Comedy skits

[Emory889 353]

Heath Ledger won an Oscar for The Dark Knight, something that he would not have won more than likely if he was still alive. I'm not saying Hedberg was bad, I like Hedberg. What I was saying was people want to put him up there with the greatest of all time and he simply wasn't that. Truth hurts, sorry.

 

We have very different definitions of the word truth. If you think that Ledger wouldn't have won the Oscar if he had lived, despite an out of this world performance in a movie that smashed a decade old box office record, then you are living in a alternate reality.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

I couldn't disagree more. For starters, Eddie Murphy is still one of the greatest comedians of all time. The fact that he hasn't toured in a while doesn't change that. I know you were just using Murphy as an example but I believe that is the primariy difference in our view points. I'm perfectly capable of seeing the brilliance of Murphy's stand up, Beverly Hills cop and The Nutty Professor while realizing that he made some pretty terrible movies. Niblit does not diminish his prior achievements. Should I forget about the GREAT albums that The Rolling Stones have created because I've heard some of Mick Jaggers' craptacular solo projects? Of course not, that's silly.

 

We don't have the luxury of knowing what Mitch Hedburg's material would have been like if he was still alive. Nor do we know how a new Nirvana album would have sounded. It doesn't change the fact that Nevermind was one of the most groundbreaking albums I've ever heard and it doesn't change the fact that Hedburg's comedy was some of the funniest material I've ever witnessed.

 

I think the main disconnect between our points is the fact that I'm talking about Macro level thinking. 50 years from now, what will music/comedy/art/etc historians see when they look at things.

 

You're talking about micro level things "I, me, you".

 

 

Its the difference between what are THE best movies ever and what are YOUR favorite movies ever.

[jec 427]

I think the main disconnect between our points is the fact that I'm talking about Macro level thinking. 50 years from now, what will music/comedy/art/etc historians see when they look at things.

 

You're talking about micro level things "I, me, you".

 

 

Its the difference between what are THE best movies ever and what are YOUR favorite movies ever.

 

How will the people 50 years from now decide what to look back on what stands out from our generation? God help us if it's based on the box office numbers/billboard charts/etc.

 

Transformers 2, the pinnacle of 21st century artwork. Or Avatar, which was impressively mediocre.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

We have very different definitions of the word truth. If you think that Ledger wouldn't have won the Oscar if he had lived, despite an out of this world performance in a movie that smashed a decade old box office record, then you are living in a alternate reality.

 

Trey's example (probably incorrectly) assumes there was an equally deserving performance that got shafted. Was Ledger's Oscar boosted by Ledger's death? Absolutely. Was Ledger's performance worthy of an Oscar? Absolutely.

 

Who was the #2 that year?

 

It's kinda similar to a situation where lets say Dwight fouls out of a game with a BS call with two minutes to go and we're down by 14. Does that call benefit the other team? Absolutely. Did that call really make a difference in the outcome? Probably not.

[Emory889 353]

I think the main disconnect between our points is the fact that I'm talking about Macro level thinking. 50 years from now, what will music/comedy/art/etc historians see when they look at things.

 

You're talking about micro level things "I, me, you".

 

 

Its the difference between what are THE best movies ever and what are YOUR favorite movies ever.

 

Right, but the only difference between the two is the amount of people that believe a certain thing. Picasso is considered a great artist because a lot of people love his work. However, his stuff really does nothing for me. So, while I understand that most people consider him great, I think there are many lesser known artists out there that are better. It doesn't make either side right. That's the point that Jec is trying to make. It's all subjective.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

 

 

Its the difference between what are THE best movies ever and what are YOUR favorite movies ever.

 

Perhaps a different way of putting the jec/emory/etc argument: There can be no distinction between THE best movies ever and YOUR favorite movies ever because there are no objective criteria to build a THE list without serious influences from various YOUR lists. There can be no separate THE list.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Perhaps a different way of putting the jec/emory/etc argument: There can be no distinction between THE best movies ever and YOUR favorite movies ever because there are no objective criteria to build a THE list without serious influences from various YOUR lists. There can be no separate THE list.

 

thats basically what i'm saying. its hard to develop points when i'm multitasking.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

thats basically what i'm saying. its hard to develop points when i'm multitasking.

 

It shouldn't be what you're saying, because you just pointed out something that was supposed to be the difference between the two lists. We're saying there is no difference between the two. Everything about art is subjective.

 

I'll admit that I'm not of sound mind at the moment, I may be following this all wrong.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

It shouldn't be what you're saying, because you just pointed out something that was supposed to be the difference between the two lists. We're saying there is no difference between the two. Everything about art is subjective.

 

I'll admit that I'm not of sound mind at the moment, I may be following this all wrong.

 

ok ok. Everything about anything that's not able to be quantitatively measured is subjective. That doesn't stop authorities in the subject to form a hierarchy. So really, subjective really doesn't matter.

 

There is a HUGE difference between Best/favorite lists. Favorite relies too much on personal attachment and doesn't require factual backing up. I like it because i like it. Best lists need a community to form them really.

 

How do we know who was the best basketball player ever? Well we look at statistics, then we consult with reporters, coaches, players during that era, players during past eras, etc. In basketball its pretty unanimous that the best player is Michael Jordan.

 

Im really losing track of my original point now.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

and i just realized i read your original post wrong.

[Emory889 353]

ok ok. Everything about anything that's not able to be quantitatively measured is subjective. That doesn't stop authorities in the subject to form a hierarchy. So really, subjective really doesn't matter.

 

There is a HUGE difference between Best/favorite lists. Favorite relies too much on personal attachment and doesn't require factual backing up. I like it because i like it. Best lists need a community to form them really.

 

How do we know who was the best basketball player ever? Well we look at statistics, then we consult with reporters, coaches, players during that era, players during past eras, etc. In basketball its pretty unanimous that the best player is Michael Jordan.

 

Im really losing track of my original point now.

 

That is two entirely different things. I can say that Creed is the greatest band of all time without the fear of being wrong...although I would be pushing it. There is no factual evidence that disproves that Creed is not the best band ever. If I were to say that Matt Geiger is the greatest basketball player of alltime, DOM would have an encyclopedia of stats to prove that Geiger is no where close to the greatest player ever.

 

I'll say it again, the only difference between who I consider the greatest artist/comedian/band ever and what is widely considered the greatest ever is the amount of people that believe it. It's all a popularity contest. Unless you can prove me wrong. I would love to hear what factual evidence you have to support your choice for favorite band.

[jec 427]

ok ok. Everything about anything that's not able to be quantitatively measured is subjective. That doesn't stop authorities in the subject to form a hierarchy. So really, subjective really doesn't matter.

 

There is a HUGE difference between Best/favorite lists. Favorite relies too much on personal attachment and doesn't require factual backing up. I like it because i like it. Best lists need a community to form them really.

 

How do we know who was the best basketball player ever? Well we look at statistics, then we consult with reporters, coaches, players during that era, players during past eras, etc. In basketball its pretty unanimous that the best player is Michael Jordan.

 

Im really losing track of my original point now.

 

When you decide the best basketball player, you can look at objective criteria in statistics and accolades, as well as consider the competition and the rules in place. We're trying to say that there IS no objective criteria to base the judgment of the quality of art on. A community forming a "best" list is just a bunch of people getting together with their own "favorite" lists.