|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 13, 2018 3:08:16 GMT
So a bad actor who has won.
Oscars aren't generally given out to bad actors.
Um sure, whatever |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 13, 2018 3:09:27 GMT
So a bad actor who has won.
Oscars aren't generally given out to bad actors.
Um sure, whatever So who is the bad actor then that has won? |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 13, 2018 3:10:53 GMT
So who is the bad actor then that has won? I didn't say "bad", I said worst |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 13, 2018 3:11:30 GMT
So who is the bad actor then that has won? I didn't say "bad", I said worst bad, worst, are they not interchangeable? |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 13, 2018 3:14:18 GMT
I didn't say "bad", I said worst bad, worst, are they not interchangeable? Not really. Let's say 5 people take a math test, and one got the worst score (let's say an A-). You wouldn't really say they're "bad" at math, now would you? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 13, 2018 3:18:13 GMT
bad, worst, are they not interchangeable? Not really. Let's say 5 people take a math test, and one got the worst score (let's say an A-). You wouldn't really say they're "bad" at math, now would you? False equivalency and all semantics.
A better post would be the least deserving actor to win an Oscar, because other variables could be played into it, to make a better and stronger argument. So who is the worst?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 13, 2018 3:20:32 GMT
So a bad actor who has won.
Oscars aren't generally given out to bad actors.
That is true imo, but there is always a worst or least impressive. I chose Cuba Gooding Jr. Is he capable of good performances? Of course and I don't even have a problem with his Oscar win, but I have seen a lot of movies that he has been in and most of the time he just doesn't seem to be putting in much effort and many of his performances are pretty embarrassing. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 13, 2018 3:21:46 GMT
Not really. Let's say 5 people take a math test, and one got the worst score (let's say an A-). You wouldn't really say they're "bad" at math, now would you? False equivalency and all semantics.
A better post would be the least deserving actor to win an Oscar, because other variables could be played into it, to make a better and stronger argument. So who is the worst?
No, that was not a "false equivalency" because I wasn't actually comparing Oscar wins to taking a math test if that's what you're implying, I was showing you an an example that demonstrates "bad" and "worst" aren't really synonyms.
"A better post would be the least deserving actor to win an Oscar"
That's essentially the same thing as "worst". You might as well be arguing "least thinnest" and "fattest" are two different things. Geez and you accuse me of semantics.
"So who is the worst?"
I dunno, Nicholas Cage I guess
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 13, 2018 3:23:57 GMT
Not really. Let's say 5 people take a math test, and one got the worst score (let's say an A-). You wouldn't really say they're "bad" at math, now would you? False equivalency and all semantics.
A better post would be the least deserving actor to win an Oscar, because other variables could be played into it, to make a better and stronger argument. So who is the worst?
I don't think that is good wording either. That almost makes it sound like they didn't deserve to win the Oscar. Mediocre actors have given one or two great performances on occasion. Oscars are handed out for a specific performance, not as a reward for how good of an actor the person is in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 13, 2018 3:30:35 GMT
False equivalency and all semantics.
A better post would be the least deserving actor to win an Oscar, because other variables could be played into it, to make a better and stronger argument. So who is the worst?
No, that was not a "false equivalency" because I wasn't actually comparing Oscar wins to taking a math test if that's what you're implying, I was showing you an an example that demonstrates "bad" and "worst" aren't really synonyms.
"A better post would be the least deserving actor to win an Oscar"
That's essentially the same thing as "worst". Geez and you accuse me of semantics.
I think you are confused.
How do you define 'worst', in regards to a actor who has won an Oscar, which DOES imply he is also a bad actor?
Like your math test analogy, was it a strong year for performances, but the least deserving performance won even though it was still a strong performance— hence the A- —or was the actor just bad in general, regardless of the competition, yet won anyway? There are too many abstract variables to account for in your topic. If you are implying worst, this DOES equate to bad in this instance, which is all subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 13, 2018 3:35:38 GMT
No, that was not a "false equivalency" because I wasn't actually comparing Oscar wins to taking a math test if that's what you're implying, I was showing you an an example that demonstrates "bad" and "worst" aren't really synonyms.
"A better post would be the least deserving actor to win an Oscar"
That's essentially the same thing as "worst". Geez and you accuse me of semantics.
I think you are confused.
How do you define 'worst', in regards to a actor who has won an Oscar, which DOES imply he is also a bad actor?
Like your math test analogy, was it a strong year for performances, but the least deserving performance won even though it was still a strong performance— hence the A- —or was the actor just bad in general, regardless of the competition, yet won anyway? There are too many abstract variables to account for in your topic. If you are implying worst, this DOES equate to bad in this instance, which is all subjective.
"How do you define 'worst'"
Least talented, least deserving, etc. This is not a very difficult concept to grasp. I swear your just being purposely obtuse.
"which DOES imply he is also a bad actor?"
If you want to infer it that way fine, I've already explained how "worst" and "bad" aren't synonyms, so whatever.
"Like your math test analogy"
That was not an "analogy", that was an example to demosntrate the difference between "bad" and "worst", this has already been explained to you. Why are your repeating arguments I've already addressed?
"which is all subjective."
I never said it wasn't subjective, so I'm just gonna call that a Strawman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 13, 2018 3:36:59 GMT
False equivalency and all semantics.
A better post would be the least deserving actor to win an Oscar, because other variables could be played into it, to make a better and stronger argument. So who is the worst?
I don't think that is good wording either. That almost makes it sound like they didn't deserve to win the Oscar. Mediocre actors have given one or two great performances on occasion. In 'comparison' to the other nominees that year, in which a better case could be made for why they didn't deserve to win. Or even in comparison to the other actors in the film, which weren't even nominated.
Take Cocoon - 85', in which Don Ameche was nominated a support actor Oscar and then won. If one knows of the film, could it be argued that the nomination was undeserving, compared to Wilfred Brimley, Hume Cronyn and Jack Gilford in the same film, who to my mind gave much stronger and more layered performances than Ameche and the other supp. actors who were nominated that year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 13, 2018 3:46:54 GMT
I think you are confused.
How do you define 'worst', in regards to a actor who has won an Oscar, which DOES imply he is also a bad actor?
Like your math test analogy, was it a strong year for performances, but the least deserving performance won even though it was still a strong performance— hence the A- —or was the actor just bad in general, regardless of the competition, yet won anyway? There are too many abstract variables to account for in your topic. If you are implying worst, this DOES equate to bad in this instance, which is all subjective.
"How do you define 'worst'"
Least talented, least deserving, etc. This is not a very difficult concept to grasp. I swear your just being purposely obtuse.
"which DOES imply he is also a bad actor?"
If you want to infer it that way fine, I've already explained how "worst" and "bad" aren't synonyms, so whatever.
"Like your math test analogy"
That was not an "analogy", that was an example to demosntrate the difference between "bad" and "worst", this has already been explained to you. Why are your repeating arguments I've already addressed?
"which is all subjective."
I never said it wasn't subjective, so I'm just gonna call that a Strawman.
Just like your own straw man, because you can't properly defend your argument, because the defense is too subjective. I guess you just don't like getting called out. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 13, 2018 3:48:07 GMT
I don't think that is good wording either. That almost makes it sound like they didn't deserve to win the Oscar. Mediocre actors have given one or two great performances on occasion. In 'comparison' to the other nominees that year, in which a better case could be made for why they didn't deserve to win. Or even in comparison to the other actors in the film, which weren't even nominated.
Take Cocoon - 85', in which Don Ameche was nominated a support actor Oscar and then won. If one knows of the film, could it be argued that the nomination was undeserving, compared to Wilfred Brimley, Hume Cronyn and Jack Gilford in the same film, who to my mind gave much stronger and more layered performances than Ameche and the other supp. actors who were nominated that year.
But the question the OP is asking is "least good actor in general." I don't disagree with your comments about Don Ameche's nomination/win for Cocoon, but what does that have to do with the OP's question? There are many great actors who have received Oscars for performances that aren't very impressive. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 13, 2018 3:52:10 GMT
"How do you define 'worst'"
Least talented, least deserving, etc. This is not a very difficult concept to grasp. I swear your just being purposely obtuse.
"which DOES imply he is also a bad actor?"
If you want to infer it that way fine, I've already explained how "worst" and "bad" aren't synonyms, so whatever.
"Like your math test analogy"
That was not an "analogy", that was an example to demosntrate the difference between "bad" and "worst", this has already been explained to you. Why are your repeating arguments I've already addressed?
"which is all subjective."
I never said it wasn't subjective, so I'm just gonna call that a Strawman.
Just like your own straw man, because you can't properly defend your argument, because the defense is too subjective. I guess you just don't like getting called out. Yawn. You didn't address anything I actually I said, just a bunch of ramblings about nothing. Predictably lame. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 13, 2018 3:54:32 GMT
In 'comparison' to the other nominees that year, in which a better case could be made for why they didn't deserve to win. Or even in comparison to the other actors in the film, which weren't even nominated.
Take Cocoon - 85', in which Don Ameche was nominated a support actor Oscar and then won. If one knows of the film, could it be argued that the nomination was undeserving, compared to Wilfred Brimley, Hume Cronyn and Jack Gilford in the same film, who to my mind gave much stronger and more layered performances than Ameche and the other supp. actors who were nominated that year.
But the question the OP is asking is "least good actor in general." I don't disagree with your comments about Don Ameche's nomination/win for Cocoon, but what does that have to do with the OP's question. There are many great actors who have received Oscars for performances that aren't very impressive. 'Least good' still implies some valid argument and defense of that claim. How can that be found, when it is not really an absolute. It is too generalized to my mind. Even if one claims that a specific actor is not that impressive and won an Oscar, how is that consensus of the worst overall?
It needs to be in comparison to a more fixed compartment, like my Ameche example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 13, 2018 3:54:53 GMT
Just like your own straw man, because you can't properly defend your argument, because the defense is too subjective. I guess you just don't like getting called out. Yawn. You didn't address anything I actually I said, just a bunch of ramblings about nothing. Predictably lame. Was it worth addressing? |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 13, 2018 3:55:47 GMT
Yawn. You didn't address anything I actually I said, just a bunch of ramblings about nothing. Predictably lame. Was it worth addressing? So still nothing, I see. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Nov 13, 2018 3:55:53 GMT
In 'comparison' to the other nominees that year, in which a better case could be made for why they didn't deserve to win. Or even in comparison to the other actors in the film, which weren't even nominated.
Take Cocoon - 85', in which Don Ameche was nominated a support actor Oscar and then won. If one knows of the film, could it be argued that the nomination was undeserving, compared to Wilfred Brimley, Hume Cronyn and Jack Gilford in the same film, who to my mind gave much stronger and more layered performances than Ameche and the other supp. actors who were nominated that year.
There are many great actors who have received Oscars for performances that aren't very impressive. I'm assuming you're talking about Paul Newman for The Color of Money, Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 13, 2018 3:56:37 GMT
Just like your own straw man, because you can't properly defend your argument, because the defense is too subjective. I guess you just don't like getting called out. Yawn. You didn't address anything I actually I said, just a bunch of ramblings about nothing. Predicatably lame. I think this whole thing is getting ridiculous. Let me get this straight using Toasted Cheese's argument. The question you are asking is "Least good actor in general to win an Oscar?" right?
If that is the case then I don't see why you and Toasted Cheese need to even continue discussing it. I knew what you meant by "worst" because that is how I use the word too. That is a much different question than "least deserving performance to win an Oscar." |
|
