Not that some aren't probably good stuff. But I doubt the value of an awards ceremony, any awards ceremony. Yeah, yeah, sour grapes and everything, but seriously... most awards ceremonies work one of two ways: get a panel, get them to decide on their favorite... or get everyone and let them vote. Neither group is probably all that great for deciding things.
The small select group is going to be made up of people involved in the business that the ceremony is for, and/or people not involved but otherwise famous, people involved in their own businesses so deeply they got awarded. If they're the "involved in the group", they're probably so deeply involved that they're looking at things much differently than everyone else. If they're just a famous/important person, they have no clue as to what's good or bad -- if they're good, they're probably involved in their own crap. You'll most likely, from this group, get a combination of out-there, experimental stuff and very popular stuff. The first group picks the first, the second, the second.
If it's the masses, well... I didn't go see Titanic, probably because the masses liked it so much. It's just one of those things, the masses usually have tastes I don't like. I'm not a standard kind of guy. That's me. But I think most people are like that -- the world's got too many varieties of people for any one group to make up a majority. So, who wins? The one with the most active group, not necessarily the best: fanatic loyal groupies will never make Episode I and Episode II great. Sorry.
But then again, maybe it does have a purpose: we humans have a need to triumph or lose. It could be a neat sublimation trick to allow us to compete and at the same time not do it physically.
Ponder away if you're interested.
Posted by Ted Stevko at June 19, 2002 07:26 PM