Quote Originally Posted by Shiny View Post
Dazzling people with visual effects does not mean it's worthy of getting a Best Picture award. He used the visuals to make up for everything else that was lacking in the film.
Avatar wasn't just good because of its visual effects though. It was well directed, had good cinematography, a good score and some decent performances. If visual effects were the only reason as to why I liked Avatar then surely I must have liked Transformers 2 as well (I didn't). James Cameron has said time and time again that he uses visual effects to serve the story, not the other way around. Thats why Terminator 2 still holds up to this day.
But anyway the fact of the matter is, popcorn movies like Avatar are made to be mindless, "Ooo that's purty" type of movies with lots of action and romance to keep us interested. He rehashes things and using similitude, but it's not meant to be the type of movie you will sit there and go, "Wow there was a lot intellectual symbolism there." It's not the "makes you think" movie. It's the "makes you go wow" movie. And thus, is not Oscar worthy of Best Picture. The end.
Any movie is deserving of Best Picture if it is made well. Is there a written rule that says that the Best Picture should go to a film that "made us think". All movies are made with one goal in mind, to entertain us. Whichever movie achieved that goal the best should win Best Picture. Avatar was worthy of the award. The end.