Just because class doesn't start until 11.
So all I hear critiques go on about is how Avatar shouldn't win because it's predictable,expected, stereotypical. Whataver, basically, you knew what to expect.
And tell me how that is any different from Titanic. Every bloody person knew what would happen...historical reenactments have a tendency to have that affect, and yet it received all the praise. What's so different about Avatar?
I agree it's idea is generic but I think if that's the argument that's being used...it's pretty suck ass.
"Oh ya...I mean...the visuals were stunning but..."
Okay I don't know about you, but I do appreciate good CGI, and I love great CG. Transformers got massive acclaim because of its CG, so it was okay to overlook the miscasting, or the massive boobies, or the unbalanced story line, or the massive boobies. But Avatar is been attacked at being it's not the God worth of films, apparently.
I can't even appreciate the extent the difficulty it took to make it, and probably most people can't. From Star Ward to Lord of the Rings, Avatar should be seen as the crux behind what this decade of CGI should bring.
-------------