Avatar - Vindicated?

J

JOZ85

New member
So after all the pre-hype, the post-hype, number two in the all time box office (rapidy closing in on number one), best director at the GG's and best film (drama) at the GG's, and now possible future Oscar glory, are we seeng the most successful film of all time?
 
Avatar's golden globe win was shocking. I don't deny it is a stunning technical acheivement but if it is the best drama of 2009 then I am a giraffe.
 
Avatar was a good film - possibly the most enjoyable of the year, but no way does it deserve the critical acclaim it seems to be getting at the moment. Give it a hat load of technical awarRAB sure but beyond that... no.
 
The Academy is worried at the moment that people are not watching the ceremony anymore and one of the reasons is that mainstream films are not being nominated or winning. In a normal year I suspect that you are right, Avatar would sweep the technicals and that would be that. However, this year the Academy could well try to exert some influence to get Avatar to win the big awarRAB to try and get people reengaged with the Oscars. After all if audiences start to dwindle then it may stop being televised and if that happens then the Academy is in trouble.
 
Looking at some of the movies that still above Avatar.

Ghostbusters, ET, Jurasic Park, Jaws and four of the six Starwars movies.

Avatar may be a decent film - but in relative terms - it isnt nearly as succesful as these movies - especially considering it has the added weight of 3D behind it to help boost sales.
 
Which fails to take into account the move from a society when movie going was one of the few leisure activities available to the masses and did not have to compete with TV and the internet for example.
 
I was stunned by Avatar winning best film at GG.
I saw Avatar, and while entertaining - I'd never seen a 3D movie before, the story is very weak and childish. give it technical kudos, but nothing else IMO. But money talks and it's made a tonne.
 
Of my pretty large group of frienRAB, I only know two other people who have seen it. It must be the same group of ten or twelve people just watching it over and over and over again!
 
The non inflation adjusted list doesnt take these things into account either.

Besides - we certainly had TV and VHS/DVD for many of the movies above Avatar in the inflation adjusted list, so is your point really a valid one in the majority of cases.

In 1000 years time - a cinema ticket could cost
 
True. But when you start fannying around with the data to prove a point you had better be very sure of your methodology. Otherwise you just end up with egg on your face as has happened here.
 
Why did you take the comments I made about the organisation you linked to personally? Did you actually believe they meant anything? You did didn't you?
 
Back
Top