Avatar, King of The Box-Office World Not King of The Awards World

[Tree of Souls]

Really, looking back, did "Avatar" even stand a chance?

"Avatar" is still raking in the profits, but failed to produce the critical success that Cameron's previous film, "Titanic," generated 12 years ago. In fact, "Avatar" -- the most financially successful film of all time -- was easily the most mocked film of the evening.

Sure, it was an easy target. No other nominated film featured blue aliens. Oscar co-host Steve Martin participated in a bit where he used bug spray to defend himself against "Avatar's" jellyfish-like creatures. Ben Stiller attempted his best Na'vi impression as a presenter -- oh, that could have been much, much worse.

However much audiences may enjoy the visually stunning imagery in "Avatar," it seems, when it comes to the Oscars, nothing beats real, live human beings.

Los Angeles Times columnist Patrick Goldstein sums up this sentiment by writing, "My suspicion is that academy members still find it difficult to believe that films largely created and sculpted in the computer--whether it's "Avatar" or the long string of brilliant Pixar films -- can be just as worthy and artistic as the old-fashioned live-action ones."

But if anyone was going to defy the big-budget-visual-effects-films-don't-win-Oscars rule, everyone seemed to think it could be James Cameron.

In 1997, James Cameron's other box-office behemoth, "Titanic," accomplished the rare feat of box-office and Oscar dominance. "Titanic" was nominated for a record 14 Academy Awards and won a record 9 awards. "Avatar" only won three of its nine nominations: Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, and Best Visual Effects. Cameron's "Titanic" also won those same three awards, plus 6 others, including the Academy Award for Best Picture and Best Director; "Avatar" lost Best Picture and Best Director to "The Hurt Locker."

"Avatar" had the unfortunate luck -- if you can call a movie that's made over $2.5 billion worldwide "unfortunate" -- of being right smack in the middle of the science fiction genre. A genre that, historically, doesn't win Oscar gold no matter how successful financially. In 1977, "Star Wars" became the most financially successful film of all time but lost the Best Picture Oscar to "Annie Hall." Similarly, in 1982 "E.T." set box-office records but lost the Academy Award to "Ghandi." The closet thing to science fiction to ever win Best Picture would be 2003's "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" -- and even that film series needed three attempts before it finally won.

This year, Cameron was frustrated that his film wasn't taken seriously as an "actor's film." He worked hard in his Oscar campaign to spread the notion that actors acting in front of green screens and using computer generated technology are just as worthy as actors not engulfed by special effects. (Actors make up the largest segment of the voting Academy.) Clearly, the campaign did not go over so well at the Oscars. However unfair it may be, it seems no one likes the idea of being replaced by a machine.

Avatar, King of The Box-Office World Not King of The Awards World - The 82nd Annual Academy Awards® on Yahoo! Movies

[Jacob]

<Nitpick>Titanic won 11 Oscars, not nine.</Nitpick>

An interesting article, though I disagree with some of the points. First, I don't think parodies are the same as mockery. If anything it only shows how widespread familiarity with Avatar has already become in our culture if people can make references to it as parody. (If it will have the lasting power of something such as "No, I am your father" remains to be seen though.)

Second, I'm not sure if it was just CGI bias that put the voters off. There have been many, many criticisms of the story's simplicity and unoriginality. Is it that hard to imagine that the voters just truly didn't think Avatar was the best film of the year.

[iluvneytiri]

Avatar deserved Best Picture because it is truly revolutionary and grandiose and overwhelming in scope, and has had tremendous impact on people all over the world. As far as actors are concerned, there are the best actor awards that can take care of the actors. Ok, so don't give an Oscar to the actors in Avatar because their characters were enhanced/modified by computers - but they should have given the Oscar to the film itself, and to its genius director, James Cameron. Anyway, for me the Oscars are finished. I will NEVER watch them or follow them again after this idiotic farce.

[Jacob]

Avatar deserved Best Picture because it is truly revolutionary and grandiose and overwhelming in scope, and has had tremendous impact on people all over the world.

The visual effects were revolutionary, the story was nothing new. No surprise then that visual effects was one of the Oscars that Avatar did take home, but screenplay was not.

The story was not particularly grandiose, though the world it created was. The story is more important, however. It's a (more or less) dramatic film, not a documentary.

Visually it was overwhelming, and that's what it was rewarded for. On other fronts - not so much.

Since when does having an impact on people factor into the quality of a film?

[iluvneytiri]

Second, I'm not sure if it was just CGI bias that put the voters off. There have been many, many criticisms of the story's simplicity and unoriginality. Is it that hard to imagine that the voters just truly didn't think Avatar was the best film of the year.

I find the story VERY original in a science fiction context. I have never seen a science fiction movie like Avatar. Science fiction movies always show you the bad aliens in their spaceships, or sometimes the good aliens, but they are nearly always more advanced than humans. Here you have a story where the aliens are us on a distant planet, and the natives of that planet ( moon, actually) have a neolithic type of society. The story for me was extremely original, plus it's a science fiction story with a love story within it. And the whole concept of avatar bodies is different from what i have seen before.
Very, very original in my opinion!

[iluvneytiri]

Since when does having an impact on people factor into the quality of a film?

I have seen Avatar 25 times and will see it another 25 times if I have a chance. Every other movie in my life I saw once or max. twice and soon forgot. No Hurt Locker will ever do that to people.

[Tree of Souls]

The visual effects were revolutionary, the story was nothing new. No surprise then that visual effects was one of the Oscars that Avatar did take home, but screenplay was not.

The story was not particularly grandiose, though the world it created was. The story is more important, however. It's a (more or less) dramatic film, not a documentary.

Visually it was overwhelming, and that's what it was rewarded for. On other fronts - not so much.

Since when does having an impact on people factor into the quality of a film?

Gee..I thought having an impact on people who view the film was the whole point of filmmaking. Otherwise, why bother?

I don't know why you are on this forum if you did not like the story.

[Tzmukan Wokan]

anybody with a Camera can go and record a war... but you need somebody really special to create a whole new world, using an outstanding technology, and I think most important, Avatar is giving us a message about what are we becoming

[Jacob]

I find the story VERY original in a science fiction context. I have never seen a science fiction movie like Avatar.

But if you've seen Dances with Wolves, Pocahontoas, Ferngully, etc. you've seen a movie like Avatar. The story is unoriginal, even if it hasn't been used in this setting before.

Science fiction movies always show you the bad aliens in their spaceships, or sometimes the good aliens, but they are nearly always more advanced than humans.

Perhaps you have heard of a little film series called Star Wars? It's only the most successful science fiction franchise ever.

Here you have a story where the aliens are us on a distant planet, and the natives of that planet ( moon, actually) have a neolithic type of society. The story for me was extremely original

The STORY was unoriginal, though the setting substituted spaceships and planets for boats and continents.

plus it's a science fiction story with a love story within it.

Science fiction with romance is hardly a new thing.

And the whole concept of avatar bodies is different from what i have seen before.
Very, very original in my opinion!

I'd mention Surrogates, though the idea of Avatar predates that movie, even if the release date does not. This may be one of the few original parts of the movie.

[Jacob]

I have seen Avatar 25 times and will see it another 25 times if I have a chance. Every other movie in my life I saw once or max. twice and soon forgot. No Hurt Locker will ever do that to people.

How do you know that?