• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oscar Pics - BEST PICTURE

Who SHOULD win Best Picture?

  • AVATAR

    Votes: 11 25.6%

  • THE BLIND SIDE

    Votes: 2 4.7%

  • DISTRICT 9

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • AN EDUCATION

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • THE HURT LOCKER

    Votes: 12 27.9%

  • INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • PRECIOUS

    Votes: 2 4.7%

  • A SERIOUS MAN

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • UP

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • UP IN THE AIR

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • Total voters
    43
Cilogy said:
If it weren't in 3D, it probably wouldn't have had half the appeal it has now.

Sad thing is that 50 years from now, we'll all be saying how "Avatar was the first 3D movie" and then shoot ourselves with our hypocrisy guns.

Now, if they give away a "Best Hype" award at the Oscars, well now we're talkin' :lol:
Click to expand...

They've been making movies in 3D since the 50s.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
They've been making movies in 3D since the 50s.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's my point, 3D has been around forever, but because of the hype of this movie, people decades from now will think that Avatar started it all, giving this movie way more credit than it deserves.
 
Jerry said:
The claim was:


So who gives a **** about ticket prices?
Click to expand...

Um... your source does. That's how they estimate the attendance for the run of the show 1939-1941.

We're talking about how "watched, and enjoyed" movies are, not how much money they've made.
Click to expand...

Simmer down, Jerry... I understand "watched and enjoyed"-- but how do you estimate the number of people who saw GWTW in the first release + every re-release + video... You can't.

When you're talking about individuals who have seen a film once (for the first time) on the big screen or on video; you now have 3 generations of people who have watched and enjoyed films like Star Wars: Episode IV...

How many people buying the GWTW DVD or seeing it in a revival theater are seeing it for the first time?
 
hazlnut said:
Um... your source does. That's how they estimate the attendance for the run of the show 1939-1941.



Simmer down, Jerry... I understand "watched and enjoyed"-- but how do you estimate the number of people who saw GWTW in the first release + every re-release + video... You can't.

When you're talking about individuals who have seen a film once (for the first time) on the big screen or on video; you now have 3 generations of people who have watched and enjoyed films like Star Wars: Episode IV...

How many people buying the GWTW DVD or seeing it in a revival theater are seeing it for the first time?
Click to expand...

Other films came out before GWTW, so if you're theory were accurate those other films would be ahead of GWTW. But they aren't.

The claim was made in the present tense, so while it may be true that in time Avatar may become more watched that GWTW, that is not the situation today.
 
A thought:

I remember someone saying, either on radio or news or something, that Avatar was somewhat of a metaphor for the Iraq war. I didn't think so, I couldn't really relate the movie to anything other than Pocahontas, but its something to think about.

The good thing about the film is that it is just pure visual pleasure. You could easily say that Avatar is the reason that people go to see movies, to be entertained. But my argument is that everyone has a different definition of "entertainment" for themselves personally.
 
hazlnut said:
Who can disagree with an intelligent and in depth review like that?:roll::roll:
Click to expand...

Sorry. Just had to say it...It doesnt even qualify to be mentioned among the others. Not that I have seen all of them, but Inglourious Basterd and Hurt Locker are incredibly good movies.

There was nothing good about District 9.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Sorry. Just had to say it...It doesnt even qualify to be mentioned among the others. Not that I have seen all of them, but Inglourious Basterd and Hurt Locker are incredibly good movies.

There was nothing good about District 9.
Click to expand...
I loved District 9. It was far better than Inglorious Basterds.
 
EgoffTib said:
I loved District 9. It was far better than Inglorious Basterds.
Click to expand...

I didn't "love" either one of them, but they were both okay.
Entertaining but ultimately forgettable. No lasting impression.
No aftertaste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom