Weird. I'm having the same discussions on multiple websites today. Spent a good chunk of the day talking about how terrible Dragonball looks...   

Originally posted by Michaels To quote Shia Lebeouf: NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO! Keep Keanu FAR away from "Cowboy Bebop". For that matter, keep H-Wood away from it as well, seeing as how they ruined "Speed Racer" and are now ruining "DragonBall Z". But if the movie must be made, the role of Spike Spiegel was tailor made for Sam Rockwell.

]]> Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:50:25 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2631&PID=20437#20437 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2631&PID=20436#20436 Author: Michaels
Subject: 2631
Posted: January 17 2009 at 11:28am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley For those of you who like to go the extra nerd mile, there is a plan to make an American live action version of the actually-pretty-sleek Japanese cartoon "Cowboy Bebop," which is about a slick character named Spike Spiegel who is a bounty hunter in the future. A little bit of a corny premise, but it's the kind of show that could really have a fairly broad audience. This all, of course leads up to who is going to play Spike, and the obvious answer as it relates to Michaels last post. Yes, they wanna put Keanu in the role, and no, if he does his Keanu character, it will not look/sound right. For some reason, I almost wanna say Sam Rockwell, or someone of that sort of sarcastic air would be better.

To quote Shia Lebeouf: NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO! Keep Keanu FAR away from "Cowboy Bebop". For that matter, keep H-Wood away from it as well, seeing as how they ruined "Speed Racer" and are now ruining "DragonBall Z". But if the movie must be made, the role of Spike Spiegel was tailor made for Sam Rockwell.

Age has only one benefit; it teaches you that the long view is not to be underappreciated, and not everything needs to happen right now, this instant. I've never really indicated that Boll isn't worthy of our attentions, particularly for his present efforts. However, when "career" awards come under consideration, there are numerous names that have never really been appropriately discussed who have made monumental contributions to the art of bad film.

If Uwe Boll never makes another movie, he has a pretty impressive list of bad films to consider, but they'll be just as bad 10 or 15 or 20 years from now while other worthy names are considered. I'd be inclined to make the same argument for Keanu Reeves. I thnk it's way to early to be tossing his name in the hat, although that has been done.

Was Boll's career as long as Stallone's? No. Is he worthy of our attention? Hell yeah! The man's career is over, and it was a career that was nothing but turds that shouldn't have been made in the first place. Stallone will always have "Rocky 1" and "Copland", but there's no silver lining to Boll's cloudy filmography (does that count as a word?). Let's face it, when your last movie is released in ONE theater, someone should stick a fork in you, because you're done. Now you can say he's still young and could rebound any day now, but with such crap like "BloodRayne 3" and "Zombie Massacre" listed as works in pre-production Hades, I doubt he will make any comeback.

We still act as though this catagory is down to Stallone and Boll; mind you, Madonna and Keanu Reeves are also in it. Madonna is the female equal to Stallone when it comes to bad movies, and she has quit acting, so she is VERY worthy of this award, too. And Reeves has managed to dodge us more than any other actor, so this might be as good as time as any to razz him with the 20th anniversary of "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" being around the corner, the movie that made him a star in the first place. We'll know for sure in less than a week who will get Razzed indeed.

I'm not holding out much hope for Elvis in the future. He must be exhausted by now scratching on the lid of his coffin. (rimshot)

Nonetheless, you make a good point, and one that I have raised before. I think we have become too bogged down with contemporary figures and haven't really taken a good look at past offenders.

Stallone has been around a long time and probably deserves whatever we throw at him (certainly so, by virtue of his career body of work.) Guys like Uwe Boll are building an impressive resume, but I really think (NOTE: THIS IS MY OPINION) he is a couple decades shy of needing to be on our radar screen. Meanwhile, a lot of really deserving figures from the past, such as Elvis, The Three Stooges, Bela Lugosi et al are ignored.

Incidentally, I offer a challenge to anyone on the board with time on their hands. Go to a prominent Stallone fan board, sign on with the name "Stallonesucks" and post a polite chat about the weather. Please then report back to us as to whether or not your reception is anywhere near as polite as the recent participant in this thread received.

Any hopes on Elvis in the future???  I think he's been involved with more bombs than the Air Force...

All right...more corn than Iowa might be more accurate...

Originally posted by dEd Grimley How is this damn argument still going on?

True. It's past Janurary 10, the cut off date for the voting ballots. No argument is going to swing any votes now, because all the voting is done. Now it's all up to who gets the most votes. Who knows, we might get a surprise and Madonna or Keanu Reeves might get the award instead.

When I said Rambo wasn't a film that I was pleased with, I was referring to Rambo (2008), I know in foreign countries First Blood is known as Rambo, so perhaps you were mistaken. As for when I said First Blood is a great film, the word "great" is completely subjective, you made an assumption on your part that by saying "great" I was saying that First Blood was on par with the Godfather. Nowhere in my post did I even hint that I felt First Blood was on that level of a film. Do I feel it's a very good film, yes. It can be said that the film itself was revolutionary, seeing as how the "action" films made before this one where films like The French Connection. First Blood took it to a whole new level, mixing both the dramatic and action in a way never before seen. Like I said, I like the film, Stallone's performance is top notch, as is Dennhey and Crenna, the film has its issues, Stallone himself even makes note that he would have liked to cut a few scenes from the film because they are very distracting to the tone of the film. And despite the fact that I think First Blood is a very good film; I would kind like the idea of it being remade, only if it followed the book more closely.

It seems as if words are being put into my mouth. At no point did I ever accuse razziesucks of making personal attacks on me. I merely pointed out that his name is an affront to the organization, however, I followed that with an assurance that it was unlikely that he would be insulted in kind. As to Mayhem, he might want to go back and objectively read his "good natured" post.

Now, I just want to comment on one quote by razziesucks:

Why in the world have you continued to talk about Rambo, I've said that I wasn't very happy with the finish project, does mean I'm putting it on a level of the Godfather?

Actually, you did, at the very least, attempt to raise First Blood to that level by referring to it as "a great film." In the 100 year history of motion pictures, roughly 0-2 truly great films have been released in any given year on average. FB isn't on that list. Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind, The Godfather, Wizard of Oz and Rambo:First Blood? One of these things is not like theothers...Sorry...it just isn't in that company. You may enjoy it...it may be your favorite film, more power to you...but it isn't a "great film" by any measure.

Incidentally,

Benjamin Button also failed to win a Golden Glob, which historically is a poor indicator of what AMPAS will do. The guess here is that it might get nominated...it won't win...but I could be wrong.

I though I said this before. After Cop Land, Studio's essentially turned their backs on Stallone, because Stallone said he didn't want to did action film anymore or at least on the level he had been making it in the past few years. Stallone got close to some interesting projects like Suspect Zero or Dolan's Cadillac (which sounds horrible now), but they never came to fruition.

Stallone does have some interesting stuff coming up hopefully, The Expendables could be a good film seeing as he put in Mickey Rourke, Forest Whitaker and possibly Ben Kingsley to even out the action cast of Statham, Li, and Lundgren. Hopefully he doesn't make another Rambo and makes this film he's been talking about called the Lions Game which seems like it could be his In The Line of Fire type film. And maybe one day we'll see his long waited Edgar Allan Poe film. He may have screwed he career up to a degree, but I still see a decent future him.

BTW, if you watch Cop Land, get the Director’s Cut, had this been the version released, Stallone might have gone an Oscar nomination.

Again, I'm not here to stop you guys from nominating Stallone, I'm just to see if any of you are open minded enough to believe that Stallone might actually be a pretty good actor. I didn't really think much him as an actor until I had seen F.I.S.T, and mind you by that time I had already seen Rocky and First Blood, and would never have thought to compare him to De Niro. But as I started watching the guy’s body of work, I saw that he really is a great actor. I doubt any of you will come to that conclusion, but perhaps you'll see that he is a pretty solid actor when given decent material.

I'm very, very sorry if I insulted any of you by saying that there is no diversity on this board. What does it matter, what are you arguing about? I'm arguing about Stallone the actor; you're arguing that I condemned you guys. Please.

Why in the world have you continued to talk about Rambo, I've said that I wasn't very happy with the finish project, does mean I'm putting it on a level of the Godfather? And about the film not focusing on the Burmese, the point I was trying to make was that Stallone couldn't work or build up an actual charactet from the oppressed Buremese people. That would have conflicted with what he was trying to do with Rambo the character, trying to bring him to a proper conclusion. You said you wanted to empathize with the people, the only proper way to do that is by building a character that you can feel empathy for, what I'm saying is that Stallone couldn't do that here seeing how it would have dragged down the film, so instead he just showed as the injustice these people go through without really getting to know them.

As for why I defend Stallone, it's just like if someone insulted De Niro, Rourke, Pacino etc. as an actor, I'd go ahead and defend them. Not that hard to understand. And my arguments are strawman, okay sure, maybe you need to re-read what Saturns was attempting to argue with, then we can talk strawman arguments.

Now, THAT is funny.  Stallone truly has a sense of humor.  Here's a clickable link for everyone who wants to read what Mayhem5185 and I are talking about.

Originally posted by Mayhem5185 Hey CvcJr did you see when Stallone was on The Best Damn Sports Show Period? If not, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop!_Or_My_Mom_Will_Shoot It goes perfectly to with what you are saying about Stallone and the Razzies.

I guess I'm going to have to watch Copland.  However, that's apparently going to be just one more great Stallone movie that makes me scratch my head and wonder why in the world he put out Rambo when he's capable of so much better??

And if Razziesucks is still out there, notice the last three posters, the ones just above this post here?  They're not saying Stallone sucks.  They're not hating on Stallone.  They're all stepping up for Stallone to one extent or another.  And all of them are regulars here on this forum.  And you created a straw man and said they were otherwise.  Stop trying to make things simple on yourself and pay attention to what other people are actually saying, will you?

And in case you haven't bothered reading this particular thread from start to finish and seen the back-and-forth Saturnwatcher and I have had, I'm rooting for Uwe Boll to get the lifetime achievement award this time, too.  Stallone has made a few good movies, but I can't imagine even his reportedly worst movie Rhinestone reaching the depths of Uwe Boll's best film Postal.  Boll over Stallone, all the way.

Can you see the diversity yet?

Cvcjr, I think you overlooked a very good Stallone film, Copland. Of course it could be argued it's not "his" film, given it had some other notables starring in it.

As for blanket condemnation of Sly, I've said before, and will repeat, that I actually was entertained, if not overwhelmed, by several of his films. I'm not offended that Rocky won an oscar, I think it deserved it. I liked Rambo. Most of Sly's films I consider the equivalent of cinematic junk food; not very filling, only really good in small quantities, but not truly horrible stuff, with the exceptions of crap like Stop or My Mom Will Shoot and Over the Top.

Uwe's still my boy to take the lifetime achievement award, at least the one I'm rooting for.

Oh, oh, oh, no great diversity?

Go over those three pages you just typed, and a couple before it and tell me. . . .

Who said Stallone made at least one great movie? 

Who said Stallone does make good movies?

Who said they liked Rocky Balboa?

Who said they didn't like Rocky Balboa, but it didn't deserve to be razzed?

Who said they didn't feel Rambo was that bad?

And who defends Stallone?  Bet you can't name even one poster on here who defends Stallone. 

What?  You didn't notice these opinions being expressed?  They're right there, all this diversity of opinion.

Oh, of course you didn't.  Because you condemn us with a blanket condemnation.  It's easier for you to broadbrush us with your untrue opinion than to see the different positions that have been expressed.

And did I say Stallone is a hack?  Did I say Stallone is talentless?  Did I say Stallone is joke?

I do say Stallone can do a hell of a lot better than Rambo.

And yes, I voted for Rambo, because it sucked, especially in comparison to the good movies I've seen Sylvester Stallone make, including Rocky Balboa.  I don't have to see all of Stallone's movies to make that vote.  I don't even have to see many of Stallone's movies to make that vote.  All I have to do is take the Stallone movies that I've already seen and compare Rambo to them. 

Are you saying Rambo is every bit as good as a movie as Rocky?  Rocky II?  Rocky Balboa?  Even Cliffhanger?!  I don't feel so.  I wish it was, but it's just not up to his past standards.

As for what Stallone thinks about Rambo, haven't you read Mayhem5185's post above?  It's full of Stallone's thoughts about Rambo.  Let me quote a few lines you skipped over:

Describing Myanmar's rulers as "Satan's disciples,” Stallone expressed particular anger about their refusal to accept international aid in the wake of the recent cyclone that killed at least 34,000 people — with many more missing — and left up to 2 million survivors in desperate straits.

The movie's emotionally jarring prologue is a montage of real footage of violence — including a fleeting glimpse of Japanese journalist Kenji Nagai being gunned down as he tried to cover the suppression of a street demonstration in Yangon last year.

To be clear, Yangon is in Myanmar.

Now, why did you write "And Rambo was not a film to be taken from the point of view of Burmese people" when he said himself he was thinking about what was going on in Myanmar?  That was right here on this page on this thread in this forum where you spend three pages going back and forth with Saturnwatcher.  Not only that, you're a Stallone fan.  Did you hear him say that?

And why are you defending Stallone?  Stallone can defend himself.  I've heard many times, and I'd love to confirm it, that when someone mentions the Razzies to him, he laughs.  That shows he has a sense of humor and he knows how to deal with us. 

You, on the other hand, ignore what everybody says to you and set up straw men in place of what's being said so you can pretend you're winning the argument.

Don't say you don't do that.  You just did it with me.

Eh, I don't really care whether you put Stallone on your ballot or not, you've done it before and quite frankly, it doesn't really matter whether you do it again or not. The reason I'm posting here is because there are many, including yourself, misinformed people that just wish to believe whatever they believe is set in stone and refuse to even consider ones opinon, even if perhaps it's valid. What happens is a number of posts, like Saturn's, which is either lead to no point being or lead to me having to piece by piece his arguments. He has thus left the argument cause he knows he can't argue what he doesn't know, which is Stallone's body of work.

I'm unthinking noise, please. I had to argue with a person who was trying to pull arguments straight out his ass for three pages, until he realized that he couldn't really debate Stallone as an actor with someone who wasn't trying to say Rambo III is an art film. And basically the common denominator on this site is that Stallone is a hack/talent less/joke, no. Tell me that it isn't before you go trying to say there is diversity, because that is a load of bull.

And I write a lot because I like to be specific, so there no loose ends where people like Saturns can go ahead and try to make another thoughtless argument.

And fine, if you didn't get the message or didn't feel the message was properly conveyed, then that okay. But for someone to go ahead and somehow determine what a man was really thinking to do, despite what has come straight out of his mouth, well how can you argue with someone like that. And Rambo was not a film to be taken from the point of view of Burmese people. This isn't Blood Diamond, but the film gave hints thought-out the film this type of injustice is going on around the world. Stallone was simply showing us the inhumanity that is going on in the world, there is a genocide going on there, something that should never happen, I doubt one would need to learn about the people when their being exterminated. It's called having basic human compassion.

And from your post, you haven't seen many Stallone films, yet you’re endorsing him to be nominated, interesting. No, there is no set thought amongst this board, no, there is GREAT diversity.

You're trying to convince us that Stallone has made some good films, possibly to dissuade us from putting Stallone on the nomination ballot coming out later this month, and probably to dish out to us what you perceive we've been dishing out on Stallone, in other words, revenge for Stallone.  Tell me if I'm wrong on any of those three points.

You didn't ask, but I'll give you three ways you undermine yourself:

1) You use blanket condemnation, saying we all think the same thing.  Some of us find Stallone films amusing but otherwise lacking, others of us hate Stallone films, and some will never forgive Rocky for winning an Academy Award.  There's even more diversity than that around here.  You talk to us as if we're infected with groupthink.  Failure to acknowledge the different points of view in an audience will surely lead to them dismissing you and anything you have to say.  You've just characterized yourself as unthinking noise.

2) You use too many words to convey your point.  This is because you're passionate about Stallone films.  When people are that passionate about films, music, etc., it angers them when other people say their film, music, etc., stinks, and it hurts even more when it's a recognized organization. 

3) You defend the indefensible.  When I watched Duck, You Sucker (a.k.a. A Fistful of Dynamite) last year, I saw a scene where Mexican soldiers lined up hundreds of citizens in ditches and, as the camera panned by, they fired upon the citizens and mowed them down, one ditch after another, reminiscent of Nazi Germany.  The effect devastated me.  On the other hand, I watched the scene as the peasants were mowed down by machine gunfire in Rambo, and my reaction was that it was a lousy scene.  Both scenes are full of violence, but one was done well while the other was done badly.  You don't just film a massacre and expect that to be good enough.  In the case of what Stallone wanted to do, he should have made the audience empathize with the people, even want to help the people, and then feel helpless as they watch them get mowed down.  The bad direction behind that scene is indefensible.

Now, to clear things up about where I stand, I feel Stallone made one great film, Rocky, and he made two good films, Rocky II and Rocky Balboa.  Cliffhanger was fun, but wasn't great.  Cobra was at best a dopey, macho B movie.  The worst Stallone film I've seen is The Specialist, although I have yet to see Judge Dredd, Over the Top, Stop or My Mom Will Shoot and Rhinestone.  I don't know about the others, but I'll eventually see Rhinestone just to hear how badly Stallone sings.

And fanboys suck.

Are you alluding to me, because if you are, please, tell me what I'm trying to achieve.

Fanboys suck.

They also tend to undermine what they're trying to achieve.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley When an action movie has jokes in it, that doesn't make it instant satire. I think you may be throwing the term around a little loosely. Would you consider the Lethal Weapon movies satire?

The whole entire film is an exercise of excess (talking about Tango and Cash). Look at how many one-liners both Stallone and Russell exchange, both competing to be the alpha-male in this partnership. The over the top and perfect hammed up performances from Jack Palance and Brion James. The action scenes are over the top, but never once take themselves seriously, during the midst of all things, the two continue to trade one-liners. There's of course the good looking woman in between them (but that also spins it around seeing as how their not really competing for her affection). It's a complete satire on the action genre itself, taking many of the action movie clichés and pushing it even farther then regular shoot em' up films. We have two character here that aren't real in the least, in contrast to Lethal Weapon, where we had two character that we're dealing with real problems where we could relate to them, whereas here we have characters that are busy off trying to be the guy in charge. As for Demolition Man, for one, they make good use of Stallone's tough guy persona and put him in a fish out of water type of a situation. Putting tough guy Stallone in a world full, well pussies, to be frank. Everybody wants a perfect world, but with a "perfect" world, it comes with a cost, as individual freedom is lost. The film shows you have to take the bad in with the good, in order to get individual freedom, or you can live in a "perfect" world where we operate as robots following a daily routine. The with clever writing, solid performances, good set pieces, and good action sequences make for a fun satire.