Official 2009 Oscar Discussion (1 Viewer)

[WillG]

Well it's pretty much how I was taught to win an arguement. Use available evidence to support your case (even if it might be a stretch) and don't bring up what hurts your arguement.

 

[Michael Elliott]

True. My first guess would be his political beliefs. My second guess is that many of them didn't know him. Either way the segment always gives me the creeps.

 

[Michael Reuben]

On a different topic: The Wall Street Journal is reporting preliminary figures showing a 13% increase from last year's record low viewership.

That's still below 2007's numbers, but at least the downward trend didn't continue. The people at ABC must be pleased.

 

[Edwin-S]

I doubt that second one could be the reason. If they work in the business and don't know Charlton Heston then they have been living underneath a rock. Young people get into the acting business because they see the performances of older actors and are inspired by those performances. I find it hard to believe that any actor or actress wouldn't have seen Charlton Heston acting in a film at one point or more in their lives.

 

[WillG]

I wonder if Ledger was a factor there.

 

[Edwin-S]

Not in my case. Normally, I don't watch the Oscars but this time I did due to my participation in the "pick the winners" thread. Also, I can't see Ledger as being a big factor in boosting viewership. I mean, I doubt that most people had any illusions that he was going to win in his category.

Of course, the only way we will tell what impact he had on 2008 viewer numbers is to see what happens to Oscar viewership in 2009.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I am more like Holadem. I love to win arguments, but I'd prefer to be right. I heard the word truth a lot last night (which I agree is a fundamental goal of art), and in the search for truth, you have to include everything. I would derive little enjoyment out of winning an argument that I am either on the wrong side of, or that I am aware I did so without full disclosure.

Unless I am arguing with my wife.

 

[WillG]

I would think most of the time you would be arguing something because you do believe you are right. When I said what I did earlier I never meant to advocate dishonesty in debating a point. I meant that "evidence" can be interpreted in many ways depending on the person. And if you can justifiably interpret a piece of evidence in favor of your point then why wouldn't you do that? When Michael R. observed that someone was "tailoring" the evidence to suit his notions, I thought "of course he is, that's what you do in an arguement or debate."

 

[Nick Martin]

Star Wars doesn't play as well on a small screen. Neither does Titanic. Or Gladiator. Or the LOTR trilogy. Independence Day ? The Perfect Storm? Nope.
The Simpsons Movie was catered to the large screen, and it benefited from that as well.

Hell, most large-scale movies don't play as well compared to a real theatrical experience, regardless of their quality.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

This is true. If the evidence you have at your disposal disproves your point, why continue arguing it? While were on the subject: I didn't realize that Slumdog was a gradual rollout instead of nationwide release when I was quoting box office figures. Since it didn't break a thousand theaters until after the nominees were announced, it sort of throws my argument out the window. The Oscar nominations probably did play a major role in the success of the film, but only in that the nominations got the film in hundreds of additional theaters faster than would have otherwise happened. Being a midsize market, the Albany area got the film in the first few weeks -- which is why I thought it was a nationwide rollout. Millions of people didn't even have the option of seeing the film until after the nominations were announced.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I disagree. The Academy Awards celebrate cinema, not just storytelling. There are dozens of great films: Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odessy, Star Wars, Ben-Hur, The Searchers. Arguably, these movies are better examples of the cinematic form because they maximize the experience for which they are conceived. Films made with an eye toward home video stick to midshots and close-ups, with wide shots reserved primarily to establish location. This plays better on a smaller screen, because the key details are front and center. But it compromises the theatrical experience. On a 40+ foot screen, you can tell an entire movie in wide shots and no one in the audience will have trouble following it. It's appropriate for the medium. The last film I can think of that really stuck to its guns on this was Prisoner of Azkaban. Every location in that movie feels tangibly real because the environment is so rarely lost in close-ups.
Which isn't to say there's anything wrong with smaller films that keep the focus on a couple key characters. The filming techniques that are appropriate for Ben-Hur wouldn't necessarily be appropriate for those pictures. But just because they're more DVD screener friendly doesn't make them inherently superior.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I think a lot of younger people know him from the Moore movie. It's been quite a while since he was in a known movie whereas both Brando and Newman had a "hit" a few years before their death. I was being somewhat sarcastic in my second option but I do wonder how many people get into the business because of the great art thing. I've often wondered if people get into for the sex, drugs and good times. It's somewhat rare to hear people talk about the legends of cinema. I think everything would know Streep, DeNiro, Pacino and those types but they are still fairly big names with recent hits.


Since my last post I went to Wal-Mart to buy a Blu (which they ended up not having) and heard the dumbest conversation of my life. Two teenagers were in there talking about the Oscars when one of them referred to Ledger being a prick for not showing up to get his award. The other one asked why he wasn't there and the guy told him it was because he was embarrassed by the film. Perhaps I should have done the right thing and corrected them but I just walked out.


I also do wonder how many people actually watch all the movies or how they decide to cast their vote. I thought I heard 6000+ people were voted on Best Actor and Best Actress so I was wondering how many of them had watched all the movies. If they hadn't watched all of them then do they pick the favorite of the credits, the one they like the most or does their wife just pick them.

 

[Michael Reuben]

A common synonym for "tailoring" is "alterations". To make it work grammatically, try "altering".

Chuck Mayer and Adam Lenhardt understand exactly what I'm talking about. Not every discussion is an argument to be won, and that's especially true when we're dealing with what's supposed to be a pleasant hobby. Now, obviously someone with some sort of agenda may be more likely to approach a subject with a debater's mentality, but Ron and Parker designed this place to discourage that kind of approach from becoming the norm.

I rather like Chuck's phrase about "the search for truth".

 

[RobertR]

For many years, I refused to buy 2001 on a video format, because it just isn't the same movie when not viewed on the big 70 mm screen. I eventually bought the HDDVD, because hidef on a 123 inch screen gets me closer than previous setups.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

True -- but there are still other big actors who HAVEN'T been in the public's awareness in their later years, and yet due to their HUGE cinematic career and legacy, they'd get the cover of the magazine or newspaper. We'll have to agree to disagree on this, Michael; I think it has everything to do with what "sides" both men leaned toward, and particularly Heston's affiliation with the NRA.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

This is very hard to believe.

 

[Tina_H_V]

Tell me about it!!!!!!

 

[Michael Reuben]

What are we disagreeing on? The only thing I offered was reasons why Newman did get magazine covers when he passed, not reasons why others didn't. As far as I can tell, we agree on the former.

If one regularly reads the letters pages of a publication like Entertainment Weekly, letters complaining about the disparate treatment given to celebrity passings are a routine feature. Trying to discern an overall pattern is impossible, probably because numerous factors apply -- including what other stories are hot that week. If, for example, one were to have the bad fortune to die just as EW was preparing to put out their current multi-version cover issue for Watchmen, then I suspect it wouldn't matter how big a star one was during one's life; the cover ain't happening.

The point of departure for all this was speculation about the amount of applause during the in memoriam segment of the Oscar telecast. But that's all it is: speculation, based on little or no evidence, reflecting beliefs already held by the speculators.

 

[WillG]

I guess we're getting caught up in semantics again. Now, I know not everything is a debate and I don't have any real agenda, but I said what I said because it did appear to me that you and the other poster were in fact engaged in a debate. I do stand by what I said when I observed that information can be interpreted in different ways.

 

[Holadem]

You could've fooled me, Will.

--
H