sapphi_snake said:
I'm not talking necessarily about box office gross. It's also the importance of a film and the impact it has on the medium. Avatar is a groundbreaking film who probably has forever changed how visual effects are used in live action films to tell a story. The Hurt Locker is just another war movie that will be forgotten bu this time next year. Remember movies are an audio-visual medium. The story plays second fiddle to the presentation. Citizen Kane had a pretty good story, but it is considered one of the best movies of all time today thanks to it's innovative filmaking techniques (visual effects used to create large interiors and crouds, special effects makeup, time compression etc.), though when released the movie was overlooked by the Academy, loosing best picture to the formulatic forgettable How Green Was My Valley. Oh, and BTW Ghandi only won because it was a biopic about Ghandi. It was in no way better than E.T. or even Tootsie for that matter, and not to mention the unnominated Blade Runner. |
That's where I disagree. Story doesn't play second fiddle to visuals; it is of equal importance. If Avatar had ANYTHING involving intriguing characters or an interesting story, I'd be right there with you cheering it on to a Best Picture award.
It doesn't. The characters are directly ripped out of Cameron's earlier movies and the story is so predictable that I knew what was going to happen from the TRAILER. When one portion of a film is so disappointing, I don't see how it should win Best Picture no matter how impressive other aspects of the film are, especially when there are other films that have a more polished and balanced approach to filmmaking.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/