If it was a real audience pleaser, it would have had an audience. It was advertised on CINECAST!ing ESPN.
Additionally, as I have said and continue to say, how does any of this make The Hurt Locker more deserving than Avatar? Clearly you are not in agreement that it's the best film, just that it's a better film. Though the notions of those words are completely subjective and have little bearing on the matter. What has The Hurt Locker done to make it more deserving of recognition than Avatar? If it's simply the craft then I suppose that There Will Be Blood was more deserving of Best Picture than No Country for Old Men because from the direction to the score that film is clearly of a superior make. Cameron crafted an entirely new world, plastered on a solid story, broke new ground with the technology used, delivered near flawless action sequences in a blockbuster, a complaint constantly logged against these types of films, gives the audience a one of a kind theatrical experience, and has made a significant cultural impact with the film. Bigelow crafted a fine thrill ride with great action and tension, subverts the idea of a 'war' film by having it mostly exist as a character study, and yielded a fine achievement in editing. You're saying that is more deserving of an award than what Cameron produced? Hardly. So awarding the film this award in spite of all the admirable traits of Avatar simply because there's an inkling of a chance that more films like it will get wider releases in the future is the best course of action? No Country could have played to a large crowd. Slumdog Millionaire could play to a large crowd. Yet we still get the exact same films we would otherwise. So when you use the word deserving when talking about the accomplishments of each film you are way off the mark. In no way is The Hurt Locker more deserving of such an award than Avatar, unless you go on picture quality alone, in which case neither is deserving, correct?