +1 gig

[begin_within]

69. All we know for sure is George Clooney looked unhappy the whole night.

[truebrit71]

152. No idea why..If I had his looks, his money and the nice arm-candy he was sporting..

..you wouldn't be able to slap the grin off my face...

[Dr.Faust]

156. Do you know why?

[begin_within]

160. No idea

He usually seems affable and effusive at those public events. When he first got there he was walking along the fence separating the spectators, touching people's hands through the fence and even signing a few autographs... maybe some of the red carpet interviews spoiled his mood. There were some awful interviewers. I still think he could have looked like he was enjoying the evening more. He was on screen a lot and never once smiled that I can recall.

[girl gone mad]

79. It should have been Inglorious Basterds, IMO.

The strongest of the 3 front runners, by a mile.

[icee]

90. Yeah, right. Everyone go see a movie where an unarmed man

get his head beat in by the US Military with a baseball bat. Right, Liz.

[girl gone mad]

97. It's just a movie.

A fantastically entertaining one, at that.

[icee]

104. It was stupid. I agree with the supporting actor choice though.

[Rebubula]

154. Interesting...

...I, on the other hand, wish that ALL OF THE FUCKING NAZIs had their heads beaten in with a baseball bat.

60 years is not enough time to forgive some sins.

[TCJ70]

95. If Avatar had shown more brightly story-wise...

...I would be able to support it for best picture. It did have great technical triumphs...but the story was still Fern Smurfs with Wolves...in space.

[Zomby Woof]

105. I live in L.A., and follow the business closely

And the buzz has been working against 'Avatar' for weeks - a few anonymous insiders had leaked to the L.A. Times recently that 'The Hurt Locker' was a potential lock based on how many academy members disclosed their voting preferences.

It's only upsetting to people who who value form over content.

[icee]

111. In your obvious attempt at learning you didn't seem to find the

members of the US Military saying Hurt was a tremendous joke and they laughed about it. What did they say: Difusing bombs with wire cutters (as depicted in the movie) was like a fireman going to to a major blaze with a squirt gun.

[Codeine]

116. Every film brings out the technical error nerds.

It's fiction, not a Pentagon training film.

[icee]

123. Bad fiction, geronimo. A blown leg here, a blown leg there and soon we're

talking about important technical deficiencies.

[Xithras]

133. Dude. The Hurt Locker wasn't about defusing bombs. If you'd seen it, you'd know that.

Instead of pointlessly attacking a movie you've never seen on a message board, you should spend a few bucks and go see it. Saying that The Hurt Locker is a movie about defusing bombs is like saying that Avatar is a movie about a guy driving a remote control body. While that's certainly a central element to the movie, it's NOT what the movie is actually about.

The Hurt Locker is an exploration of the mentality of people who not only fight in a war zone, but who face the ends of their own existence every single day. It is an exploration that shows how destructive an environment can be to a persons grip on "normal" reality, and how imminent annihilation changes a persons perspective and character. More importantly, it shows that those changes can be permanent, and forever screw those people up.

The movie opens with the statement that "War is a drug", and then goes on to brilliantly demonstrate why that is. It kills its users, it has a terrible corrosive effect on their souls, and it changes the personality of the hooked. Like drug users, soldiers in the midst of combat often revel in their addiction, wearing it as a badge of strength, but in the end it catches up to them. In the end, even if they live through it, it kills them.

The Hurt Locker was a low budget movie shot with a makeshift cast in horrible conditions. To attack it because they chose to use wire cutters when they couldn't affort a robot was stupid. It's a movie, not a training video. The point of the movie was the stories of the people in it, not the hardware they were using.

The technical nitpickers can be damned. It was a great movie. I saw, and liked, Avatar as well, but let's be blunt here. One was a morality play about blue smurf people trying to resist imperial expansionism and corporate hegemony. It was told beautifully, but it's a story that's been told a dozen times before, and will no doubt be told a dozen times again in the coming century. While the story was a good one, it didn't break any new ground. Only the visual effects and presentation were new.

The Hurt Locker tells the story of the psychopathy that we're creating every single day by leaving our guys over there in Iraq. It's a story that's been told a few times in movies like Apocalypse Now, but those tellings don't really connect with the current generation of Americans. Vietnam was our parents war, or our grandparents war. The Hurt Locker essentially delivers the same messages again, but in a way that can connect to modern Americans today. This isn't some theoretical story or a trip through a history book, but the realities of the war that we fund and support every single day. Is it pretty? No. It's a look into the souls of our own soldiers, and the things it finds aren't always friendly.

Hurt Locker isn't an anti-war film, but it's not a pro-war film either. It's an exploration of how real war changes real people, and what viewers take away from it depends heavily on the opinions they bring to it. One thing it is, though, is a great film. It deserved this award.

[Zomby Woof]

163. What does that have to do with the price of an abortion in Wasilla?

I analyzed some statements made in the L.A. Times, I didn't say I endorsed the movie.

Take some meds, or just go away.

[Garbo 2004]

125. But do you are you live within 25 mi of the studios?

Apparently that's an important factor in supporting one's credibility on a messageboard. ;)

[Zomby Woof]

162. 20!

:bounce:

(Note: I base my observation on reading the same press that is available to EVERYONE. I said I 'follow this closely', not 'I know people personally')

[Midlodemocrat]

169. And yet, your dear friend Midlo still doesn't have a Mark Harmon autographed pic.

[Zomby Woof]

172. LOL

The security on the set was TIGHT. They filmed at an outdoor mall in Santa Clarita, so they had to keep the riff-raff off the set.

My office was on the 6th floor, so when I couldn't sneak downstairs to watch, we would all gather at the window. Harmon was ant-like by that point. :rofl:

[Midlodemocrat]

176. Ant like? Gibbs?

I believe you mean, God like.

:rofl:

[Onceuponalife]

130. It was between Avatar and Hurt Locker

so not surprised Hurt Locker won although I chose Avatar. I saw it twice and also saw Hurt Locker so I can appreciate that it was a very good movie, just not the overall achievement that Avatar was. I think charges that it was fixed and the studios "wouldn't let" James Cameron win is absurd. I mean, I know he is not well liked in Hollywood and he comes off to me as an arrogant horse's ass, but Hurt Locker was a legitimate win when you consider the new, weighted system of voting they adopted this year. It rules out the pssibility of conspiracy unless the whole electorate was in on it? :tinfoilhat: Kudos to Kathryn Bigalow for breaking the glass ceiling for women directors.

I thought Steve Martin was great and Alec Baldwin was not. Enjoyed the dance number highlighting the music score nominees. Good job, Adam Shankman! Glad to see Jeff Bridges get the accolades he so richly deserves. Just saw Crazy Heart two days ago and loved it. Was it strange he didn't mention brother Beau in his speech?

The part I just can't support is the horribly over the top intros to the Lead Acting nominees. Hollywood at its narcicistic worst.

:puke:

[flamingdem]

134. +1 on those speeches and Steve "plenty of jews to catch here" Martin nt

[cascadiance]

136. You know, part of me also wonders about the "glass ceiling" effect on voters...

We already had that in the 2008 primaries, when many of us were kind lead into wanting to vote for either a black person or a woman as president, which helped bring down the final two candidates to those two candidates, despite both of them being as corporate as it gets in the final analysis, and perhaps some of those behind the scenes were lead to vote that way for those reasons instead of just who would make the best president.

Similarly, we had choices of either a woman or a black man for director this year (and for the films that wound up nominated for best picture). And we were reminded of that all through the proceedings too. Now don't get me wrong, I celebrate this great achievement, and I think Kathryn Bigelow and the field all had great films. But I hope we're not just down to voting for people because of their genetic makeups, and we're looking still more at the substance of their accomplishments, and put aside their race and gender as criteria for who wins.

I saw both films too, and on just about any other of Cameron's films up for best picture against the Hurt Locker, I would have probably voted for Hurt Locker. But Avatar is truly I think Cameron's best film, and I'm sure that he won already for Titanic also factored in to those voting to give a chance for the "new kid on the block".

It's kind of like Denzel Washington getting his best actor award for "Training Day", which I feel is rather down the list in terms of his best film. He should have gotten that award for one of his other films. But the academy gave him the award for this film.

It's kind of like Lord of the Rings movies not getting some of the awards that perhaps could have been received for the earlier two films that would have been deserved, but perhaps getting more than they deserved when they practically swept the awards for the Return of the King, which was in part to give credit to the whole series then rather than just "Return of the King".

I do feel that in the years to come, Avatar will be remembered more, and watched more over time, and will perhaps influence other "virtual actors" in the future. With the technology they put in place, it will in fact be possible for someone else to "act" as an older dead "actor" posing in a sequel to an older film that noone thought possible to make without the older actor around any more. Might make for some interesting films. Perhaps a director who's still alive might even film an "extended director's cut version" with someone else filling in for the dead actor's role. Or films like Brainstorm, Gladiator or the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus would be easier to finish in the original conceptual form the director had in mind when one of the major actors dies in the middle of filming. They might even have to give a new category of acting nomination for "virtual actor" as sort of an "ensemble acting" award that would be awarded jointly to the actor involved and the modeler/artists that help build the total artificial character.

We created a new oscar for animated films a few years back, perhaps its not long for this kind of award. It's really hard for an actor to win an award when they pose as one of these sort of actors, as it really isn't an "apples to apples" competition with an actor that's not done with an artificial "avatar". And you could have women more apt to be playing men or vice versa, so perhaps this would be an award where they could compete against each other.

Part of me wonders why they honored Michael Jackson as an actor and didn't put up Farrah Fawcett who passed away the same day, and arguably was more of a career "actor" than he was in the actor eulogies.

[pansypoo53219]

132. i SO hope they regret

giving it to him for titanic.

[AllenVanAllen]

143. As much as I loved Avatar

I don't think it should have won best picture. It's biggest weakness was it's lack of originality imo.

On a side, it was very interesting to see Kathryn Bigelow beat out her ex husband James Cameron. She also directed one of my favorite movies Near Dark.

[mmonk]

148. I was hoping that Avatar would win as well.

Especially with what is going on in places like Peru. That being said, congratulations to The Hurt Locker. I didn't see it because I no longer go to war movies about US involvement unless it is about something people are unaware of, but it must have had some merit.

[progressoid]

155. Not really, It also won about 20 other awards (BAFTA, Directors Guild, Golden Globe, NSFC, ASC etc)

It would have been an upset if it DIDN'T win.

[cascadiance]

161. Avatar won the Golden Globes best picture and best director awards...

[bridgit]

159. I think you're expressing parts of why Avatar did not take the Oscar...

Too much CGI/shoot'em up bang! Confirmed with a ref to the "complete snoozefest" without, I presume, a tub of buttered popcorn - the academy is realigning its merits to occasion the kinds of film fare seen at Sundance, Cannes, Toronto, etc, how could it be otherwise?

Avatar, story-wise, was, after all: a predictable snoozefest dipped in kitsch

[4lbs]

166. Both "The Hurt Locker" and Kathryn Bigelow were the favorites to win, so why is it an upset that

they did?

[bigwillq]

167. Hurt Locker was the favorite going in

I am not surprised. It was a good movie. Well-made. Good performances. There's been better Best Picture winners and nominees, though. I only saw 2 of the 10 nominated this year. Hurt Locker and Precious. HL was the better movie of those two.

[Garbo 2004]

173. "How did David slay Goliath at Oscars?"

Then there was the new system for choosing best picture, with 10 nominees this year instead of the usual five. In previous years, a voter would simply make one choice for best picture. But this year's ballots had a preferential system, meaning voters ranked their choices. The lowest choices were then eliminated. That meant it was a system that favored consensus choices, some hypothesized.

"'Avatar' is polarizing," postulated Hendrik Hertzberg in The New Yorker magazine last month. "So is James Cameron ... these factors could push 'Avatar' to the bottom of a choice-ranked ballot.'"

<snip>

We'll never know how close the vote was — the Academy doesn't release that information and it doesn't do exit polls. But informal exit polls done privately by industry insiders, and his own conversations, lead O'Neil to think that Quentin Tarantino's wild "Inglourious Basterds" was actually the film that almost won, not "Avatar."

Full article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35770342/ns/entertainment-movies/

[ibegurpard]

174. Avatar was terrible

the dialogue sucked, the characterizations were one-dimensional...and it all paid service to the MESSAGE.
Pretty sad when I walk out of a movie bugged because I was hammered over the head with a message that I agree with.