Why 'Avatar' lost BIG at the Oscars

Avatar, King of The Box-Office World Not King of The Awards World
posted by Mike Ryan - Mon Mar 8 2010, 2:40 AM PST

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

The Academy was too scared to vote for it! Afraid of the future and technology is what they are!

f**kers. I'm mad.

leaving th oscars

".....on their way top the bank L.M.A.O..."

Why? There are so many reasons why...and just because it is in CGI is at the bottom of the list. That article continuously states financial success of Avatar and other films, yet profits don't determine whether a movie is good or not. Poor article.

The article compares box office record breaking bohemoths in Sci-Fi to the flims in which they lost... at what point does its' profit determine whether the movie is good or not (in the article)? It doesn't. It's a good article.

What is the point of doing that repeatedly though? It just assumes the Academy hates CGI films that make tons of money. It doesn't even gives reasons as to WHY Avatar should have won(even though the title states otherwise).

^whats a CGI film mean?

Computer Generated Imagery.

Because Avatar is paddling in the exact same boat as some of those films in their circumstances, such as E.T. and Star Wars.

THL was no more intense than Black Hawk Down IMO, Avatar brought groundbreaking CGI and special elements to the table that of which have not been seen before, and as we all know by now, I think that's the reason why it should've won alone... that's not even counting it's worldwide rape.

The part about the actors acting in front of a green screen is very debatable, and that scares the academy apparently, and I can see why...

You basically just answered your own question btw. The reason Avatar lost big at the Oscars is because of the CGI.

LOTR had CGI running through its veins.

Avatar won the Oscars it deserved and The Hurt Locker won the Oscars it deserved.

Does anyone know how many voters the Academy has?

Voters

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), a professional honorary organization, maintains a voting membership of 5,835 as of 2007.[21]

Actors constitute the largest voting bloc, numbering 1,311 members (22 percent) of the Academy's composition. Votes have been certified by the auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (and its predecessor Price Waterhouse) for the past 73 annual awards ceremonies.[22]

All AMPAS members must be invited to join by the Board of Governors, on behalf of Academy Branch Executive Committees. Membership eligibility may be achieved by a competitive nomination or a member may submit a name based on other significant contribution to the field of motion pictures.

New membership proposals are considered annually. The Academy does not publicly disclose its membership, although as recently as 2007 press releases have announced the names of those who have been invited to join. The 2007 release also stated that it has just under 6,000 voting members. While the membership had been growing, stricter policies have kept its size steady since then.[23]

Membership of the Academy is a complete mystery and no-one knows who votes for the awards in each category.

wasnt really good acting

great story great visual effects all computer generated great movie but nah

I wish there was a way to see how many members of the Academy voted for which specific film this year. Like, was it a landslide, or narrow margin of victory for THL?

Who cares, it is just an award show, lets move on and discuss film. Avatar isn't the best thing to come to cinema so why the big deal?

Simple: An overly recycled story and mediocre acting all in front of (extremely) pretty images does not a Best Picture make.

Ok... but, what do you think is the best thing to come to cinema?

avatar isnt the biggest thing to come out of cinema... it was hyped and promoted very well which helped it in theaters! maybe with big name actors who didn't turn down the role, it would've generated more votes and won... but to me, i didn't see what was all the hype about, the storyline has been used if you think about it... the hurt locker was more meaningful in a sense of whats going on in todays world and i think it had alot of momentum going in so i wasn't surprised to see it win