My problem is with your use of the word deserving. I go out of my way to say you should be using a different word, as calling The Hurt Locker more deserving and basing that solely on perceived quality while overlooking the accomplishments of Avatar is problematic and belittles part of what makes Avatar so deserving, as well as places an emphasis on the award being completely about quality, which I believe we both agree is not the case. I can see saying it's a better film. I can see saying it should win over Avatar. I may not agree, but I can understand people believing both of those statements. I do not see the case to be made that it is more deserving of the award than Avatar.
Once again FLY, "How can you be so obtuse."
You were the one to bring in the word "deserving". But I took your bait and put it as simply as I could. The most deserving film for the prize of Best Picture of the Year is the film that I consider the BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR. What film is that? Inglourious Basterds. But considering the fight is going to be between The Hurt Locker and Avatar, I have to choose which of those two I consider the BEST FILM. In that case the BEST PICTURE is The Hurt Locker, and so when given only those two films as options, The Hurt Locker is what I would support as the BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR. I consider it more deserving simply because I consider it a better film.
If you want to have an argument over whether a film should also be given the award based on other merits then we can have that debate, but I can tell you I have already won it. You know how? Because the prize isn't called Best Achievement in Filmmaking Overall. It's called Best Picture, and so it should go to the BEST PICTURE (or in this case, the best picture that actually has a shot.)