The freshly announced Screen Actor's Guild Award nominations include plenty of the usual suspects you were expecting to see mentioned. "Up in the Air," "Inglourious Basterds," "The Hurt Locker," "Invictus" and more are all nominated for acting achievements, reflecting a vast chunk of the major nominees at this year's Golden Globes.
What isn't on the list, however, is "Avatar." Despite getting some surprising nominations at the Globes, including a nod for Best Drama of the Year, James Cameron's return to feature filmmaking did not receive a single shred of credit from the SAG's corner of Hollywood.
But let's get serious for a moment... does it really matter?
If you're going into "Avatar" expecting Oscar-winning performances, you're barking up the wrong tree. While I have yet to see the film myself -– I'll be correcting that in short order, of course -– I can still say without a doubt that going into "Avatar" with the expectation of mind-blowing acting is a dangerous, dangerous proposition.
That's not to say that Cameron isn't capable of wooing excellent performances out of his actors – just look at Sigourney Weaver's previous Oscar nomination for "Aliens" of all things – but that's not the point of "Avatar." The point of "Avatar" is to book a round-trip ticket off this planet and onto Pandora, a foreign world that exists nowhere but inside of Cameron's mind and on cinema screens.
The real concern for "Avatar" has to be on the technological achievements. Does the audience really feel that they've been transported to another realm? Is the experience so captivating that a moviegoer forgets that he or she is even in the theater? Does it blow one's eyes straight out of their sockets? These are the important questions, and none of it has to do with acting.
Of course, this is not an excuse for horrible performances. If stars Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana and the rest can't act their way out of a box, then the movie is bound to suffer. But as long as they perform adequately, I'm going to be happy. I'm not in this ride for them. I'm in it for Cameron and his wildly imaginative new universe. To me, that expectation has a lot more to do with visual effects and world-building than it does with acting. Something tells me that I, at least, won't be disappointed.
What do you think of the lack of "Avatar" representation in the Screen Actor's Guild Awards? Are you going to see "Avatar" for the technology or for the performances? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section or on Twitter!
Tags avatar
** FOLLOW MTV MOVIES BLOG ON TWITTER! **
'Avatar' Isn't Nominated For The SAG Awards, But Does It Really Matter?
Posted 12/17/09 2:00 pm EST by Josh Wigler in Commentary
What isn't on the list, however, is "Avatar." Despite getting some surprising nominations at the Globes, including a nod for Best Drama of the Year, James Cameron's return to feature filmmaking did not receive a single shred of credit from the SAG's corner of Hollywood.
But let's get serious for a moment... does it really matter?
If you're going into "Avatar" expecting Oscar-winning performances, you're barking up the wrong tree. While I have yet to see the film myself -– I'll be correcting that in short order, of course -– I can still say without a doubt that going into "Avatar" with the expectation of mind-blowing acting is a dangerous, dangerous proposition.
That's not to say that Cameron isn't capable of wooing excellent performances out of his actors – just look at Sigourney Weaver's previous Oscar nomination for "Aliens" of all things – but that's not the point of "Avatar." The point of "Avatar" is to book a round-trip ticket off this planet and onto Pandora, a foreign world that exists nowhere but inside of Cameron's mind and on cinema screens.
The real concern for "Avatar" has to be on the technological achievements. Does the audience really feel that they've been transported to another realm? Is the experience so captivating that a moviegoer forgets that he or she is even in the theater? Does it blow one's eyes straight out of their sockets? These are the important questions, and none of it has to do with acting.
Of course, this is not an excuse for horrible performances. If stars Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana and the rest can't act their way out of a box, then the movie is bound to suffer. But as long as they perform adequately, I'm going to be happy. I'm not in this ride for them. I'm in it for Cameron and his wildly imaginative new universe. To me, that expectation has a lot more to do with visual effects and world-building than it does with acting. Something tells me that I, at least, won't be disappointed.
What do you think of the lack of "Avatar" representation in the Screen Actor's Guild Awards? Are you going to see "Avatar" for the technology or for the performances? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section or on Twitter!
Tags avatar
Comments