## Anybody disappointed that James Cameron didn't win Oscars

 Quote by DanP Look at the grosses. 2.55 milliards. It seems very much the future. The audience has spoken.
That is not a very convincing argument to me. I actually find it quite irrelevant. If tomorrow a movie adds the sense of smell in the show, it might actually define one technical aspect of future movies. Such a technical breakthrough would still (from my point of view) not entitle the movie to any Academy award. I simply do not agree that those should award a technical breakthrough, or a revenue breakthrough either for that matter. I am glad the Academy seems to think better of their own Art.

 Quote by DaveC426913 That is one opinion, most definitely not shared by all.
Yeah, no quarrel with that. Earth would be a terribly boring place if we would all agree

 Quote by DaveC426913 That is one opinion, most definitely not shared by all.
And not shared by the Academy either !

 Quote by DanP But in the end the real value of a production is seen on the streets, at the box office.
So, here goes list of the 10 best movies of all times:

1. Avatar (2009) $2,564,189,342 2. Titanic (1997)$1,835,300,000
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252 4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)$1,060,332,628
5. The Dark Knight (2008) $1,001,921,825 6. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)$968,657,891
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) $958,404,152 8. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)$937,000,866
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) $933,956,980 10. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace$922,379,000

Somehow I don't feel convinced these are really the best movies ever.

 Quote by humanino That is not a very convincing argument to me. I actually find it quite irrelevant.
Actually, if we speak about the "future" of the industry, money revenue is the most important factor. Entertainment industry does not produce for Academy Awards or to gain philosophical recognition. The entertainment industry produces for the money.

The future stands where the highest grosses are.

Awards are a totally different animal. A lot of different oppinions.

But one has to realize that the entertainment industry is here in the first place for the money.

 Quote by DanP Im underlining that stereotypes cannot be used to infer anything about an individual.
yes, you are correct on the correlation between stereotypes and individuality.

My point is that if you were to plot on a graph the % of people that were disappointed Avatar did not win the oscar as a function of age, do you really think that young people as a whole would not have the highest % on this graph?

 Quote by magnusrobot12 My point is that if you were to plot on a graph the % of people that were disappointed Avatar did not win the oscar as a function of age, do you really think that young people as a whole would not have the highest % on this graph?
And what it would tell us ? That younger ppl are blowing special effects out of proportion, or
that the geezers became so boring that cannot appreciate dynamism anymore? You cant tell.

Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by magnusrobot12 Let him answer the question. Are you telling me that young people would not be more enticed by Avatar than an older person. I think an older person would appreciate the technology that went into avatar, but there is nothing wrong with the premise that a younger person would blow-out-of-proportion the impact of the cool visual effects in the context of the other nominated movie. Were you never young?
What is "out of proportion"? Does the universe have a fundamental physical constant that represents the correct proportion? If younger people might think that good graphics is more important than a good storyline, what right do older people have to criticize that preference?

 Quote by DanP And what it would tell us ? That younger ppl are blowing special effects out of proportion, or that the geezers became so boring that cannot appreciate dynamism anymore? You cant tell.
 Quote by ideasrule What is "out of proportion"? Does the universe have a fundamental physical constant that represents the correct proportion? If younger people might think that good graphics is more important than a good storyline, what right do older people have to criticize that preference?

Now those were two very funny posts.

 Quote by DanP Yeah, no quarrel with that. Earth would be a terribly boring place if we would all agree
I don't think it's just a matter of "different strokes".

Dollar valuation is only one facet for the greatness of a film. Film is also an art form. As such, it's artistic merit (however you wish to define that) is an important property for valuing its worth.

You are suggesting there is only one meaningful way to valuate, and that the forum for that is the box office, and are implicitly dismissing any other possible way of valuating. I am allowing for both. The Oscars are the forum for recognizing the artistic merit of a film.

 Quote by ideasrule If younger people might think that good graphics is more important than a good storyline, what right do older people have to criticize that preference?
Because those younger people will change their minds as they become wiser. They will admit that they were naive.
 Thank you Dave. My goodness, I thought this forum was build on logic, but in fact, its only built only on logic that people want to hear. I was a kid once and i loved Dungeons and Dragons, and special effect, science fiction, fantasy, etc. Goodness gracious, what is so wrong with the statement that younger people value cool special effects almost as much, if not more, than the storyline? I'm soooo bored with this topic... Time to go learn some physics again...

 Quote by DaveC426913 I don't think it's just a matter of "different strokes". Dollar valuation is only one facet for the greatness of a film. Film is also an art form. As such, it's artistic merit (however you wish to define that) is an important property for valuing its worth.
Certainly, but it seems that population at large appreciated Avatar.

 Quote by DaveC426913 You are suggesting there is only one meaningful way to valuate, and that the forum for that is the box office, and are implicitly dismissing any other possible way of valuating.
I am only telling you what is the most meaningful to me.

And if I leave this aside, Still "Up in the Air" comes ahead by leaps and bounds to "The Hurt Locker". I really cant root for a film which left me half asleep.

 Quote by DaveC426913 Because those younger people will change their minds as they become wiser. They will admit that they were naive.
Let me ofter you a different perspective. It's because older people had changed into boring conformists as they age. They will never admit it, but we all know it's true.
 DanP, stop cracking me up dude. You have no idea how young at heart i am. Believe it or not, i probably like many of the things that you like. Ironically, it is YOU who is stereotyping. Ah, the foolishness of the young. Ignorant bliss. You accuse me of stereotyping, but in the end, your stereotyping was associated with a lot more anger than anything I said earlier. OK, i am not going to comment any more. Must leave this topic and learn physics...must leave this topic and learn physics...

 Quote by DanP Certainly, but it seems that population at large appreciated Avatar.
Again, that is one facet of evaulating a film - as a commodity. It says little about its value as an art form.

 Quote by DanP I am only telling you what is the most meaningful to me.
No you're not. You're claiming that "the people have spoken"; that it is the de facto best movie.

 Quote by DanP But one has to realize that the entertainment industry is here in the first place for the money.
Also not true.

The fact that it may be true for some, or even the large majority, not does mean it is universally true. Which is why the box office \$ is only one limited way of assessing a film's value. You should have listeneded to some of the speeches last night. Some of them do it for love, not money, and would have completed it even if they lost money (and they do).
 Recognitions: Gold Member Money does not measure "greatness" in the arts. During Vincent Van Gogh's lifetime, his art was practically worthless. In fact his younger brother (an art dealer) supported him because he couldn't manage to popularized Vincent's paintings and get them sold. Were Vincent's paintings "great"? They certainly didn't appeal to the art patrons of his day, so no, not at the time. Using money to measure "greatness", his paintings are probably the best ever, but we'll never know, because the really popular ones are locked up in collections and will never be "measured" in an art auction.