The influence of the internet

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:03 am

I found it really interesting that "... 911" and "The Passion..." won the major movie awards in the People's Choice Awards. Not coincidentally, both had big email campaigns going amongst their respective camps of true believers to rally voters (similar to credit card company marketing department mascot contests).

It's kind of a strange phenomenon, but I guess these people think they are justifying what they believe in when they can stuff the ballot boxes for their ideologically based films to "win" awards that certainly should go to much better films. Not that it really matters all that much -- I won't be seeing the Christ bloodbath porno (ever notice how nearly everything that Mel makes is obsessed with violence?) or the intellectually dishonest political propoganda piece anytime soon. It's times like this that I'm kind of glad there is an elitist set of voters who run the legitimate movie awards -- at least we are bound to see a decent film if we follow their picks. So we have proven that internet voting isn't necessarily the best means of objectively evaluating artistic merit. I doubt that surprises anyone.

It all does go to show, though, how pervasive the internet has become. Organization of people for something this trivial would have been impossible years ago. It really has revolutionized how people interact -- this site is a good example of that. That's my "Gee, isn't that special" moment of the morning.

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:15 am

BAC the, "elitist set of voters " have problems picking the good movies as well. IMO Maybe if they watched all the movies it would help. Maybe if they wouldn't be so influenced by ads, and propaganda, from the major motion picture companies it would help. Maybe if the averge age of the elitist wasn't 65 it would help. Maybe if they didn't have an political agenda it would help. This one you'll agree with me. Watch the movie and if you like it you like it. Don't let anybody elese tell you what is good or not. Hollywood is so shallow sometimes

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:26 am

jagur1 wrote:BAC the, "elitist set of voters " have problems picking the good movies as well. IMO Maybe if they watched all the movies it would help. Maybe if they wouldn't be so influenced by ads, and propaganda, from the major motion picture companies it would help. Maybe if the averge age of the elitist wasn't 65 it would help. Maybe if they didn't have an political agenda it would help. This one you'll agree with me. Watch the movie and if you like it you like it. Don't let anybody elese tell you what is good or not. Hollywood is so shallow sometimes

I agree with you to a point (especially on forming our own opinions on films -- that's all that really needs to be said in the end), but I actually think that the "elitists" in the academy and among the critics community are much more knowledgable about the films and much, much less subject to advertising and other influences than the typical internet movie voter. If anything, they tend to skew towards the obscure and artsy films... which actually works well for me as that's what I prefer. As it relates to my tastes, the people's choice awards are People or In-Style magazine, while the Academy is The New Yorker. You know what you are getting either way, it's just a matter of personal taste.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:29 am

All of that being said, I actually tend to prefer movies that do well at Sundance and Cannes (with the exception of overtly political films) than anything either Hollywood or "the people" hold out as a winner.

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:33 am

I like Mel Gibson. I just wish he'd be a little bit more Violent.

One thing I don't understand.

Why can my 5 year old see 500 killings and beatings a day but if he sees one breast he's scared for life? Everyday I hear, "Dad is this one to violent for me to watch?" and that's on the cartoon network. Titans go!

Post by **kmax** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:44 am

jagur1 wrote:One thing I don't understand.

Why can my 5 year old see 500 killings and beatings a day but if he sees one breast he's scared for life? Everyday I hear, "Dad is this one to violent for me to watch?" and that's on the cartoon network. Titans go!

Amen, jagur.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:47 am

The People's choice awards are chosen by people who chose to vote. I don't think I'd take the Academy or the "People's" recommendations much into account in choosing a movie. In fact, I almost never got to the beautiful Ellen theatre in Bozeman, because they show the "blockbusters", which rarely interest me.

I think some of the major film festivals might be my best guide. I also wonder why violence is less of a threat than a bit of skin?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:53 am

jagur1 wrote:I like Mel Gibson. I just wish he'd be a little bit more Violent.

One thing I don't understand.

Why can my 5 year old see 500 killings and beatings a day but if he sees one breast he's scared for life? Everyday I hear, "Dad is this one to violent for me to watch?" and that's on the cartoon network. Titans go!

That is a good point. When I was in Jr. High, my mom told me that she would rather I watch porn that watch some the slasher films that were popular at that time (Nightmare on Elm Street, etc.). I thought that was a great idea.

Of course, she then proceeded to not let me watch either of them. She was just trying to make a point, I eventually figured out, much to my disappointment.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:53 am

BAC???? -- " intellectually dishonest political propoganda piece " and
"I actually tend to prefer movies that do well at Sundance and Cannes "

Didn't F-9/11 do well at Cannes? Ooopsie daisy--"Palme d'Or" for Mr. Moore in 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3739325.stm

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:56 am

iaafan wrote:BAC???? -- " intellectually dishonest political propoganda piece " and
"I actually tend to prefer movies that do well at Sundance and Cannes "

Didn't F-9/11 do well at Cannes? Ooopsie daisy--"Palme d'Or" for Mr. Moore in 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3739325.stm

Um, yeah. Did you miss my parenthetical exception in that same post?

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:02 pm

Maybe because it was good film? It certainly was fun.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:13 pm

I'd just like to think that I am the living embodiment of what Fox News claims to be -- I'm being "Fair and Balanced." I took equal shots at both sides of the ideological divide with the same post. This won't win me any popularity contests, but hopefully it makes for an interesting thread.

Random thought of the day -- what was the last interesting thing that Andy Roony said. Was that at some point in the 70's? How does one get that cushy job? I could whine about things I'm too old and close-minded to understand (like phones and computers) for a price... just tell me where to sign.

Yeah, I accidentally caught his 60 Minutes bit on Sunday, and I swear it was almost identical to the one I saw last year and the one I saw in the mid-90's (I think he was mocking word processors as being less efficient than typewriters at that time -- now he thinks that cell phones are just people talking about nothing when they could be staring at walls instead.).

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:20 pm

I did catch your disclaimer, but you were close enough to putting your foot in your mouth that I figgered, I'd give it a shot. Don't get all pissy with me now, jist hackin' on ya a bit. But there's still a few us lacking the intellectual capacity to dislike the show. You can at least give in to the fact that it did get people more involved in the election. (I can probably guess what your next post will say, but you have a way with words, so I'll try to be patient.)

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:24 pm

I'm still ticked at Rooney for making fun of Montana's license plate motto ---- Big Sky Country --- back in the 70s(?). He said, "I've been to Montana and the sky's no bigger there than anywhere else." He scored points though by just looking at Idaho's plate (famous potatos) and tossing it to the side.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:26 pm

Back to Moore's 9/11 not being factual....there's this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/18/173312/462

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:27 pm

iaafan wrote:I did catch your disclaimer, but you were close enough to putting your foot in your mouth that I figgered, I'd give it a shot. Don't get all pissy with me now, jist hackin' on ya a bit. But there's still a few us lacking the intellectual capacity to dislike the show. You can at least give in to the fact that it did get people more involved in the election. (I can probably guess what your next post will say, but you have a way with words, so I'll try to be patient.)

I just worked so hard to wrap my words around that thought while still giving myself the out on the 911 thing... and I'm certainly not saying that there was anything wrong with the movie itself, or that intellectual capacity plays into it in any way. I just think it was more of a propoganda piece as opposed to a piece of pure documenatary journalism, and that his methods aren't always intellectually honest (not that's lying, but that he's only showing half of the story in order to suggest things that aren't necessarily true while not overtly lying). It did add to the public debate, and I think it was a good thing that it was made... it just wasn't the best movie of the year. It was only voted that for that particular award show by fanatics (not in a terrorist way, but in a longhand of "fan" way) who were voting more to legitimize their own political beliefs via grassroots internet campaigning than to make a statement about artistic merit. The same goes for the religious fanatics (longhand for "fans" of violence-based theological lessons) that voted for the passion.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:30 pm

And to beat everyone else to the punch that I deserve... yes I am being critical of films I haven't seen first-hand... and I am comfortable with that (now give me that ballot!). I am placing a lot of trust in things I have read about them. My movie "to see" list is way too long already

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:33 pm

I agree it isn't a documentary. He does a great job using sound and special effects.

Beaker · Post by **Beaker** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:05 pm

Why can my 5 year old see 500 killings and beatings a day but if he sees one breast he's scared for life? Everyday I hear, "Dad is this one to violent for me to watch?" and that's on the cartoon network. Titans go!

That's why I don't have cable. I want to teach my daughters right and wrong not the tv.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:16 pm

Beaker wrote:
Why can my 5 year old see 500 killings and beatings a day but if he sees one breast he's scared for life? Everyday I hear, "Dad is this one to violent for me to watch?" and that's on the cartoon network. Titans go!
That's why I don't have cable. I want to teach my daughters right and wrong not the tv.

So you are teaching right and wrong just like parents with cable... but with fewer examples to use as reference points of both good and bad (and very little quality entertainment for those rainy days). How does one survive without the History Channel, HBO and Comedy Central?

How did I ever make it through my childhood with only two channels? I coulda been someone... but I was instead deprived.