Who Will Be Remembered Longer?

[dsm]

http://www.etheron.net/Activos/citas/Chaplin.jpg http://www.iqm.ro/beatles/imag/beatles8_x.jpg

[jakethebake]

...and speaking of arbitrary posts that just clog up the forum.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
...and speaking of arbitrary posts that just clog up the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

you read minds well young skywalker

[CallMeIshmael]

I cant even begin to think how this could even be sort of close.

[DBowling]

charlie who?

[Voltron87]

stp postin plz. thnx bai.

[SackUp]

[ QUOTE ]
stp postin plz. thnx bai.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed!

Polltard nominee.

[ QUOTE ]
I cant even begin to think how this could even be sort of close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care what a bunch of under-23-year-old, hottest-chick votin', I-can't-think-for-myself-so-help-me-pick-an-avatar askin' OOTers think. As long as there is a movie-awards show like The Academy Awards, Chaplin will never be forgotten. I don't care if it's 50,000 years from now, they'll always pay tribute to the ones who started it all.

Obviously the same can be said for The Beatles, no question about it. My only point is that in the long run, I believe it will be closer than most 2+2ers may suspect. And frankly, I can't imagine either being forgotten.

Peace, -iL douché


http://www.ex.ac.uk/bill.douglas/Schools/stars/chaplin2.jpg http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=chaplin+etching/v=2/SID=w/l=IVS/SIG=121i26fem/EXP=1115762695/*-http%3A//silentgents.com/ChaplinC/Chaplin46.jpg

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the same can be said for The Beatles, no question about it. My only point is that in the long run, I believe it will be closer than most 2+2ers may suspect. And frankly, I can't imagine either being forgotten

[/ QUOTE ]

You will hear the beatles music, and references to it, more often than you will even hear anything about Chaplin.

How often is a chaplin special on TV? Or even one of his movies? Compare that to the beatles constant rotation on the radio and commercials.

It's not even close.

b

[ QUOTE ]
How often is a chaplin special on TV? Or even one of his movies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you don't have cable.

[jojobinks]

chaplin's last major directing job was in 1952, and his heydey was the 1930's. he's already been remembered longer.

the beatles are great; but they are remembered more b/c it's easier to give them playtime; 3 minutes (beatles song) vs 60 or so (chaplin film).

chaplin will be remembered for a long long time. btw...how many other directors can you name from the 1930's? 2 or three, maybe? you can clearly name more musicians from the 1960's...

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
...and speaking of arbitrary posts that just clog up the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

How the [censored] can OOT be clogged up? It's OOT -- "other other topics." As in, all the [censored] that doesn't go in the other forums, goes here.

[B Dids]

This is a much more interesting post than "Miss OOT 2.21651". It's nice to see the people responsible for making OOT suck saying "this sucks post more like us".

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
the beatles are great; but they are remembered more b/c it's easier to give them playtime; 3 minutes (beatles song) vs 60 or so (chaplin film).

[/ QUOTE ]

This was kind of my point. Not to mention the vast number of outlets for their music in comparison to a visual media. Beatles are much more accessible.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously you don't have cable

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what you may hear when it's a commercial during a chaplin movie? A beatles tune.

b

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I cant even begin to think how this could even be sort of close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't begin to think why anyone would care. Or who would bother to voite in this poll.

[AncientPC]

I voted Chaplin.

Beatles may be more popular, but Chaplin started it all. A thousand years from now, Beatles will only be remembered as a bump in music's history but Chaplin will still be remembered. The Beatles aren't on the same level as Mozart, and they don't define a genre of music.

How is current popularity a measure of a member / group's contribution to their art? Britney Spears is insanely popular, does that mean that her music will still be listened to in 20 years?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Britney Spears is insanely popular, does that mean that her music will still be listened to in 20 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see a difference between Britney and the Beatles?

b

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Britney Spears is insanely popular, does that mean that her music will still be listened to in 20 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see a difference between Britney and the Beatles?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there's a difference, I'm just arguing that current popularity doesn't properly gauge artists' impact in future years.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

not even close.

[rmarotti]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a much more interesting post than "Miss OOT 2.21651". It's nice to see the people responsible for making OOT suck saying "this sucks post more like us".

[/ QUOTE ]

P.O.T.Y.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The Beatles...don't define a genre of music.

[/ QUOTE ]

They arent a whole lot of acts out there that had more to do with the shape of modern popular music than the beatles.

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
They arent a whole lot of acts out there that had more to do with the shape of modern popular music than the beatles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you be a little more specific? How do you see today's most popular music, which I assume is Hip Hop & Rap (or a combination of the two), "shaped" by The Beatles?

-dsm

[JaBlue]

Who the [censored] is Charles Chaplain?

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
Who the [censored] is Charles Chaplain?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://streetsmartstv.warnerbros.com/street/images/logo.jpg Didn't I see you interviewed on Street Smarts recently? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

-dsm

[tdarko]

does anyone find the comparison between these two very odd?

the poll should be something like: Orson Welles vs. Chaplin and Elvis vs. The Beatles.

you cannot compare director/actors with singer/bands.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
does anyone find the comparison between these two very odd?

the poll should be something like: Orson Welles vs. Chaplin and Elvis vs. The Beatles.

you cannot compare director/actors with singer/bands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure this has something to do with the fact that the OP is a moran.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't care what a bunch of under-23-year-old, hottest-chick votin', I-can't-think-for-myself-so-help-me-pick-an-avatar askin' OOTers think. As long as there is a movie-awards show like The Academy Awards, Chaplin will never be forgotten.


[/ QUOTE ]

you're right. it's those 80 year olds that will make sure chaplin will never be forgotten.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you be a little more specific? How do you see today's most popular music, which I assume is Hip Hop & Rap (or a combination of the two), "shaped" by The Beatles?

[/ QUOTE ]

The beatles had a greater influennce on the song structure of modern pop-rock type music than any other act.

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't begin to think why anyone would care. Or who would bother to voite in this poll.

[/ QUOTE ]


For someone who "claims" he can't imagine why anyone would care, you sure are visiting and posting in this thread a lot. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

-dsm

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
For someone who "claims" he can't imagine why anyone would care, you sure are visiting and posting in this thread a lot. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif -dsm

[/ QUOTE ]

None of my posts are actually related to the topic and I still have not voted. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Blarg]

There are tons of people already who have never seen a Chaplin film and probably never will, or who have seen maybe one, and will probably never see another.

I used to work in a video store, and constantly saw the same sentiment that you see sometimes echoed here: "I don't like black and white movies." People who aren't film buffs or comedy "completists" of a sort just don't watch old movies, especially silent ones with people few of their friends know or care about. Chaplin will live forever in the minds of film buffs, but he's pretty damn dead now.

Not so the Beatles. They still play documentaries on them during PBS pledge drives to bring in money, their songs still get covered, musicians still talk about their influence every day, they're still huge sellers who until recently never got their albums discounted even though they broke up 30 years ago. They're still on the radio every day even now, which is pretty phenomenal for any music star.

And they permeated an era. They were truly enormous during the 60's and helped set the tone for the times in all sorts of ways that had nothing to do with music. You can't really say that about Chaplin, no matter how much you love him. He was never "bigger than Jesus" or an international cultural phenomenon, even though he was an international star. He was just a very popular, extremely gifted filmmaker and comedian. His supreme position at the start of the movies ensures he'll never be forgotten for historical reasons by film buffs and historians, but he has little to no pull on the public consciousness these days, and that's not going to be changing.

For every time even a big Chaplin fan has seen a Chaplin movie, he's probably heard thousands of Beatles songs, and will probably hear thousands more.

I wish old movies had more legs, because they're very often much better than the ones made today. But the fact is, being a film buff is a specialist's love. Most people just watch movies, that's all. And the great names of the old days are either unrecognizable or have no pull with most people now. That's not where the culture is at and it's not where the culture is headed.

But the Beatles will be influencing musicians and creating fond memories and good times with their music for a long time to come. Go to any store and you'll find Beatles albums for a long time. Go to any store and try to find a Chaplin movie...pretty darn unlikely. Ask any friend if he's seen this or that Chaplin movie or if he even knows the names of one or more Chaplin movies, and you'll come up with a lot of empty.