Golden Globes is where the action begins. With ‘Avatar’ and James Cameron walking away with the best drama and best director, the debate on ‘Avatar’, and its claim to enduring fame, has come out in the open.

‘Avatar’ is set to break the earlier records set by James Cameron’s ‘Titanic’ at the box office, but that does not mean that many have forgotten his ‘I am the king of the world’ statement at the Oscars way back in 1997. The reception for his call to ‘give it up for you,’ was tepid when Cameron made his acceptance speech at the Golden Globes.

Why Cameron, why ‘Avatar’ when there were movies like ‘Inglorious Basterds’, ‘Up in the Air’ and ‘Hurt Locker’ which, were far better in terms of the story line and direction? What is ‘Avatar’ without the SFX? If ‘Avatar’ were made in traditional animation, would its storyline stand up to the deranged concept of ‘Inglorious Basterds’?

What is it that draws people to the movie halls for ‘Avatar’? Is it that two- and- something hours of an imaginary world ‘Pandora’ which draws the crowds? Or is it the technology which keeps you hooked to your seats?

‘Avatar’ has surely lived up to its trendsetting film making technology. The technology and minute attention to detail in special effects is perhaps what makes ‘Avatar’ tick in the box office. The CGI special effects, the stereoscopic filmmaking techniques combined with the 3D picturisation makes it a visual treat. To create Pandora, and the unique ways of the Na’vi, is no simple deal. But does that mean movies made without 3D technology and high end special effects are not good? Would ‘Inglorious Basterds’ look better in 3D? Does special effects and 3D take the charm away from the art of filmmaking?

All this said, ‘Avatar’ is a trendsetter, by sheer dint of the giant leap it takes in terms of movie technology. It truly deserves the Oscar for special effects. But does it deserve a best direction and/or best drama at the Oscars? The jury is still out on that one.