Anybody disappointed that James Cameron didn't win Oscars

  • Thread starter Thread starter waht
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
122 replies · 17K views
magnusrobot12 said:
.

Avatar's coolness is especially good for young people. I imagine you are in your late teens, early 20's. Am i correct?

Will the humans ever get over stereotyping ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DanP said:
Will the humans ever get over stereotyping ?

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?
 
DanP said:
But in the end the real value of a production is seen on the streets, at the box office.
Ppl speak there.
OK, so you believe the only measure of a film's value is in dollars.
You also believe that "most popular" and "best" are synonymous.

That is one opinion, most definitely not shared by all.
 
magnusrobot12 said:
Let him answer the question. Are you telling me that young people would not be more enticed by Avatar than an older person.

Im underlining that stereotypes cannot be used to infer anything about an individual.


magnusrobot12 said:
Were you never young?

Im still very young.
 
DanP said:
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.
 
DaveC426913 said:
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:devil:
 
DaveC426913 said:
That is one opinion, most definitely not shared by all.
And not shared by the Academy either !
 
DanP said:
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.
 
humanino said:
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.
 
DanP said:
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?
 
magnusrobot12 said:
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 can't tell.
 
magnusrobot12 said:
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?
 
DanP said:
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 can't tell.

ideasrule said:
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?


:smile: Now those were two very funny posts. :smile:​
 
Last edited:
DanP said:
Yeah, no quarrel with that. Earth would be a terribly boring place if we would all agree:devil:

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.
 
ideasrule said:
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...
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
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.

DaveC426913 said:
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 can't root for a film which left me half asleep.
 
DaveC426913 said:
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... :-p
 
DanP said:
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.


DanP said:
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.

DanP said:
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).
 
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.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Because those younger people will change their minds as they become wiser. They will admit that they were naive.

If you're saying that younger people don't like movies with good storylines because they sometimes don't understand the significance of the storyline, I'd agree with you. However, if they do understand the significance of the storyline but couldn't care less about it ("who cares about that woman's empty-nest syndrome? I'm not 40, and I'm not female!"), I wouldn't say their preference is any less valid than that of an adult. Not everything that's child-like is naive. Young children are very curious, but that doesn't mean curiosity is a bad thing.
 
magnusrobot12 said:
. 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.

Ironically, you fall again in the trap. You have no idea about my age , and you risk using phrases like "Ah, the foolishness of the young. Ignorant bliss. "
 
DaveC426913;2614272 No you're not. You're claiming that "the people have spoken"; that it is the [I said:
de facto[/I] best movie.

Yes I am. It's my perspective of seeing things. Accept it.
 
DanP said:
Ironically, you fall again in the trap. You have no idea about my age , and you risk using phrases like "Ah, the foolishness of the young. Ignorant bliss. "

Dan, OK, tell me. what is your age. Be honest now. Come on man, we're all friends here. Dont take things so wrong. How old are you? I'll start. I'm a 40-year old geezer. Your turn...

Seriously, i got to get away from this topic...but it keeps pulling me back in...must leave topic...must leave topic...
 
DanP said:
Yes I am. It's my perspective of seeing things. Accept it.

You misunderstand. You are trying to make your perspective into a larger perspective.

You're waffling between "it is just my opinon that the movie is the best" and "it is de facto that the movie is the best beacuse of...".

You are making a claim ("this movie is best because the box office shows it"), and are providing numbers that back that up. We do grant that numbers lead to a valid conclusion. The onus is on you to show that your numbers (box office) result in your conclusion ("best" movie).

Until then, the only valid opinions you have are that you liked it best.
 
DanP said:
The future stands where the highest grosses are.
That is not true, and that is boring. Do you want me to come up with an example where the public was spending tons of money on stupid fashionable products which have been forgotten ? Can you remind me of the argument you had in favor of awarding an Oscar to a flat and shallow movie but including the sense of smell (or any other technological breakthrough that would please you) ?
 
DaveC426913 said:
You misunderstand. You are trying to make your perspective into a larger perspective.

You're waffling between "it is just my opinon that the movie is the best" and "it is de facto that the movie is the best beacuse of...".

You are making a claim ("this movie is best because the box office shows it"), and are providing numbers that back that up. We do grant that numbers lead to a valid conclusion. The onus is on you to show that your numbers (box office) result in your conclusion ("best" movie).

Until then, the only valid opinions you have are that you liked it best.

I see your point. Yes, what I liked the best is the most important pivot point for me.

Please understand that I am not trying to change your mind regarding "The hurt Locker". I find it cool that you think it was the one who deserved Best Motion Picture.
 
DanP said:
Please understand that I am not trying to change your mind regarding "The hurt Locker". I find it cool that you think it was the one who deserved Best Motion Picture.

I have expressed no opinion about Hurt Locker. I haven't even seen it.