[TriggerMan]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Yes the guild is much like asking a workers union if all it's employee's have done a good job. According to them they'll always say yes.

Except the SAG wasn't nominating every writer for doing a "great job." They selected only a handful who they thought were doing a great job. K&O were by far not the only candidates, yet still made it in the elite few.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Yes the guild is much like asking a workers union if all it's employee's have done a good job. According to them they'll always say yes.

More to the point...leaning on an Authority too much can lead to fallacies of logic. Endorsing I understand but reasoning and syllogism based on authority are logical fallacies.

Indeed. Seems kinda strange that a writer's union gives out awards. So whom will they nominee? Of course the ones who made the most money, they thus also made the most money for the union.

[kevin]

Presumably then any peer to peer style award is strange and suspect then?

[horatio]

Not strange, just pretty pointless.

[kevin]

Then it makes no difference who is nominated and who wins then!

[horatio]

Yep, once you understand the payments structures of a union and thus their motives, it becomes just another puzzle piece in the cause-less "it was good because it made money and made money because it was good" loop.

[kevin]

Yes, I know that's your favourite mantra - and it's probably Hollywood's as well, but since that particular pattern has been ongoing for quite some time (as it does in Sports or Political awards i.e backpatting friends) then it's really just part of the process that afflicts all awards ceremonies.

Which means there's even less reason to bother heavily with it.

[OneBuckFilms]

It was good because most people, including most critics, loved it.
It made money because most people loved it enough to see it multiple times.
If it was not good, it would not have made money in a steady stream. It would have a much sharper drop off in income, and may not have made much more than Nemesis, if they were lucky.

[horatio]

Another one captured in the cause-less loop.

Whether it is good or bad lies in the eyes of the beholder, so when it is good, it is good because YOU like it, not because the majority says so. Gee, folks, get de-borg-ified and have the guts to have an opinion which has nothing to do with aggregated opinions.

[OneBuckFilms]

Originally Posted by horatio

Another one captured in the cause-less loop.

Whether it is good or bad lies in the eyes of the beholder, so when it is good, it is good because YOU like it, not because the majority says so. Gee, folks, get de-borg-ified and have the guts to have an opinion which has nothing to do with aggregated opinions.

Since good or bad is in the eye of the beholder, then we must trust the majority of the beholders.