Exactly.
Exactly.
You want me to get all worked up over something an actress said about a movie she was in? I’d be embarassed if I started foaming at the mouth over something so trivial. No, my saying it was a low-class remark is about as much feeling as I’m going to get over this. I don’t act outraged just for the sake of getting attention.
Did you accidentally click on the wrong forum?
Ivan, you seem to think I care. I don’t. There are hundreds of people on this board alone and you’re just another passing username to me. I never heard of you before today and I’ll probably have forgotten who you are by tomorrow. So I feel no need to impress you.
You haven’t really said or done anything here except cry out for attention. You’d do better off getting that attention by saying things people were interested in.
Heh, but here you are, interestedly replying to my post. Though you could have trimmed the quote a bit – it’s overlarge for your comment.
Also, claiming you don’t care, and then throwing out a claim of attention whoring is sort of illogical. You obviously care deeply about your SDMB image.
Hi there. Was that you up thread, or someone else claiming they didn’t care about the user’s post they were quoting, and wouldn’t remember the name after they were done typing it?
Yeah, that was me. But there is no hypocrisy – many of these folks are interchangeable automatons going for the easy “putdown”. It’s not the person, it’s the poor content.
Is it so much to ask that people be interesting? Shit, this is the smartest message board in the world.
Well Ivan, originally I was ignoring you. Which wasn’t that hard because you weren’t really involved in the discussion. But you kept coming back with longer posts so I figured I should say something back to you.
You’re right. I do care about what my “image” is here. That’s why when I post, I try to say something interesting or entertaining. Or, at the very least, offer a personal opinion that’s relevant to the topic at had.
But if I have nothing to say, I just say nothing. Sometimes I read a thread and I can’t think of anything to contribute to it. What I don’t do is think “These people are having a conversation and it’s not about me! I need to jump into the middle of it and say something so they’ll all talk about me!”
Because that’s attention whoring. And from this thread, it appears to be what you do.
But that’s not me. I’d rather focus on the quality of the attention I get rather than the quantity. I know most people here are only going to think about me rarely but I’d like to think that when they do, they think of me fondly. I prefer that to being somebody they think about frequently but only as an annoyance.
I’ll need a cite for this outrageous claim. I haven’t seen anything of the sort during your participation in this thread.
Lul.
Well, Ivan, that’s because we’re having a grown-up conversation and you’re only entertained by people calling each other niggers, faggots, and tards.
Maybe you should go check out 4chan.
:rolleyes:
Let me save you the trouble: “Weaver is a dumbass, it’s not biased” “Yeah, it’s probably not” “Also, the Academy doesn’t really reflect anything”.
Done.
You’re apparently outraged enough over this issue to post it in the pit. But the problem is, you’re duller than a wet sack of dead cats. And your little “maturity” shtick is just plain tired, especially given my superior and highly tasteful education and avocation. I hope you’re not that mature (aka dull) in real life, though it wouldn’t surprise me to learn you’re a professional insomnia counselor.
For the love of God, man, show me some personality! You can do it!
ETA: PS - the stupid high school kids on 4chan are more entertaining than you are. That should embarrass you a bit.
Avatar was a better technical achievment than Hurt Locker, and I think it’s true that the Academy wanted to award a female director. That’s not to say they’re typically biased towrds women (and I don’t think tha’s what SW meant either), but that in this particular year, they had a more plausible woman candidate than they’ve had in a while, and her movie, while not at the same level of technical acomplishment as Avatar, was more of the kind of traditionally “serious” movie that they like. It was a year where they had an opportunity to reward a woman director (even if she wasn’t really the best of the year) so they took it.
Personally I think Quentin Tarantino turned in the best directing job, but Bigelow did a good enough job to be a plausible winner. If that movie had been directed by a man, I don’t think she’d have won. I don’t think Sigourney is wrong, and I also don’t think she was looking for pity for James Cameron. In this particular year, the voters wanted to reward a woman, not because they’re usually biased towards women, but simply because they’d never done it before.
[del]Now that I think about it, she hasn’t got much of a rack hanging off of her; maybe that explains why she doesn’t have an Oscar herself.[/del]
Nah. Well, maybe a little, just because being in the Pit with this is making that vein in ivn1188’s forehead throb in that way I like. 
DNFTT.
Anyways, yeah, it was a rather silly thing for Sigourney to say. Avatar didn’t win because it was Fern Gully crossed with The Last Samurai… in space. The special effects were amazing and it was a fun enjoyable movie, but it wasn’t a great piece of cinematic art. Her claims come off as more than a bit silly and self-serving, while trying to make it a about sexism is just an absurdity.
The Hurt Locker had the sort of stuff that Hollywood seems to love to give accolades to; it had gravitas, was about ‘the horrors of war and the struggle of men to remain their humanity’, etc… Avatar was a popcorn movie, it had no chance.
I know. You’re right. But it’s so tough when he’s sitting there under the table, making those puppy eyes and begging for scraps. I’ll try to resist.
I pretty much agree. Take away the special effects from Avatar and what have you got left? I don’t think this is a movie that will age well - in ten years the effects will look dated and this movies doesn’t have a lot of story or character to fall back on.
I was just annoyed that Weaver was suggesting that The Hurt Locker stole Avatar’s award. It was a cheap shot that implied Bigelow didn’t really win on merit - she just got picked for the award for external reasons. First, there’s no evidence these external reasons exist. Second, there’s no evidence that Avatar was the default winner that The Hurt Locker displaced - there were eight other movies that were nominated.
While I agree that there’s no evidence that Avatar should have been the real winner, I disagree that there’s no evidence that The Hurt Locker wrongfully won.
My cite: The movie itself.
You know, I normally endorse this 100% and appreciate **Little Nemo’s **evenness and tone in most cases. But **ivn1188 **is funny and eruditer;) than most - and, I can’t deny, there is some truth to the point - the BBQ Pit does serve a purpose of recreational outrage. I mean, it’s not like you are going after world hunger or child abuse - the OP is a rant on a celebrity and movie award - a little pizzazz never hurt. 
As to the OP - fundamentally Avatar represents the future of movies - if it won, it would be on that basis. The Hurt Locker was positioned as being about Old School story-telling on a low budget and the fact that it was a woman director. Sigourney showed sour grapes, which doesn’t sync up with her normally-classy image…but her fundamental point is fair if you think tech innovation that will influence the entire industry going forward is valid as criteria…
But as I’ve said, I’m not going to fake it. I’m not going to be as outraged over a celebrity saying something stupid as I would be over people dying. And I’m not going to pretend to be outraged just because it’s more entertaining.
Fair enough.
**ivn1188 **- perhaps you can set up a Fierce BBQ Bit, where you can require a bit more Perez Hilton or Dorothy Parker in the OPs…