Dances with Wolves/Smurfs was not as good of a movie as The Hurt Locker...yes, Avatar made more money...but it's not as if Hurt Locker was some whiney white guilt ridden...oops sidetracked.

Oh well, let's make it about gender...what a waste of time...

I haven't seen either movie, but I do know that Kathryn Bigelow has made some terrific movies over the years, but my favorite is Near Dark.

Any of you folks haven't seen Near Dark, go rent it at once.

How petty. I used to like Sigourney Weaver. I saw both movies, Hurt Locker was far and away better, the only thing Avatar had going for it was the technical crap.

If this is the new criterion, I look forward to seeing your National Book Award, Amy. I can hardly wait for the screenplay version "You Rude Basterds!" to be filmed. And then you'll get the Best Original Screenplay Oscar and all the fame and fortune appurtenant thereto.

I saw Avatar, and while it was very good visually, the movie as a whole was just ok. The Hurt Locker didn't come to the local theater, and no previews of it were shown. I didn't even know about it, much less see it, so I can't judge it. It may be that it was a better movie, but that doesn't mean the voting wasn't influenced by the sex of the director.

Hah - funny, BlogDog. Actually, some of the Sad Middle-Aged Teenagers were trying their luck on Twitter with me. It was hilarious -- they accused me of having small boobs. AAA, in fact.

Aren't Oscars those awards the industry insiders give themselves for movies that the public pretty much ignores? Or is that the Academy Awards?

Not much of what the industry produces interests me - I have an imagination and I prefer books. In fact, the only movie I've ever seen that outdid the book was "Eddie and the Cruisers."

I stopped liking Sigourney Weaver a long time ago. With every interview she reveals what an awful person she is.

I saw Hurt Locker and did not think it was so great. It was touted by some as the most realistic war movie and many veterans have a problem with that claim considering the main character did his own solo trips through Baghdad, something no soldier would have done. It was entertaining, but not the best movie. I didn't see Avatar as it did not appeal to me so I can't claim to know which was better. What I do know is that Hollywood awards are more political than our own presidential elections. Sigourney may be correct, but I didn't see her talking any other year when other films lost out due to the Hollywood machine.

I think you all missed Mz. Weavers point.
The Motion Picture Academy is so PC that
breasts were the only quality that mattered.
Never happen but can you see all the male
directors in the audience next year wearing
big falsies??

Look, it's really simple:

The Hurt Locker is not an America-bashing anti-war movie, therefore it is a Bad Thing.

Avatar ran deep with anti-war themes therefore it is a Good Thing.

The Hollywood left are miffed that all their anti-war films failed to get us to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan with our tails tucked between our legs. They never got the replay of Viet Nam that the so desired.

And this temper tantrum is the result.

Why do I suspect that if the Hurt Locker fit more into Ms. Weaver's political views (ie. American soldiers are vile, murderous criminals) then she never would have uttered such a statement?

Oh, c'mon. This is great. This catty stuff is why people listen to stars in the first place.

I doubt Bigelow is crying in her beer over it. She's partying with her Oscar.

I guess thats why Peter Jackson beat Sofia Coppola in 2004 then. His breasts are bigger.

Bitter much Mrs Weaver? Are you still upset that you didn't get that Oscar nod for best actress that you so hoped for for Avatar? Hhhmmmm....?

Financial success at box office does not = Oscar. Avatar was a pretty picture wrapped with guilt and served on a platter full of political agendas...in 3D. Hurt Locker moved people without shoving shit down their throats. There was no hype. There wasn't millions spent on advertising, there wasn't any special visual effects, no crazy FOX interviews interuppting my tv programming and none of this celebrity interview FIRST LOOK preview shit. And most importantly, the actors, actually had to ACT to make it work! Seemed like a no brainer to me. It didn't make as much money because it's realease was limited. It wasn't meant to be a box office smash but I can tell you that everyone I know who saw it, loved it and immediatly bought it when it released on DVD. I wanted to litter out of spite on my way out of Avatar. And none of my friends have any intention of ever buying it.

No worries though. I am sure Ms. Bigelow isn't crying about it. In fact, she is likely polishing her shiny little trophy while while reading the interview and laughing at the montior. That sits to her pile of cash.

Ah, I just love it when various entitled groups play the "who's the biggest victim" game. It's cheap entertainment.

Yes, and because Avatar's storyline was soooo *original*. Hurt Locker was an incredible movie.

Hurt Locker was a good movie; however, I think Bigelow's "K-19", which is based on a real incident aboard a Soviet submarine, was even better.

The values depicted in both Hurt Locker and K-19..things like courage and loyalty..are antithetical to the values of most Hollywood denizens, of both the breasted and breastless variants.

> This catty stuff is why people listen to
> stars in the first place

Word. And Weaver was one of the cattiest back in the day. I haven't studied her life closely, but when I was working intensely in showbiz TV a few years ago, she seemed to have mellowed tremendously from the peak of her fame twenty years earlier, having been humbled by grueling, low-glamor press junkets for art films with Polanski and so forth. Crow's feet and diminished income seem to actually have improved her personality: That almost never happens with Hollywood beauties.

Maybe she's working for Cameron and wanted to give props or

OK, just checked google, she was in Avatar. This is just a typical example of exaggerated Hollywood loyalty. Can't we be amused that she was so readily encouraged to say something counter-feminist?

Are there any women left in Hollywood who are not an ex-wife of Jim Cameron?

I might have actually picked myself off the couch and gone to see "Avatar" if Cameron had put some breasts in there--especially in 3-D.

It's not that hard to believe that Bigelow's being a woman had something to do with the way the Academy voted. Not that it was the whole story, but I can believe it counted for something.

I've seen Hurt Locker. It's a good movie, quite suspenseful in places, but there's not much of a plot. And as someone pointed out above, it features some wildly unrealistic moments for a movie that's supposedly so true to life, such as Renner running alone in a hoodie through the streets of Bagdhad to mount a one-man raid on an Iraqi house, or three guys from the bomb defusing team deciding to do a search for bombers in dark alleyways all by their lonesome, without orders or backup, when there's a company of infantry standing right there.

I saw both movies. And I'm sorry, but I didn't think that Hurt Locker was that good.

In terms of creative vision and execution, I have to say Avatar should have won. I don't know why they chose Hurt Locker, Weaver may be right or maybe not. But she's going to be more familiar with the minds of the people who give those awards than we are.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the Hollywood left that gives out these awards in the first place? If it were a matter of anti American vs pro American, I'm sure Avatar would have won by a long shot. I didn't particularly see the movie that way, though I can see where people might. But the long and the short of it is that the story quality for Hurt Locker just wasn't there, and neither was the quality of technical execution.

Weaver's reasoning is as good as anything else.

------------------------------------

And Miss Alkon, they were just trying to get you to prove your natural endowment, trust me, I know, I WAS a teenage boy at one point. ;)

Hurt Locker was pretty good, Avatar was over-hyped and, while fun to watch, shouldn't have been in the running. I haven't seen all the films that were in the running, but I recently saw Precious and it beat the pants off both Hurt Locker and Avatar. It was moving and meaningful and well-acted and beautifully filmed. I don't know why Lee Daniels didn't win.

That's an interesting use of the word "caliber"...

If anyone was to get a best actress out of Avatar it wouldnt have been Weaver.

Hurt Locker sucked. Ofcourse the downside to have acctually served in the military means most military themed movies are going to suck beacuse you will always notice every false moment that most of the veiwing public wouldnt even comprehend.

And quite frankly I dont understand it, you think it be easiy enough for any production company to hire a couple of ex miliary types to point out the mistakes - it reeks of laziness and apathy.

I wonder if part of the reason Cameron didn't win Best Director is that his movie was so filled with CG. Or at least so obviously filled with CG. I mean, the LOtR trilogy was chock-full, but it looked realistic, the CG was integrated into live-action seamlessly, and it was obviously filmed at actual locations. Avatar, on the other hand, had an entire world of only CG. And that looks pretty freaking amazing, and is a Herculean feat in its own right, but I think that draws more attention to the hundreds of people that worked on those CG sequences. Not that any director does everything himself, but Cameron physically couldn't have worked on everything, or the movie would have taken another ten years to come out. He was most definitely at the helm and had final say over everything, but the countless others who worked on it may have taken away some of the directorial buzz.

The first thing I thought when I saw Ms. Weaver's comments a couple of days ago was, "Well, I heard Oscar buzz about Kathryn Bigelow well before Avatar even came out." And that's true. I was reading about that back in the spring, when the film made some festival rounds, and then again in June, when it was in limited release.

When I read her comments, I flashed back to when women were saying the reason that female directors didn't win or get nominated was because they have breasts. There are always reasons women can't make it on their own merits, right? They're either being brought down or propped up falsely, right? Blech. Personally, I'm always happy to see a director win the award for the film he/she was actually nominated for (I'm looking at you, Scorsese).

I doubt Bigelow is crying in her beer over it. She's partying with her Oscar.

Posted by: MonicaP at April 15, 2010 7:14 AM

And she has a nice rack to carry Oscar around with!

I've seen neither movie and dont care to for the most part. Avatar just from the trailers was cliche central in 3D.

The Hurt Locker was amazingly boring. I fell asleep.

But it wasn't as bad as The Blind Side and Sandra Bullock's acting... WTF? That movie was awful.

Avatar was cute, but very cheesey

Dar - There WERE breasts in AVATAR. Some were blue and CG, but let's just say Ms. Weaver's bod is in damn good shape too.

And quite frankly I dont understand it, you think it be easiy enough for any production company to hire a couple of ex miliary types to point out the mistakes - it reeks of laziness and apathy.

real true to life war movie action rarely makes good movies.

Awhile back at the local watering hole I heard one army guy say to the other that Avator was the more realistic of the two. I haven't seen either one so I don't have any opinion on it.

Well perhaps Miss Alkon, but one is only as old as one acts. So I stand by "teenage boys" *L*

"...it be easiy enough for any production company to hire a couple of ex miliary types to point out the mistakes - it reeks of laziness and apathy."

A realistic presentation of the military would be incompatible with the message they want to get across.

I forget where I heard it but an EOD guy said something to the effect of "An accurate war movie would be about 2 hours of doing nothing and about 5 minutes of intense action."

From my own experience:

"The Hurt Locker" didn't play in my town, but I drove up the road 10 miles and watched it in a theater a couple of miles away from Ft. Knox. I loved it! I put my name in the notification list on Amazon for when it came out on DVD.

I took my grandson to see "Avatar". Yeah, it was pretty, but I don't like the morally superior, preach at the audience crap. I know James Cameron isn't known for subtlety, but geez! He pulled every manipulative string there was. I joked to my wife that I wonder if the film would've worked, along with the crybaby message poured over the audience, if Cameron had made the Navi look like ten foot cockroaches? Would Jake have wanted to join their tribe or would he try to stomp on them when he turned on the lights? Would Jake have taken their side against the evil humans or would he have searched his arsenal for a can of RAID?

Nope, I'm not bothering to buy "Avatar", nor would I advise anyone to at the moment of release, because the first DVD is reported to be 'bare-bones'. This allows "Save-the-planet-Cameron" re-release and re-re-release his movie as "Special Editions" and "Super-Special Editions" and "FX Behind-the-Scenes Editions" into infinity and milk his cash cow of every single drop, anti-Capitalist that he is.

To conclude, since actors are the largest voting block in the Academy, I'd say most of them were more impressed with how Kathryn Bigelow directed the actors in her film to create a riveting drama and weren't so impressed with how James Cameron used CGI to create his super-sexy, perfect, not-quite-in-the-uncanny-valley type aliens.