Not only untrue, but a terribly unfair generalization. However, there are certain performers and directors that, based upon track record, are likely to draw our attention, much in the same way that storm chasers can recognize thunderstorms which are likely to produce tornadoes based on certain common patterns. Not all of those storms ultimately produce tornadoes, but a lot of them do. In my experience on this board, however, few films are discussed until either a day or so prior to their general release, or often thereafter.

You guys also seem to ignore all of the good movies out there. Say half the movies in one year are not worth seeing. Even though there would be a lot of bad movies that doesn't mean that there is nothing good that year. What happened to the other half?

Please, let's be fair. There were 400+ movies released this year, the vast majority of which were not discussed on this board. There is considerably more attention paid to the bad ones for one simple reason: That is what the forum is all about.

There have been a few instances where I have voiced disagreement over the worthiness of Razzie consideration for films mentioned on the board, and I have yet to have my stripes ripped of, my sword broken over the commander's knee and been marched unceremoniously out of the fort. There have also been instances, one just yesterday, where I have made mention of films I have enjoyed. But allow me to suggest, once again, that you consider just what the purpose of this board is, and that of the  organization that sponsors it.

Response from Head RAZZberry: As saturnwatcher pointed out, the RAZZIES are not about discussing good movies. They are in many ways (and perversely to some) about the love of certain bad movies. We are not here simply to rag, but to derive pleasure (and revenge) from the act of publicly letting those whose movies, performances and efforts let us down know that we noticed. And if you'll check our Complete List of 2006 Releases, you'll find that just under 500 films were "eligible" for RAZZIE Consideration this year. Of those, we have about 65 of them under discussion (roughly 13% of all films released). Anyone who sees a great many movies is well aware that at least 1-in-10 stinks in some way or another, so I would argue that with 65 discussed titles, we're actually not that far off the mark...

Originally posted by wow-o-wow What the Hell is wrong with you guys? Do you do this in every aspect of your life? If so, then I am guessing you are all very very lonely people. Once you see the movie, then you can go to your mother's basement and bitch about it to your cyber buddies... Douches, all of you!

Wow-o-wow is right, you guys often heavily diss movies you have not seen that could go either way, but you automatically assume it will be bad.

The problem is that you guys seem to have no middle ground. Every movie has to be very good and if it is not it is very bad and razzie worthy. What happened to movies that are fine but forgettable? (example: the new Pink Panther)

You guys also seem to ignor all of the good movies out there. Say half the movies in one year are not worth seeing. Even though there would be a lot of bad movies that doesn't mean that there is nothing good that year. What happened to the other half?

And what is this HCE? 

On my nominating ballot, I am mainly going to attack Garfield 2 and Santa Claus 3. They have poisoned young kids' minds with the originals, and now they are poisoning them again with sequels. They are also poisoning older kids with movies like Material Girls, causing the "plastic generation." So, when you vote to nominate movies, think of little kids exposed to too many fart jokes.

Please, do it for the kids!

Hey Headrazz, I was on IMDb today couldn't help but notice there was a movie classed as the Worst called Bottoms Up. This movie was released this year, and stars Razzie winner Paris Hilton. I'm sure you would jump at the opportunity to attack this movie. Also, their worst 3 movies had all been released this year.

Linky 

Response from Head RAZZberry: I just did some quick on-line research and, according to The IMDb, BOTTOMS UP was released direct-to-DVD last September, meaning that, technically, it is not eligible for the RAZZIES.  I also went ahead and checked info on Paris Hilton's other as yet un-released starring vehicle, PLEDGE THIS (which B.O. MoJo listed as scheduled for release in November of 2005). The IMDb now lists December 19, 2006 as the release date for PLEDGE. Guess we'll know by year's end if Mizz Hilton is (or is not) eligible to possibly "win" a second RAZZIE in a row... 

   When I saw the list of movies that Razzie Forum visitors had bad-mouthed in the last year, I was shocked to see that Date Movie and Just My Luck weren't posted. With the exception of Silent Hill, I don't think that there were two worse movies than this in 2006. I saw Date Movie in a packed movie theatre, and not a single person was laughing at any of the "jokes". You literally could have heard a pin drop. The only reason I saw Just My Luck was because I had seen everything else my local movie theatre was playing. The film didn't do one original, funny or clever thing with its concept. I think I'd rather be tied to a chair and forced to watch Dukes Of Hazzard for several viewings in a row than watch Just My Luck again. When I fill out my Razzie nomination ballot next month, Date Movie and Just My Luck will receive several mentions from me, along with Silent Hill, Talladega Nights and The Grudge 2. 

Response from Head RAZZberry: DATE MOVIE has gotten several mentions in our Forum lately, but never rose to the level of having its own Discussion. JUST MY LUCK is currently on our Preliminary List of 2006 Contenders, with Lindsay Lohan considered as a potential Worst Actress choice. Guess you'll have to wait 'till your Official RAZZIE Nominating Ballot arrives around New Year's to see if either film is listed...

It's now December 1, 2006 and, looking back on the 14 titles I chose to list last January, I think it had some pretty good guess-timates. Most of what's now being talked about as 2006's Berry Worst made the list.

I'll admit not listing LITTLE MAN was an oversight, but 11 months ago, the world was a much better place...because absolutely no one was discussing that film.

Speedy, are you trolling the Razzie boards now? Or is it another clam handler? [PUKE EMOTICON]

Originally posted by Tony So you say Tom Cruise hasn't been in a good film in years? Are you kidding me? Come on. You must have the worst taste in film in general if you dislike ALL of these films which came out in the past few years: Minority Report, Magnolia, Vanilla Sky, Collateral, The Last Samurai, Eyes Wide Shut. It is one thing  to have a bias against someone, something I have never really understood and do not have (although Paul Walker seems to be just terrible in general), but to say what you said is a tad extreme. I really don't understand how people can just say "I hate 'so and so!" I just don't get it...

Yeah...I had a laugh watching V for Vendetta too. I don't think it's as bad as a lot of other movies that came out this year, though(mainly because so many of the movies that came out this year were so frighteningly bad!), but I have to admit I couldn't believe that someone thought Portman's "English" accent was good enough to immortalise in a movie. Do these people think their films don't get shown in England?? It was almost offensive!

Also...I wonder why they had to go and change the graphic novel's story so much. I mean...they practically had a storyboard already written out for them...and they had to go and spoil it! The original story would have been so much better in every way...and probably much more successful at the box office too, so I just don't get it!

I think V for Vendetta should also be nominated:

The editing was so bad and the story itself was nothing new. This film tries so desperately to be more than it is.

Not to mention Natalie Shortman's accent!!!