I think because of Avatar, this will be an interesting year to watch the Oscars. And it will be very interesting to see if Kathryn Bigelow will win for best director. Which will be a historical event.
On a side note, the posters for Avatar are going for very good money. In fact, I've never seen posters for a new movie go for so much. The lenticuler is selling in the $500 range. Regular D/S one sheets are in the $30-100 range. My guess on what is driving these high prices are non-poster collectors bidding them up. John W ________________________________ From: James Richard <jrl...@mediabearonline.com> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tue, February 16, 2010 5:42:31 AM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Revised/appended, discard previous: AVATAR David, I agreed with your take, except I don't accept that a lifetime of film history should be casually dismissed just because some teens and twenty something newbies don't yet have that same kind of history. It's called experience and experience is valuable, despite what the new kids on the block think. The problem with AVATAR's plot is not that it was the old calvary vs. injuns story line by way of DANCES WITH WOLVES (or even LITTLE BIG MAN, if you really want to show your age), but that Cameron made no attempt to add any original twists to that old plot (which both DANCES and BIG MAN did). On the other hand, Cameron chose to add plenty of new and original twists to TITANIC, which is what made it so great. Offhand, I can think of a dozen ways he could have tweaked the overly-predictable plot of AVATAR to add a lot of originality and not do any more work or spend any additional money. He just didn't bother. I mean, everything else about AVATAR is so great, why couldn't he have insisted on a better script? It's not just the tired old calvary vs. indians story arc... it's that the stupid (bumbling) corporate guy in charge of the whole project who was straight out of a Disney film, as was the George Custer-like Ultimately Evil head of security dude. But, having vented about the lost opportunity to make *every* aspect of AVATAR great, I did acknowledge in my original review that AVATAR really isn't about the plot. It's about the wild ride... the fully realized 3-dimensional trip to an fantastic alien planet that we get to take for the price of a theater ticket. I'll stand by that (which shows that I still "get it", despite being old and out of date). Heck, the plot could have been about blue aliens rubbing two bricks together and it still would have been a fantastic cinematic event. But "Best Picture of the Year"? Nah... not to me, burdened as I am with my "out of date" 55 years of film watching experience. The unnecessarily trite plot and characters -- which someone of Cameron's ability and clout could have easily avoided -- removes AVATAR from the same class as TITANIC, which *did* deserve best picture. While it's a great ride, AVATAR is not the "Best Picture of the Year". It's the biggest commercial success, yes, but that's not the same thing. But of course, it will get the Oscar. Any movie that broke TITANIC's all-time box-office score would get Best Picture by default. Hollywood is, after all, all about the money. -- JR David Kusumoto wrote: ** It's been a while I've written anything of length to MoPo; write it off to being too swamped to get into the fights and what-nots during the past 5-6 months. > >** Meanwhile, you're right, Doug -- "Avatar's" story line has been done 1,000 >times before, and that's my only objection to it. "Avatar's" script resembled >"Dances With Wolves Meets the Blue Man Group" -- with the standard theme of >"money-grubbing corporations" raping the natural resources of a planet >populated by blue aliens -- whose every utterance is noble and forcefully >profound, e.g., like lines given to every Native American character in >Disney's "Pocahontas." > >** Anyway, I was put in my place by a former colleague and mother of two kids >who agreed with me -- but who told me -- (and she was right) -- "you know, you >and your historical film references makes you old and out of date -- it makes >everything you see today sound irrelevant with a "been there and done that" >feeling. Well, that's not true for everything. Zillions of people are paying >$15 to see 'Avatar' without your historical references; they don't care about >"Dances with Wolves" or "Pocahontas." Even if they did, those pictures were >made 15-20 years ago, before today's movie goers were born; they were made in >ways that seem obsolete or less engaging to kids today. This doesn't mean old >films are less important. It just means they're not important to young people >YET. Someday they'll like them. Like we did. Geezuz, we weren't all born in >1920. Young people buy WAY more tickets than old people. Remember how you >used to go to every opening night? You don't anymore because you hate long lines. You're not supporting the industry and you're well past the 'sell-by' date for mass entertainment. So stay at home and watch PBS, TCM or HBO. 'Avatar" may not be the best picture of the year, but it is historic and my kids loved it." > >** I thought about this tirade for a moment and I said, "you know, you're >right. Most people coming out of 'Avatar' are having fun -- and I admit it's >astounding that a guy like James Cameron can knock out hit after monster hit, >while having total control of material that, unlike Spielberg, always seems to >strike industry watchers and the bean counters to have an "iffy" quality -- >BEFORE they're released. Cameron's films never SEEM to feel like they will be >guaranteed box office gold until AFTER word-of-mouth spreads." > >** The box-office receipts of Cameron's last three films including "True Lies" >-- have blown past everything Spielberg has done since 1993, including >"Jurassic Park," a film at the time I thought was a technological game >changer. I just wonder whether "Avatar," even as a "game changer" -- has a >story/script worthy enough to be a Best Picture. "Titanic" beat back those >same obstacles in 1997 with an old-fashioned, 1940s type love story that had >teenage girls returning in droves. > >** I liked low-budget picture, "The Hurt Locker" -- and was shocked that I >also enjoyed the true story of Baltimore Ravens tackle Michael Oher in Sandra >Bullock's "The Blind Side" -- but "Avatar" didn't hit me in the gut. >Honestly, the best performances I saw in 2009 came from Meryl Streep as Julia >Child in "Julie and Julia" and Christoph Waltz as the smooth Nazi in >"Inglourious Basterds." > >** If I had to root for a single picture, it might be "The Hurt Locker," but >only because I think it's the first picture about the war without a political >message; none of the actors "debate" why they're in Iraq. There's no >sledgehammer message. It's a strange film whereby the emotional centerpiece >is the adrenaline of survival; some soldiers have it and some don't; this >adrenaline is all that matters to the main character played by Best Actor >nominee Jeremy Renner. I also thought "The Hurt Locker" was a giant leap for >action director Kathryn Bigelow, who's never done anything like this. If >anything, its neutral political stance underscores how many soldiers are >ignorant of the politics of anything they're involved in. They just do their >job. > >** But my gut feeling is the 9 films going against "Avatar" -- all have the >"Gandhi" hex hung around their necks. That is, if any picture OTHER than >"Avatar" wins -- it will be a dubious distinction akin to "Forrest Gump" >beating "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Pulp Fiction" in 1994; "Shakespeare in >Love" beating "Saving Private Ryan" in 1998; "Chariots of Fire" beating "Reds" >and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 1981; "Ordinary People" beating "Raging Bull" >in 1980; "Platoon" beating " Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters" in 1986; >"The English Patient" beating "Fargo" in 1996; "Dances with Wolves" beating >"Goodfellas" in 1990 and "Gandhi" beating "E.T" in 1982 and on and on. I >remember being angry when Oliver Stone's "Platoon" beat Woody Allen's "Hannah" >in '86, the latter film much decorated in the all-important acting and >screenplay categories. And last week, I put on "Shawshank" on the DVD player >and my wife and I were in tears all over again. Still a great picture. > >** I know the Oscars are such bullshit (and not the original point of Doug and >Kirby's posts below) -- and I know these trophies are laden with the "politics >of their day" -- which have proven time and again that the Academy's choices >do not a classic make. But if "Avatar" loses, I sense many will feel like >they've witnessed the "crime of the century," further exposing the gulf >between the Academy and popular sentiment (arguably as they should be) -- but >over a picture that is not only a box-office smash, but has also received >good-to-great reviews. I won't mind if "Avatar" wins because I do know people >who think despite its high-school-ish script (esp. the romance) -- that the >picture is a critical and commercial juggernaut that should NOT be denied the >biggest prize on March 7, which has forced many production companies to >re-tool their future releases to integrate the 3D format in a "non-intrusive" >way, which is "Avatar's" biggest strength. > >** Despite 10 Best Picture nominees, I'm kind of indifferent this year, not >one film screams "stupendous." But I was emotionally responsive to 5 of the >nearly 35 films released in 2009 that I saw, one of which is not even among >the 10 nominees: "The Hurt Locker," "The Blind Side," "Up," "Inglourious >Basterds" (despite its excesses) -- and "The (500) Days of Summer," the latter >which I thought was going to be a stupid, sophomoric young-love beach film -- >but turned out to be a new way of telling a story about a broken urban romance >that doesn't get near a beach or a keg-party. Wonderful surprise. > >** A digression -- I did not object to "Annie Hall" beating "Star Wars" in >1977. "Annie Hall" was a film I saw in contemporaneous release and I did feel >at the time that it broke new ground for Woody Allen and for the "urban comedy >genre" in a different way that "Star Wars" broke bigger ground for family >entertainment the same year. But I also vividly remember going to work the >next day. My work mates asked me, with great incredulity, "Star Wars lost to >Annie WHAT? Your movie choices SUCK." I loved both films but I've never >forgotten how that experience exposed me as a high-button, stuck-up, >holier-than-thou snob. -d. > >> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:31:56 -0500 >> From: douglasbtay...@hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: AVATAR >> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> Much better script than Titanic, although a story line we've seen 1,000 >> times the last 90 years. >> >> I've haven't seen anything better this year. I had high hopes for Hurt >> Locker, but it just doesn't pack the punch to compete. >> >> Regards >> >> DBT >> Profile >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] On Behalf Of Kirby >> McDaniel >> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 11:18 PM >> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> Subject: [MOPO] AVATAR >> >> Here's my reaction. >> >> I finally saw it. >> >> Spectacularly realized. Doesn't lag much. Screenwriting is a little >> stilted at times while trying to explain things to audience 8 to 80, but >> that's quibbling. Gorgeous in 3D on the full IMAX screen. 3D is some of the >> best I've ever >> seen in that it seems to be "of a piece" with the film after a while. Very >> beautiful to >> look at. Reminded me at various times of aspects of other films - LAWRENCE >> OF ARABIA, >> ALIENS, of course, THE STAR WARS stuff, naturally, although without the Flash >> Gordon cornball factor, especially RETURN OF THE JEDI with it's scenes of >> the ewoks. >> And BAMBI of all things -- I was looking at some of the color in the Disney >> animation the other day, and some of the same coloration and tone in AVATAR. >> So huge in its palette that one just simply has to hand it to James Cameron >> - he >> must be some kind of superman. The film is laden with messages, but it's >> all stuff I can pretty much get behind. What surprised me was how touching >> it was at times. >> >> Oh yeah, really cute people. And they're blue. It's not easy being blue. >> >> Kirby McDaniel >> MovieArt Original Film Posters >> P.O. Box 4419 >> Austin TX 78765-4419 >> 512 479 6680 www.movieart.net >> mobile 512 589 5112 > >Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >___________________________________________________________________ >How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List >Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu >In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L >The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
