And why is that? You didn't like to see a technologically advanced race exploiting another less technological one, ecologic problems or the ruthless means corporations use to achieve what they want and to make more money? What exactly did you despise about this movie? I'm far more worried about the ecological problems and the cutting of the rain forests than about American war heroes or the **** of a teenage girl.
Why should he allow that? Cameron has said many times that the movie is special to him. Why should he allow some tasteless people describing themselves as comedians to mock it?
Avatar has more audience than all the rest of the nominees+winner combined. I think they can't even make half of the Avatar's audience.
Keep hating on the movie but like it or not it will remain in the movies history it has broken a lot of records and every big film that comes out will be compared to it. The rest of this year's nominees including the winner will be forgotten like every other average movie. Because there is nothing big about any of them to remember.
It is patently clear that you judge a movie by its political message and have no interest in how well made it is. The Academy voters are supposed to vote on quality, not box office and political correctness. Those are just your criteria.
You mock corporations for making money but are perfectly happy with people like Cameron deliberately making a movie to pick the pockets of everyone who wants to think of themselves as morally superior.
And as for thinking Cameron should be allowed to censor free speech, the Academy should be ashamed. If all the nominees thought like Cameron there would have been no show. Remember he said when he won for Titanic, ''I am the king of the world.'' Obviously you bought that.
By your rules the big corporations you hate should have been able to ban the movie on the basis that some tasteless movie maker wanted to make fun of them. Sounds ridiculous when you act fairly and apply the rule to everyone, doesn't it?