noncredo wrote:The Hurt Locker was an awesome movie. Maybe a bit inaccurate; but then it was a movie, not a documentary. While you may think it was a worse movie with a worse director, the ones who make those decisoins seem to disagree with you.

Why is a doctor or a firefighter doing "much more" to contribute to society than a soldier serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? What about soldiers who aren't serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? What about military doctors or military firefighters serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?

As for ..."ought to keep that belief to herself..." Why? Is she not entitled to her opinion? Is she not entitled to state her opinion? Were there rules about such statements which prohibited her from making her comments? if not then I see no reason why she "ought to keep that belief to herself." anymore than you ought to keep your beliefs to yourself; or me, mine.

How are military doctors or military firefighters serving in Iraq & Afghanistan affecting American citizens? She said that "they're there for us." How exactly are they "there for us?"

There is no reason why I should have more respect for a soldier in Afghanistan than a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer, or fire-fighter.

BrandySpears wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:You're comparing the police to the army?

How exactly is a soldier all the way in Iraq or Afghanistan protecting an American citizen residing in America? A soldier's contribution to society (at least in the case of Iraq & Afghanistan) is not comparable to a police officer in LA.

Having a problem comprehending Bigelow's "NOT JUST THE MILITARY" statement, are you?

That's the problem. She tied the military in with the others. The military and those contributing to society within America should be kept apart. She's entitled to her opinion, and I'm entitled to criticize her.

andyx1205 wrote:How are military doctors or military firefighters serving in Iraq & Afghanistan affecting American citizens? She said that "they're there for us." How exactly are they "there for us?"

There is no reason why I should have more respect for a soldier in Afghanistan than a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer, or fire-fighter.

Combining two different speeches for two different awards to make an out of context argument?

BrandySpears wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:How are military doctors or military firefighters serving in Iraq & Afghanistan affecting American citizens? She said that "they're there for us." How exactly are they "there for us?"

There is no reason why I should have more respect for a soldier in Afghanistan than a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer, or fire-fighter.

Combining two different speeches for two different awards to make an out of context argument?

The two speeches were only like...a few minutes apart. Come on now..

There's a difference between showing a little respect for the troops, and saying that "they're there for us." It's as if that quote is supposed to make me feel guilty or something. The troops are there for us, and Jesus is here for you.

andyx1205 wrote:

BrandySpears wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:How are military doctors or military firefighters serving in Iraq & Afghanistan affecting American citizens? She said that "they're there for us." How exactly are they "there for us?"

There is no reason why I should have more respect for a soldier in Afghanistan than a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer, or fire-fighter.

Combining two different speeches for two different awards to make an out of context argument?

The two speeches were only like...a few minutes apart. Come on now..

and the "there for us" phrase was referring to people who wear uniforms: "firemen" "Hazmat" and "not just the military".

Avatar is nothing more than a sci-fi version of Dances with Wolves and since war movies never really sparked my interest I haven't even seen The Hurt Locker so I can't rightfully say anything positive or negative.

But Inglourious Basterds should of won more awards than it did!

andyx1205 wrote:

noncredo wrote:The Hurt Locker was an awesome movie. Maybe a bit inaccurate; but then it was a movie, not a documentary. While you may think it was a worse movie with a worse director, the ones who make those decisoins seem to disagree with you.

Why is a doctor or a firefighter doing "much more" to contribute to society than a soldier serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? What about soldiers who aren't serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? What about military doctors or military firefighters serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?

As for ..."ought to keep that belief to herself..." Why? Is she not entitled to her opinion? Is she not entitled to state her opinion? Were there rules about such statements which prohibited her from making her comments? if not then I see no reason why she "ought to keep that belief to herself." anymore than you ought to keep your beliefs to yourself; or me, mine.

How are military doctors or military firefighters serving in Iraq & Afghanistan affecting American citizens? She said that "they're there for us." How exactly are they "there for us?"

There is no reason why I should have more respect for a soldier in Afghanistan than a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer, or fire-fighter.

Well since military personel are Amercian citizens then I would say that the military doctors and firefighters serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are affecting Americans lives the same way they all do...attempting to heal the wounded and sick, and putting out fires. You do realize that military personel are American citizens right?

They are there because the civilian government told them to be there. We have a government "of the people, by the people and for the people", therefore they are there for us because we, as a nation, said go. Some disagreed; I myself disagree with the whole Iraq thing, but as a nation we said go.

I don't think she said you should have "more" respect for military personel than for firefighters teachers, police officers or doctors. In fact, I believe she mentioned most of them in her speech. Having respect for one doesn't mean you can't have respect for the other, nor that you have to take some respect from one group and give it to another. It's not a limited resource that needs to be used conservatively.

I just watched until the supporting actor, not far. I will say that what I saw was the most painfully awful hosting of any Oscar show I've seen, and I've been watching since th 70's.

Then the winner gets up and gives one of the best acceptance speeches I've heard. Of course, it would be a European to give a great speech.

I don't have a problem with Hurt Locker beating Avatar for Best Picture.

Avatar was visually stunning, but the characters were shallow and the plot was thin and derivative. Ok Hurt Locker wasn't realistic but its a movie ffs, if you want realism watch a documentary. However the characters had a lot more depth and the story was superior.

So yeah, Hurt Locker was more deserving of Best Picture than Avatar.

David M wrote:I don't have a problem with Hurt Locker beating Avatar for Best Picture.

Avatar was visually stunning, but the characters were shallow and the plot was thin and derivative. Ok Hurt Locker wasn't realistic but its a movie ffs, if you want realism watch a documentary. However the characters had a lot more depth and the story was superior.

So yeah, Hurt Locker was more deserving of Best Picture than Avatar.

David M wrote:I don't have a problem with Hurt Locker beating Avatar for Best Picture.

Avatar was visually stunning, but the characters were shallow and the plot was thin and derivative. Ok Hurt Locker wasn't realistic but its a movie ffs, if you want realism watch a documentary. However the characters had a lot more depth and the story was superior.

So yeah, Hurt Locker was more deserving of Best Picture than Avatar.

Well, even if Hurt Locker was more deserving of Best Picture than Avatar, was Hurt Locker better than Inglourious Basterds? District 9?

Platoon and Full Metal Jacket are classic war movies. Hurt Locker is not, in my view, a classic war movie.

Edit: I just re-watched the Hurt Locker and I stay affirm in my position. The movie is great, but nothing special. It seems to be...lacking something, some sort of substance. Something feels missing from the movie.

rachelsinatra wrote:All Avatar deserved was the special effects Oscar that it got.

Exactly.

I was so glad it didn't get Best Picture or Best Director because it would have deserved neither.

Avatar was just Dancing with wolves, with Blue Furries. It wasn't original, nor was the writing particularly great.

Also, how exactly did the Hurt Locker win the award for original screenplay? The style and theme was so deja-vu. I would've gave the original screenplay award to District 9 or Inglourious Basterds.

Avatar and Cameron should not be disappointed - especially with all the money it raked in.

To quote Eastwood in the 1993 winner:

Deserve's got nothin' to do with it...

theye1 wrote:Avatar was just Dancing with wolves, with Blue Furries. It wasn't original, nor was the writing particularly great.

Dances with Wolves was Shogun, A Man Called Horse, Lawrence of Arabia...

Ilovelucy wrote:

theye1 wrote:Avatar was just Dancing with wolves, with Blue Furries. It wasn't original, nor was the writing particularly great.

Dances with Wolves was Shogun, A Man Called Horse, Lawrence of Arabia...

I'm not sure about Shogun or A man called Horse, but I'm pretty sure that Lawrence of Arabia wasn't about a Crippled Soldier who goes native and fights against the evil white Colonialists, he also falls in love with one native Women. Lawrence of Arabia definitely didn't have a noble savage theme. Regardless, it definitely wasn't Oscar material nor was Dancing with wolves. I still can't believe it beat Goodfellas.

theye1 wrote:

Ilovelucy wrote:

theye1 wrote:Avatar was just Dancing with wolves, with Blue Furries. It wasn't original, nor was the writing particularly great.

Dances with Wolves was Shogun, A Man Called Horse, Lawrence of Arabia...

I'm not sure about Shogun or A man called Horse, but I'm pretty sure that Lawrence of Arabia wasn't about a Crippled Soldier who goes native and fights against the evil white Colonialists, he also falls in love with one native Women. Lawrence of Arabia definitely didn't have a noble savage theme. Regardless, it definitely wasn't Oscar material nor was Dancing with wolves. I still can't believe it beat Goodfellas.

Well, there are no aliens or flying dragons in Dances with Wolves...

It's easy to point out the differences, but the familiarities are there in the story. If you haven't seen Shogun, think of The Last Samurai with Dr Kildare. If you haven't seen A Man Called Horse, think Dances with Wolves with Dumbledore. My point is that as far as stories are concerned, the really is no such thing as originality, it's the same stories and heroes going back to the dawn of culture.

As for the Oscars, they're bullshit. It's the votes of a select academy that follows plenty of politicking and media campaigns from the nominees. No-one should really take them seriously, most film makers certainly don't and neither do most film lovers.

Beneath the stunning veneer, Avatar is just a hacked together list of liberal cliches and caricatures.