Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1960
- Joined: December 16th, 2004
- Location: Burbank, Calif.
Post
by droosan » December 19th, 2010, 8:45 am
Zach wrote:I'm confused. Shouldn't it be from the years 2000-2009. 2010 starts a new decade.
It all depends upon whether one starts counting from '1' or from '0'. Both methods seem equally correct (or incorrect, depending upon whom you ask). But both reference a ten-year period .. which is the definition of a 'decade,' in either case.
.. I'd kinda thought everyone had tired of this 'chestnut' during the arguments over whether 2000 or 2001 was the start of the new millennium ..
about a decade ago.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25715
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Post
by Ben » December 19th, 2010, 9:31 am
Well, since no-one really starts a count at 0, we went with the 1-10 angle. Pretty simple, no?
-
Post
by American_dog_2008 » December 19th, 2010, 10:20 am
My top 3
1. Bolt
2. Alpha & Omega
3. Roadside Romeo
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8279
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
-
Contact:
Post
by James » December 19th, 2010, 10:43 am
There are really two reasons we did it this way.
The first is what has been mentioned. There are two ways to count decades (and centuries and millennia). Starting with 0 is the simplest as you can then call it the 40's, or the 1770's. Starting with 1 is more properly correct calendar-wise as the year 1-10 was the first decade, 11-20 the second decade, and so on.
The second reason we did it this way is because we didn't think of the idea last year!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Post
by EricJ » December 19th, 2010, 3:56 pm
Wondered why "Chicken Run" and "Emperor's New Groove" weren't on the list!
-
Post
by American_dog_2008 » December 19th, 2010, 5:01 pm
And no "Belka i Strelka Space Dogs"?
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: August 9th, 2005
Post
by Zach » December 19th, 2010, 9:42 pm
Yeah, it could go both ways. But it doesn't really matter, as long as it's ten years.
I really like the idea of this. I'm interested to see the results.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8279
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
-
Contact:
Post
by James » December 21st, 2010, 11:49 pm
I moved a couple of posts from here to
here that I think were placed in the wrong thread
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 70
- Joined: March 16th, 2009
Post
by Locall » January 7th, 2011, 5:32 pm
So when will we see the results exactly?
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 7389
- Joined: October 23rd, 2004
- Location: SaskaTOON, Canada
Post
by Randall » January 7th, 2011, 7:13 pm
We hope to post them very soon. (I'm anxious to find out the results myself!) We had hoped to have them up by now, but other issues have delayed that post. Stay tooned, and we'll have those up ASAP.
-
Post
by American_dog_2008 » January 20th, 2011, 2:43 pm
I'm waiting flor the results damned!
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 7389
- Joined: October 23rd, 2004
- Location: SaskaTOON, Canada
Post
by Randall » January 20th, 2011, 7:35 pm
Interesting syntax.
But yes, we feel your anguish. It's time to let everyone know that James, who was handling that poll, is on temporary leave from active duty on the site, attending to some medical issues. He'll be back, but we can't say when that will be. In the meantime, we shall have to be patient and simply wish James well.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8279
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
-
Contact:
Post
by James » January 31st, 2011, 12:56 pm
Hello! I've been away for about a month due to a pretty serious medical problem. I'm still in recuperation mode but am ready to start slowly getting back into the swing of things. For now I'll probably just try to post news. Hopefully in a week or two I can get those Best of the Decade articles up. Thanks to everyone for their patience
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 608
- Joined: January 22nd, 2007
Post
by Whippet Angel » January 31st, 2011, 4:34 pm
Glad to hear you're doing better.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 14
- Joined: January 31st, 2011
- Location: The Netherlands
-
Contact:
Post
by Czarine » February 1st, 2011, 10:45 am
droosan wrote:Zach wrote:I'm confused. Shouldn't it be from the years 2000-2009. 2010 starts a new decade.
It all depends upon whether one starts counting from '1' or from '0'. Both methods seem equally correct (or incorrect, depending upon whom you ask). But both reference a ten-year period .. which is the definition of a 'decade,' in either case.
.. I'd kinda thought everyone had tired of this 'chestnut' during the arguments over whether 2000 or 2001 was the start of the new millennium ..
about a decade ago.
So you'd say it's correct to state that the year 2000 was in the 90s? I thought that the start of the new millennium being 2000 was a fact, I never heard of this discussion before.
Anyway, here's my list:
1. Wall-E
2. How To Train Your Dragon
3. Up
4. Kung Fu Panda
5. Brother Bear
6. Finding Nemo
7. Legend of the Guardians
8. The Princess and the Frog
9. Bolt
10. Fantastic Mr. Fox
That's my list. I think I probably could have missed something, but this was what I could come up with on such short notice.
Last edited by
Czarine on February 1st, 2011, 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.