Why 'Avatar' lost the Best Picture Oscar

Everyone expected ‘Avatar’ to be the big winner at last Sunday’s Oscars, but it was a smaller film that did the business. Dave Calhoun finds out why.

Most of the talk before Sunday night’s Oscars boiled down to two films: ‘Avatar’ and ‘The Hurt Locker’.James Cameron v Kathryn Bigelow. The battle of the exes. Digital v analogue. David v Goliath. As the weeks went by, post-‘Avatar’ sobriety set in and ‘The Hurt Locker’ became the narrow favourite to win the Academy’s big prizes. And so it was that Bigelow’s film about a US army bomb disposal unit in Baghdad won six Oscars, including prizes for Best Picture and Best Director, while ‘Avatar’ won only three, for Visual Effects, Art Direction and Cinematography.Now that the Champagne is drunk and the tuxedos are back in storage, it’s time to ask: why exactly did Bigelow’s $11 million film (which took less than $13m at the US box office) triumph over James Cameron’s $300m, box-office-busting blue juggernaut? Most people agree this was a middling year for Oscar nominees. ‘The Hurt Locker’ is smart, swift and sane – but nobody thinks it’s a masterpiece. Which means there’s more behind its triumph than mere quality. So, what other factors were at play?

1 Oscar is sniffy about sci-fi
The Academy is a conservative body, not known for a love of sci-fi. Those who thought ‘Avatar’ had a chance of winning the Best Picture Oscar pointed to Cameron’s ‘Titanic’ and its success at the box office and the Oscars (despite, like ‘Avatar’, being slammed for its poor script and story). But ‘Titanic’ was a traditional picture: historical, romantic, epic, led by stars. ‘Avatar’ is different. Oscars-wise, it’s comparable to ‘Star Wars’, which was nominated for ten and won six – all of them technical.

Read the rest at http://www.timeout.com/film/features/show-feature/9679/why-avatar-l...