The big winner? Ricky Gervais.
I'm still not sure who won the Gervais-Downey Jr. exchange. Gervais' crack about RDJ's past drug troubles was both overly mean and (even worse) lazy, but RDJ's hurt, judgmental response wasn't really appropriate for someone who seems so generally unflappable and went on to proposition all five best actress nominees. I think Downey Jr. probably will triumph in the court of public opinion, as he's a national treasure and everyone loves him, but there was no need for the decision to be this close.
Don't leave out Steve Carell's shove:
For real?
No. It was clearly staged, like previous Gervais/Carell interactions at award shows.
Ah. I guess I need to watch more of these things. On second thought, nah. Gervais will never be back.
Yes, the Golden Globes will act like Gervais was out-of-line for doing exactly what they asked him to do and delivering the highest ratings for the broadcast since 2007.
gervais > carell
No. Based on star power and earnings, Carell is quite clearly > Gervais.
so then britney spears is better then both of them. dont be stupid.
so then britney spears is better then both of them.
In general, yes. I thought we were comparing Carell and Gervais' worth as comedians/actors, however, where they both have a clear earnings advantage over Britney Spears.
It's funny isn't it how this Tupac Shakur joke never gets old?
Oh wait, it did...
Speaking of Erith:
"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith
just cus carell have more money does not mean his a better "comedian/actor" then gervais. just means his better at makeing money. keanu reeves is hardly a better actor then anthony hopkins. his just better at beeing in movies that makes money.
just cus carell have more money does not mean his a better "comedian/actor" then gervais.
Of course it does.
just means his better at makeing money.
Yes, because more people want to watch his comedy/acting projects, making him the better comedian/actor.
keanu reeves is hardly a better actor then anthony hopkins. his just better at beeing in movies that makes money.
I wouldn't be too sure that Mr. Reeves has outgrossed Sir Anthony Hopkins.
edit: Total Box Office
Anthony Hopkins
US Gross - $1,848,157,349
Worldwide Gross - $3,509,001,319
Keanu Reeves
US Gross - $1,797,740,914
Worldwide Gross - $3,978,121,442
So, Hopkins is better than Reeves in the US, but Reeves is better globally. Also, the US is clearly more cultured than the rest of the world.
Last edited by Tupac Shakur; January 17, 2011 at 17:34.
Carell vs Gervais isn't even close...
Steve Carell
US Gross - $1,617,419,373
Worldwide Gross - $2,926,785,858
Ricky Gervais
US Gross - $523,473,848
Worldwide Gross - $1,249,680,572
What Tim Allen should've said...
Tim Allen
US Gross - $1,980,042,624
Worldwide Gross - $3,514,428,172
Ricky Gervais
US Gross - $523,473,848
Worldwide Gross - $1,249,680,572
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
so you dont even agree whit your own point then. if it makes your american ego feel any better i think louis ck is better then both of them.Originally Posted by Tupac Shakur
also if you think tim allen is better then gervais your just so wrong its not even funny.
also if you think tim allen is better then gervais your just so wrong its not even funny.
The reason I'm using objective metrics is so that I don't have to deal with opinion (especially yours, which are wrong).
so Reeves a better actor then Hopkins then?. you cant use an "objective metric" on something that is clearly subjectiv.
or are you saying that any ridiculous superstar these days are worht more then galileo? some **** just cant be measured in money. i have seen your posts on this site for a long time drake and you have posted alot about how the common man is retarded. you dont let retarded people make up your mind do you?
The only problem with "objective Metrics" are the metrics you use.
Based on "YOUR" metrics, Stan Lee is ranked 16th overall, and is one of the leading actors of all time on a per film basis.
And his roles in those classic movies...
The Incredible Hulk Milwaukee - Man Drinking From Bottle
Bigger, Stronger, Faster* - Himself
Iron Man - Himself
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - Rejected Wedding Guest
Spider-Man - 3 Man in the Street
X-Men: The Last Stand - Waterhose Man
Fantastic Four - Mailman Willie Lumpkin
The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement - Three Stooges Wedding Guest
Spider-Man 2 - Man Dodging Debris
Hulk - Security Guard
Daredevil - Old Man at Crossing
Spider-Man - Man in Times Square
X-Men - Hot Dog Vendor
Mallrats - Himself
I guess that makes him a big Box Office Draw as an actor.
While I may go and see a Stan Lee movie, it certainly isn't to see him in the film
Keep on Civin'
RIP Baron O
or are you saying that any ridiculous superstar these days are worht more then galileo?
Obviously.
Stan Lee is ranked 16th overall
I have no problem with that ranking.
you have posted alot about how the common man is retarded.
This is blatantly false. I have great respect for all my brothers and sisters still out on the street, doing what they need to do just to survive.
Well, we all can agree that Tupac is a worthless poster at least
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Drake acts like an autistic for laughs.
"I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger
QFT
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
While I'd generally agree with you that this measure of value is superior in virtually all areas (arts included), couldn't it be argued that there's a certain degree of information asymmetry here? Had Gervais' exact personality and brand of humor developed in the U.S. (five times more populous than the U.K. and with immeasurably more international exposure), perhaps his earning power would have been thrice what it is and therefore more than Carell's. In other words, the disparity between the two could be attributable more to a lengthy period of inadequate information in the U.S. market than how effective either is at actually eliciting laughs per capita per hour on average.
But then again this is coming from a guy who has never subjected himself to an econ class or an econ book or an econ article or an econ thread in his entire life and never will under any circumstances, so be gentle.
Last edited by Darius871; January 18, 2011 at 22:24.
And also, The Office sucks.
Had Gervais' exact personality and brand of humor developed in the U.S.
This simply isn't possible. Gervais' humour is distinctively English, which is why he's a lesser comedian than Carell.
Arguing that Gervais might have developed a better brand of humour (possibly superior to Carell's) had he grown up as an American is a more plausible and interesting counterfactual, but, much like your own counterfactual, wouldn't have anything to do with information asymmetry.
Carell
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks