Film & TV Terry Gilliam on Avatar

[S. Fourteen]

It has made more money than any other film in the history of cinema and been nominated for nine Oscars, but Avatar's success has now provoked a backlash.
Terry Gilliam, the former Monty Python animator who became an acclaimed director, has accused James Cameron's 3D epic of limiting the opportunities for more thoughtful films.

"There are so many small, beautiful film-makers and actors and directors with so much potential that just can't get a look in because the studios are just pumping all their money into these huge projects," he complained at the London Evening Standard British Film Awards.
"There are such incredible lower-budget films that are magical, but we've got our work cut out with things like Avatar coming out. How are these young talents supposed to get a look in without the budget? That's the sad thing, because they are just as good."

The director of Time Bandits and Brazil added: "Those huge blockbusters that the studios spend millions upon millions of dollars on ... I mean, Avatar, they spent like $400,000 just promoting the thing. How can anyone compete with that?"

Barry Norman, the veteran film critic, says for his part: "Avatar will win all the awards this year: not that it deserves to. James Cameron's films are designed to make money and that they do well. The films that make the most money are not the best films."

PS. I think 3D is a gimmick

Discuss

 

[ill-matic]

And how is this James Camerons fault?

 

[S O F I]

I understand that films mean different things for different people. But one thing is for certain, a film like Avatar will never have shit on a film like A Serious Man.

 

[Shadows]

If you don't put $ into films like Avatar, will those 'small films' make enough $ to keep everything in order?

 

[vg4030]

Movies like Avatar dont come out everyday... TG needs to chiiiiilll

 

[S. Fourteen]

And how is this James Camerons fault?

It's not. He's talking about the Studios.

 

[_carmi]

i think this is hilarious. for many years the Oscars nominated for best picture almost exclusively "incredible lower-budget films that are magical with many small, beautiful film-makers and actors and directors" that no one ever saw. every year i look at the nominees and don't recognize half of the movies nominated (if not more).

i think Avatar deserves the praise it is getting. the only thing it doesn't deserve a nomination for is best screenplay because the story is such a basic one.

i think it's about time the Oscars start nominating movies that people (general population) actually know about. that's the only way the Oscars can remain relevant. i find they have been out of touch with the general population for some time now.

 

[Cooper]

i think this is hilarious. for many years the Oscars nominated for best picture almost exclusively "incredible lower-budget films that are magical with many small, beautiful film-makers and actors and directors" that no one ever saw. every year i look at the nominees and don't recognize half of the movies nominated (if not more).

i think Avatar deserves the praise it is getting. the only thing it doesn't deserve a nomination for is best screenplay because the story is such a basic one.

i think it's about time the Oscars start nominating movies that people (general population) actually know about. that's the only way the Oscars can remain relevant. i find they have been out of touch with the general population for some time now.

I think they tend towards a certain type of film, but the awards are generally very mainstream.

 

[S O F I]

The Oscars haven't been out of touch with the population, it's just that in the last few years they actually gave awards to well-made, artistic, and quality films and not to pop-corn flicks. I think the Oscars have had a good track record with pretty deserving films in the last ten years.

When people say relevance, they really mean ratings. The Oscars' ratings when the event goes down have been slipping. But when films win an Oscar, they get noticed and they get seen so the Oscars are still relevant in the sense that they guarantee you a good film. They're NOT like the Grammys.

 

[_carmi]

I have nothing against those well-made, artistic, quality films. But I'm not the only one that hasn't heard/seen most of the movies the Oscars have nominated. I understand those movies deserve a spot as much as other movies. But action movies can be very good movies as well. The Dark Knight is a good example.

I just wished they didn't stick to the emotional indie flick genre and actually included quality action movies as well.

Terry Gilliam is complaining about blockbusters such as Avatar taking all the space at the Oscars when we all know blockbusters usually don't make it to the Oscars even if some are quality. Tough luck for him if his movie didn't get nominated, but he shouldn't complain when some quality blockbusters can't make it because they are blockbusters and the population actually went to see them.

 

[TheCat]

I think TG is right to a certain extent, about studios over looking the chnace to promote indey movies.
but a great low budget movie, will get the props it deserves, like the Wrestler and Reservoir Dogs,. they were extremely low budget but made allot of money in return and will become classics.

studios execs are not so stupid, but they do like to play it safe. hence all the idiotic sequels and prequels we got 5 years ago, am glad that stage is over..