_Avatar_, directed by James Cameron

efficiency is not a criterion of value. and anyway, this film is way too long to be called that. as for airtight -- no more or less than any other hollywood film released last year.

false on both counts but I'm not gonna bother. unlike other technical categories, everyone's got an opinion about screenplay and it often does win on the basis of perceived middlebrow artiness cred but you know what: LOST IN TRANSLATION sucked.

am not really gonna dispute that. but if avatar wins best screenplay then every screenwriter in hollywood needs to slash their wrists

shittier movies have won oscars for best screenplay/picture

not every film with a cracking screenplay is middlebrow and arty fwiw

(the god-internet decides to get into it and kill the humans? why, that is watertight.)

am not really gonna dispute that. but if avatar wins best screenplay then every screenwriter in hollywood needs to slash their wrists

if AVATAR wins best screenplay a lot of aspiring screenwriters might gnash their teeth but most working screenwriters would be delighted to see that over tired pseudorelevant "sophisticated" fare like UP IN THE AIR.

not every film with a cracking screenplay is middlebrow and arty fwiw

True dat. But most of the ones that win Best Original Screenplay are.

2008 - MILK
2007 - JUNO
2006 - LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
2005 - CRASH
2004 - ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
2003 - LOST IN TRANSLATION
2002 - TALK TO HER
2001 - GOSFORD PARK
2000 - ALMOST FAMOUS

after crash, everything is denouement

Best Original Screenplay aka Things White People Like

(okay ETERNAL SUNSHINE is grebt but come on)

protip: Pixar always gets nominated, never wins

comparing Avatar to one shitty movie does not make it a worthy winner. there's a helluva lot of other stuff out there that didn't have me cringing approximately once every two minutes

urgh that is a kinda revolting list, but most of those are NOT very arty, and eternal sunshine was surely NOT that middlebrow? it was an art-movie that kinda transcended its origins? maybe?

who cares about the stupid oscars

(gosford park was pretty good altho when you work out whodunnit it stops being particularly exciting, although it's not about suspense it's about CLASS obv)

dude i have no idea what your definition of "arty" is, but that list is like 1000% fitting my description (ok maybe not almost famous)

who cares about the stupid oscars

― latebloomer, Wednesday, January 6, 2010 12:15 PM (48 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

otm. problem no. 1 with the oscars is that people pay attention to them and put credence in them. they should be more like emmys or grammys where no one gives a shit and they are meaningless.

LJ I agree on ETERNAL SUNSHINE. I remember reading a draft of CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND back in 1998 and thinking "this is the best thing I have ever read and it will never get made" so yes I am a big Charlie Kaufman stan but seriously a moving piece of meticulous craft like RATATOUILLE kicks all kinds of JUNO's oh look at my kicky dialogue ass. And I like kicky dialogue!

i am 100% sure ratatouille does this! but there's a difference between well-crafted, well-paced screenplays such as that and clanky platitude-filled cringefests such as the script of avatar. and there's a difference between irritating hyperactive knowing dialogue and, say, bringing up baby

or network! now THERE'S a motherfucking SCREENPLAY.

anybody starts talking smack about bringing up baby and i will CUT YOU

nearly all of those screenplay winners listed are way better than Avatar.

I had forgotten that Titanic wasn't even nominated for Best Screenplay. Guess I was thinking of Return of the King (which won adap).

i am saying that it has one of the all-time greatest screenplays, please parse my words better

looking down the 'best screenplay' list it is amazing just how many shoddy crowd-pleasing winners there have been. and fuck me 'four weddings and a funeral' was nominated o_O

but 'Network' won and that is all that matters

hahahaha Amélie was nominated too, wd everyone

btw my point in all this is less that AVATAR deserves Best Original Screenplay Evar than that is deserves a nom (hell, GLADIATOR got a nom) and that ignoring the craft element fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of a screenplay.

obv the best screenplays transcend craft (e.g. CASABLANCA is a classic piece of hackwork... and yet!), but no screenplay that fails in its craft should be held up as a model for the youth of athens.

If there's one thing all those above films have in common it's that they're still mostly just people sitting around talking (in varying settings). Scanning past winners, I don't see a single one with extensive action/gun battle sequences (which, if well-done, are the epitome of "craft" ... which is why they have technical awards; "Avatar" editing/sound is a lock!). Best Original Screenplay is not the same as Best Story or Best Storytelling. It's often really just the Most/Cleverist/Showiest Talking award, which is why "In the Loop" deserves this one.

My Dinner With Na'vi

action/gun battle sequences get honored in Best Screenplay, Adapted

loooool true

In The Loop deserves it most of all for being one of the 3 or 4 funniest British movies ever made. Not saying much, I know, but it brought enormous lols in the '09.

Tarantino beats the Coens for that award; killing Natzees makes old Jews less nervous than pot mitzvahs and unhelpful rabbis.

yah i knew you werent talking shit about bringing up baby lj, i was just warning other contrarian mofackeys

xxxxxxxposts

Tarantino beats the Coens for that award; killing Natzees makes old Jews less nervous than pot mitzvahs and unhelpful rabbis.

― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, January 6, 2010 1:45 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ya hollywood has always been famously terrified of marijuana use

"Avatar" editing/sound is a lock!

probably, but it isn't on a par with 'hurt locker'. i don't get rogermexico's point because this film had a shitty screenplay and it's plot was just pochahontas. it's not a great achievement to use a well-worn plot only with shitty and obvious war on terror references and lines like "YOU'RE NOT IN KANSAS ANY MORE... YOU'RE ON PANDORA" plus add completely stupid bits of business like michelle rodriguez firing on her own side. watertight? more like WATERWORLD.

keep forgetting, but 'duplicity' would be my best orig screenplay after 'a serious man'.

who agrees that Enemy Mine was dope at least?

The Dennis Quaid/Iron Eagle guy joint?

Having seen "The Hurt Locker" three times now, I'm pretty much in agreement with the blurb on the box cover that calls it a near-perfect movie. Even a distracting Ralph Fiennes cn't bring it down, and the last shot is like a recruitment film flipped on its head into an ironic tragedy. Even that I'm inferring, because this may be the first war film I've ever seen that never quite says "war - bah!" or "war - yeah!" It just shows war, or at least one facet of it, and one can infer what one wants. Also, seriously gotta love Bigelow's rebirth as a scrappy indie auteur! I wonder if Cameron is even capable of making a small movie anymore, or if he ever was? Dream big, I guess.

my main point is that you're misweighting the criteria for evaluating a screenplay, so that's probably why the not-getting.

my corollary is that "stock" =/= cliché and "broad" =/= "dumb" and "doesn't lose the 7 year olds" trumps "keeps the sophisticates amused" when it comes to pictures that need to make a billi

Roger, I think you're confusing the criteria for making a good movie and making a billion dollars. Sure, there are certain beats one should/must hit to make bank. But those are not the same beats one needs to hit to tell a strong story with strong characters. Which is why all the top grossing films ever are pretty lacking in the depth department. And I say that as a 7-year old.

With a couple of outliers, of course:

Rank Title Worldwide Box Office
1. Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
2. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $1,060,332,628
4. Avatar (2009) $1,030,409,452
5. The Dark Knight (2008) $1,001,921,825
6. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $968,657,891
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) $958,404,152
8. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) $937,000,866
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) $933,956,980
10. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $922,379,000
11. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) $921,600,000
12. Jurassic Park (1993) $919,700,000
13. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $892,194,397
14. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009) $887,073,705
15. Spider-Man 3 (2007) $885,430,303
16. Shrek 2 (2004) $880,871,036
17. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) $866,300,000
18. Finding Nemo (2003) $865,000,000
19. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $860,700,000
20. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $848,462,555

another thing the avatar screenplay fails to do is create compelling characters -- that's surely a traditional criterion? and also one used by other blockbusters. im not sure if you mean im misweighing evaluative criteria in general, or not getting those used by the oscars, but 'eternal sunshine' for my money was a worthy winner. i don't like many of the other picks but they are at least solid jobs of work. avatar is barely that.

even if you think it's well structured, the mid-section in particular is very tedious because no-one gives 1x fuck about sam worthington.

xpost

that list is essentially meaningless due to inflation.

If the Best Picture is not seen as a legit screenplay contender, the award usu goes to something considered clever (eg Woody Allen, Et Sunshine, The Usual Suspects, Pulp Fiction).

Yeah, the lack of memorable characters is definitely the movie / screenplay's biggest flaw. That, and the utter dopeyness of the Na'vi. xp

that list is essentially meaningless due to inflation

Yeah, and so is "Avatar"'s tally, since about $150-$200 mil of it has been 3-D surcharge. That's cheating! But I'd wager that list isn't, like, massively wrong, and that even accounting for inflation, the biggest box office hits globally have been FX-heavy action flicks.

It is super unlikely this is going to win a screenplay award but let's not kid ourselves; high-grossing movies win Academy awards.

"Titanic" won 11 out of 14 noms, "Lord of the Rings: Return of the Kings" swept all 11 categories it was nominated in, "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" won 1 out of 4, "The Dark Knight" won 2 out of 8... you have to get to the Harry Potter movies before you start hitting ones that didn't win and the first one was nominated for 3 awards (and the #11 movie, "LOTR: The Two Towers", won 2 out of 6 nominations); hell, even "The Phantom Menace" was nominated for 3 Academy awards.

haha, how do you guys feel about 2xLPs on the best selling records of all time lists?

It's kinda crazy to think that I've seen only 6 of the top 20 highest grossing films (unadjusted) ever.

hahaha I have seen 19 of them

I've seen 10. Mind you I'll be seeing all the Potters soon enough.

time to get adjusted

Yeah, the only one I'm missing is the newest Potter and that's just because I was able to successfully distract my wife from noticing when it was in theaters.

seen four, but star wars part one was a pirated vhs so doesn't entirely count.

Actually I don't think I've seen the entirety of "Ice Age" so 18.5

i saw em all