Re: The Oscars

Basically an extended tweet:

Really inspiring to see The Hurt Locker, budgeted at $11 million, beat out Avatar, budgeted anywhere from a rumored $200 to $500 million, at the vast majority of the big Oscars.

One could argue that this is another case of the Academy being out of touch with your average moviegoer. This was one of the points that led to the 10 nominees for Best Picture, given that, last year, The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for anything major, despite it earning a metric ton of money at the box office. (But isn't that what IMDb's fanboy-slathered top 150 is for, anyway?)

I, however, chalk up Avatar's success to the gigantic marketing blitz surrounding its release. I don't read many movie websites or follow the industry, but it was absolutely impossible to avoid that film. If nothing else, that brand recognition probably earned it a few hundred million tickets. Not to mention that IMAX prices inflated its gross.

Compare that to The Hurt Locker, which was a slow burn, gaining momentum on the festival circuit before attaining wide release only a few months ago and, right now, coming out on DVD. I think I saw one ad for it on Rotten Tomatoes, otherwise there was nothing. It just slipped quietly into cinemas and spread through word of mouth like through, ahem, this particular blogger.

So all those posts about the injustice of Avatar making gobs of money while much better films slip into the abyss? Still relevant, but at least The Hurt Locker won some major props. Even though, well, anyone with a shred of intelligence knows the Academy Awards are pure politics. At least Joe Moviewatcher might pick up The Hurt Locker at Best Buy if a new box comes out with a WINNER - BEST PICTURE banner at the top.