Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Oscars

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX

    Oscars

    Please, please please let this not be a James Cameron love fest. Avatar was really good. I liked it a lot, but of the 10 movies nominated, I've seen seven (have not seen An Education, Precious or A Serious Man). Avatar is the fifth or sixth movie of those seven. Definitely better than the Blind Side (which turned a great book into a latently racist movie), and maybe better than District 9. Although frankly, given the choice to watch either again, I'd pick District 9 10 out of 10 times, so I guess that answers that question. District 9 was 1/15th of the budget, looked just as cool, and was frankly much, much more original.

    Anyway -- I'd go either Up in the Air or Inglourious Basterds with my vote. I really liked the Hurt Locker, but I'm not sure I liked it as much as the critics and I wish I had.

    Actor - I need to see Crazy Heart. I heard Bridges is a shoe in. From what I've seen, I really liked Renner.

    Actress - Sandra Bullock was pretty good, ahem, for her. I'm hearing Carey Mulligan, though. No dog in this fight.

    Supporting Actor - Would love it if Cristoph Waltz won. Haven't seen others. Harrelson getting buzz.

    Supporting Actress - Anna Kendrick, please.

    Director - Quentin. Sorry. That movie was outstanding. I think a lot of folks are turned off by the unconventional stuff (Samuel L. Jackson narrating backstory in BAMF mode, the use of modern looking titles (Stiglitz!) over a period movie).

    If Avatar wins cinematography, I will throw up in my mouth. That is not cinematography. That's special effects.

    And please let "The Weary Kind" win best song. I haven't seen that movie yet, but that's a great song, and Ryan Bingham is what country music SHOULD be about. Not the Taylor Swift Nashville schmaltz.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2

    oscars

    I don't have much faith in the oscar voters -- they love the big-money makers.

    Personally, I'll be pulling for Inglorious Basterds, easily the best picture I saw last year. I'd be shocked if it won, although from what I've read Walz is the early favorite for best supporting acter ... I'd love to see Taranteno get the statue for direction.

    Hurt Locker was the kind of movie I appreciate more than I like. Glad I saw it, but it will be a while before I watch it again.

    Avatar left me cold -- breakthrough special effects, but a lame retread of Dances with Wolves as a story. But what the hell, Wolves won best picture, allowing everybody in Hollywood to show off their liberal America-hating credentials (and I write that as a flaming liberal myself). I fully expect Avatar to do the same.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    I'm going to be pulling for District 9. This movie floored me. Character development of Sharlto Copely (sp)(previously a blue screen acting coach) was mesmerizing. Story line was excellent and some really good villains.

    Inglorius Basterds was excellent as well.


    Avatar - amazing, but not the best picture...

    have not seen "up in the air" yet, or "Hurt Locker" or "precious" so i reserve the option to change my mind..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    I don't have much faith in the oscar voters -- they love the big-money makers...

    Personally, I'll be pulling for Inglorious Basterds, easily the best picture I saw last year. I'd be shocked if it won, although from what I've read Walz is the early favorite for best supporting acter ... I'd love to see Taranteno get the statue for direction.

    Hurt Locker was the kind of movie I appreciate more than I like. Glad I saw it, but it will be a while before I watch it again.

    Avatar left me cold -- breakthrough special effects, but a lame retread of Dances with Wolves as a story. But what the hell, Wolves won best picture, allowing everybody in Hollywood to show off their liberal America-hating credentials (and I write that as a flaming liberal myself). I fully expect Avatar to do the same.
    Your first sentence hit the nail on the head, and caused me to extract the yesterday's Life section of USAToday from the recycle bin. The article makes some historical comparisons of Avatar with older moves. A list of movies with the gross revenues, adjusted for inflation, is included. The top five were displayed graphically.

    1. -- Gone with the Wind (1939)-- $1.5 billion
    2. -- Star Wars (1977)-- $1.3 billion
    3. -- The Sound of Music (1965)-- $1.1 billion
    4. -- ET The Extra Terrestrial (1982)-- $1.1 billion
    5. -- The Ten Commandments (1956)--$1.0 billion

    Avatar is in 21st place, with $0.6 billion. These dollar figure ratings are roughly equivalent to people in the seats. In sports and other events, attendance is the celebrated statistic. The fallacy in using revenues is pretty weak. If we were to use that metric to compare todays movies with those 40 years in the future, the worst grossing film of the year would be way ahead of today's figures. Sort of like the Federal budget. Today's budget would only be a tiny fraction given our rate of inflation.

    In years past the Oscar voters have ignored the high budget films to some extent. I would be pleased if the Academy used quality as the prime measure. I haven't see Avatar, but if it wins based on quality that's fine. A young man I was talking to last week told me that Avatar was kinda okay, but he hated wearing the glasses, and he would have liked it better as a game on his Playstation. Is he reasonable with that idea?

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Hurt Locker
    Simply the best movie presented this year. Will probably get stiffed by Avatar.
    Best actor and best director, too.

  6. #6
    I finally saw The Blindside a few weeks ago, it was heart-warming, but no cinematic masterpiece in my opinion.

    I haven't seen Avatar, and probably won't. The Hurt Locker, however, would probably get my vote for Best Picture.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post

    1. -- Gone with the Wind (1939)-- $1.5 billion
    2. -- Star Wars (1977)-- $1.3 billion
    3. -- The Sound of Music (1965)-- $1.1 billion
    4. -- ET The Extra Terrestrial (1982)-- $1.1 billion
    5. -- The Ten Commandments (1956)--$1.0 billion

    Avatar is in 21st place, with $0.6 billion. These dollar figure ratings are roughly equivalent to people in the seats. In sports and other events, attendance is the celebrated statistic.

    I think these figures include re-releases (and I believe that all five of those movies have had re-releases, some of them multiple re-releases), so it's still not an apples-to-apples comparison. You don't see many re-releases with modern movies -- even big earners -- because nowadays everyone just goes out and buys the DVD.

    I'd like to see a list showing the inflation-adjusted U.S. box office totals for films in their initial releases, but I haven't been able to find one. Also, to make a fair comparison, I think you'd also have to adjust for population growth. In 1939, when Gone with the Wind came out, the U.S. population was only 131 million, compared to 308 million today. It was 169 million in 1956 and 194 million in 1965. Even in 1977, when Star Wars was released, the U.S. population was "only" about 220 million, just 71.4% of what it is today.

    I think Titanic still has the record for highest inflation-adjusted domestic gross by a movie that's only been released once -- it's now over $950 million. That figure goes even higher when you adjust for population growth. In 1997-98, when Titanic was in theaters, the U.S. population was around 270 million, about 87-88% of what it is now. Avatar is about to pass Titanic's non-adjusted U.S. gross, but still has a ways to go to catch its inflation-adjusted and population-adjusted U.S. gross.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post
    A list of movies with the gross revenues, adjusted for inflation, is included. The top five were displayed graphically.

    1. -- Gone with the Wind (1939)-- $1.5 billion
    2. -- Star Wars (1977)-- $1.3 billion
    3. -- The Sound of Music (1965)-- $1.1 billion
    4. -- ET The Extra Terrestrial (1982)-- $1.1 billion
    5. -- The Ten Commandments (1956)--$1.0 billion

    Avatar is in 21st place, with $0.6 billion. T
    those are DOMESTIC figures, and GWTW has been out for 70 years....

    these are the current WORLD WIDE BOX OFFICE for AVATAR

    Domestic: $598,453,037 29.3%
    + Foreign: $1,446,989,293 70.7%
    = Worldwide: $2,045,442,330

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by moonpie23 View Post
    those are DOMESTIC figures, and GWTW has been out for 70 years....

    these are the current WORLD WIDE BOX OFFICE for AVATAR

    Domestic: $598,453,037 29.3%
    + Foreign: $1,446,989,293 70.7%
    = Worldwide: $2,045,442,330
    So, do you mean that the article I linked is inaccurate, or are you just a fan of Avatar? I guess we'll learn in March what the industry thinks about Avatar. The fact remains that more admissions were sold for a whole list of movies other than Avatar. Let me know when Avatar gets as many butts in the seats as GWTW or Star Wars.

  10. #10

    world-wide

    The growth of the international market is amazing and represents an interesting historical twist.

    In the silent film era, the international market was huge. Charlie Chaplin was an international superstar, as popular in Italy and Brazil and Germany (maybe a little less in the Far East ... it's a cultural thing). American films dominated the world markets -- you can find countless stories from the '20s talking about how German and Japanese and Italian film industries were struggling to make a breakthrough in a market dominated by Hollywood.

    The coming of talkies really hurt the market in foreign languange countries. There's always an audience for such films -- just as Americans have appreciated films by Renoir, Fellini, Fassbinder,etc. -- but the great mass of filmgoers usually won't patronize a film that's dubbed or with subtitles. The same happens in reverse with foreign speaking audiences -- some will embrace English language films (and, of course, there are several other English speaking countries to pad the foreign market), but not nearly as many as flocked to see Chaplin and Keaton and Lloyd. The American world domination of the film industry was broken.

    My point is that for the last 80 years, the foreign market has been a less important part of the Hollywood equation. That's a big reason why when you see films listed by box office, they are almost always talking about domestic gross.

    But I noticed a year or so ago that WALL-E was doing a huge foreign business (much better overseas than in the US) and now Avatar is off the charts overseas.

    No facts here and a very small info base, but it's begining to look like audiences will accept dubbing in cartoon and computer-generated films to a much greater extent than they will for ordinary films. I don't have time to check, but I wonder how "Up" did in foreign markets? Have any normal films (Titanic?) done huge foreign language business?

    It's like the CGI movie has brought us in a full historical circle. After Avatar, I suspect we'll start to see films ranked by "foreign and domestic box office" much more often. And, I'm even more certain that the profitability that generates will generate even more such films.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Partly Orlando, FL partly heard Sandpoint, ID
    As someone in one of those overseas markets, I have to note that for animated movies like "Up", the overseas release is frequently dubbed instead of subtitled. Most Pixar movies release dates are significantly delayed from their US release date in order to get the dubbing done. So the CGI of animation doesn't factor into the growth of international appeal, but the ease of making the film accessible to the local market through technology does. But CGI in live action movies does play a factor. Each summer, you can predict which US movies will haul in the largest amount overseas. Movies this past summer like Transformers 2, GI Joe, etc which weren't heavily reliant on dialogue, but instead on special effects... well, there's not much lost in translation so tends to have greater appeal overseas.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post
    So, do you mean that the article I linked is inaccurate, or are you just a fan of Avatar? I guess we'll learn in March what the industry thinks about Avatar. The fact remains that more admissions were sold for a whole list of movies other than Avatar. Let me know when Avatar gets as many butts in the seats as GWTW or Star Wars.
    no, i'm not sure what the World wide gross for GWTW is...the 1.5 B adjusted is on the domestic list, but if you look at the WORLD WIDE list where avatar has done over 2B, the list has GWTW at #2 but the figures say, N/A

    so, i'm not sure how many butts they are saying GWTW has actually put in seats, but i'm pretty sure in 70 years that more people will have seen avatar...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Partly Orlando, FL partly heard Sandpoint, ID
    In 70 years, many fewer people will have gone to a movie theatre to see Avatar.

    Currently, after its big haul of money, its sold a little more than 1/3 as many tickets as Gone With the Wind. The data.

    Deslok

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by Deslok View Post
    In 70 years, many fewer people will have gone to a movie theatre to see Avatar.

    Currently, after its big haul of money, its sold a little more than 1/3 as many tickets as Gone With the Wind. The data.

    Deslok
    again...those are DOMESTIC numbers...that's roughly 1/4 what avatar is doing world wide. Hard to calculate how the money/tickets translate out side the US, but still...with 600MIL $ equaling 79 million tickets....over 2.2 billion in money might be over 300 million tickets sold..

    i still can't seem to find an accurate number that GWTW has done world wide...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    Back to the Oscars. I love it when George Clooney gets nominated. He wears a tux, swoon, sits in the front, and the whole broadcast is loaded with Clooney reaction shots. What more could a girl want? (Shave, please, George, the Golden Globes look was fine for the Golden Globes. America wants a clean-shaven George at the Academy Awards.)

    Saw Avatar last weekend. I could have done the storyboard without ever going to see the film. I kept telling my 16-year old what was going to happen next. I was never wrong. Finally, though, my 12-year old told me to stop it. I couldn't help snapping my fingers and saying now at the exact moment that last thing happens in the movie. I've read too many scripts in my life. This one held no surprises, none. Sigh. Visually stunning though. If you're going to bother with seeing it, it should be done on the big screen.

    Loved Up in the Air, of course, George in full on charmer mode.

    I doubt Avatar will win best picture. It will, however, clean up in the technical categories.

    Best Actress? No contest, it's the year to recognize Meryl Streep again, one American icon playing another one, to perfection, it's a no-brainer.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Partly Orlando, FL partly heard Sandpoint, ID
    I can't attest to its accuracy, but per box office mojo, the foreign numbers for Gone With the Wind exceed its domestic numbers, $201 million vs $190 million.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Just a matter of curiosity -- is Avatar always shown in 3D? I haven't seen it, and, as with other films, I wait until Netflix will send it. I am curious, after all, so I will order it from Netflix. It's really astounding watching Movies in 1080p Blu-ray format. A lot better than theaters, but n 3D.

    Of course, that brings up another question. Just what does 3D add to a movie? It's been around forever, it seems, but I can't remember it adding to the quality of a movie. The commercial success of 3D has been mostly zilch since its invention, actually, before the motion picture, by about 50 years or so. So, what's the big deal? Is that what has given Avatar the big box office revenue? The Discovery Channel and ESPN will soon be broadcasting some 3D material. What would it add to my viewing pleasure? What will it cost me to get a new TV that will accommodate 3D? Will the producers and directors be taking pleasure out of squirting blood onto my carpet, or having a Toyota screaming through my living room in a car chase?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post
    Just a matter of curiosity -- is Avatar always shown in 3D? I haven't seen it, and, as with other films, I wait until Netflix will send it. I am curious, after all, so I will order it from Netflix. It's really astounding watching Movies in 1080p Blu-ray format. A lot better than theaters, but n 3D.

    Of course, that brings up another question. Just what does 3D add to a movie? It's been around forever, it seems, but I can't remember it adding to the quality of a movie. The commercial success of 3D has been mostly zilch since its invention, actually, before the motion picture, by about 50 years or so. So, what's the big deal? Is that what has given Avatar the big box office revenue? The Discovery Channel and ESPN will soon be broadcasting some 3D material. What would it add to my viewing pleasure? What will it cost me to get a new TV that will accommodate 3D? Will the producers and directors be taking pleasure out of squirting blood onto my carpet, or having a Toyota screaming through my living room in a car chase?
    The 3-D is jarringly cool. Give it 5 minutes, but it's more an immersive 3-D than a "this axe is flying directly at your face" 3-D. I doubt I'll ever watch Avatar again, frankly, but I'm glad I saw it in 3-D at the theater.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Baltimore
    Just watched the movie "Precious"

    This will win the oscar for Best Picture, I guarantee it. I think it will win best supporting actress as well (Mo'nique).

    Its a must-see.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Elon, NC
    I saw Hurt Locker this past weekend by DVD and I thought it was ok, but definitely not Oscar worthy, in my opinion. I didn't think it had much of a story, just that the main character was reckless and thrived on excitement. It may have been more impressive had I seen it on the big screen. Right now, my vote goes to Avatar.
    Tom Mac

Similar Threads

  1. Oscars 2010: It's Complicated
    By brevity in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-04-2009, 10:44 AM
  2. worst Best Picture-winning film ever (Oscars)
    By throatybeard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-17-2008, 07:38 PM
  3. In-Game Oscars Thread
    By ugadevil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 03-26-2008, 11:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •