Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > FORUMS on 30th RAZZIES Choices > TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: a.k.a. I Was a Teen-Aged Were-Hunk...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

a.k.a. I Was a Teen-Aged Were-Hunk...
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577 		Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: a.k.a. I Was a Teen-Aged Were-Hunk...
    Posted: November 24 2009 at 4:49pm

Evidently there are a dozen or so people, with a dreadfully immature sense of humor, who REALLY like this video.  

Originally posted by moat

Here's a You Tube LINK to watch video of a "Twi-Hard" reacting to the trailer for NEW MOON. The counter sez it's been viewed over 450,000 times...

 
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2009 at 3:34am

Ah, see, he finally admits it!   

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by Michaels

I'm pretty sure MWG's rating system is not of 1 to 10, but a 6 to 10 rating. That would explain A LOT.

Wow. That really would.

 
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
Back to Top
deadguy76 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 15 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 905 		Post Options Post Options   Quote deadguy76 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2009 at 9:38am
I know I'm the only one who defends video games. I haven't seen the movie but I have seen the horrible CGI of Jacob turning into a giant wolf. UGHH!!! I've seen better graphics on Playstation 3 games!
"Woody Allen, whatever his failings, does not make movies for morons. Most directors do. Of course, most directors are morons."

- Joe Queenan

http://www.myspace.com/deadguy76
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2136 		Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2009 at 11:00am

I thought they did a great job with the CGI. The bigger budget certainly helped this picture a lot.


Originally posted by deadguy76

I know I'm the only one who defends video games. I haven't seen the movie but I have seen the horrible CGI of Jacob turning into a giant wolf. UGHH!!! I've seen better graphics on Playstation 3 games!
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2009 at 2:41pm

Would you say the CGI in this was worse than the crap that "GI Joe" was trying to pass as quality CGI? Because GI Joe's CGI was on par with Gamecube graphics!

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Sadly, crappy though it was, the CGI wasn't the worst element of G.I. JOE, a movie which will definitely be listed all over our Nominating Ballot this year.

I have this theory that the script for JOE was concocted by strapping a dozen monkeys into screening room chairs, forcing them to watch every cliche'd action movie of the last 20 years, and then turning those same twelve monkeys loose in a room full typewriters...although blaming them for that script may cast unfair aspersions on monekys' creative abilities!

 
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
Back to Top
Julianstark View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: October 14 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 74 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Julianstark Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2009 at 6:59pm

The CGI in both G.I. Joe and New Moon was horrible.

In the Joe, it looked like something from a PC game of the late 1980s/early 1990s. In the Moon, the CGI looked like a cut-and-paste job from a desktop computer-animated film!

 
For Your 2010 Razzie Consideration: The Bounty Hunter and Leap Year --
Check out my blog! Movies and Other Things
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577 		Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2009 at 3:14am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I have this theory that the script for JOE was concocted by strapping a dozen monkeys into screening room chairs, forcing them to watch every cliche'd action movie of the last 20 years, and then turning those same twelve monkeys loose in a room full typewriters...although blaming them for that script may cast unfair aspersions on monekys' creative abilities!

 

It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man.--H.L Menken
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2009 at 11:44am

I also have a theory -- that "GI Joe" was like a puzzle that put together with pieces from several different puzzles. There were bits from a serious back-story, and characters, and bits from an action movie, and campy bits that were winks and nods to all the old slogans like "knowing is half the battle," "a real american hero," and "life-like hair and kung-fu grip." The filmmakers get an "A" for effort, for trying to make their film "somewhat" better than "Trannies 2" (at least there's no giant robot with testicles in "Joe") but the mixing and matching of all those pieces from different puzzles didn't make for a good final product...

"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
Back to Top
movieman View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 23 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 220 		Post Options Post Options   Quote movieman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 27 2009 at 10:32am
I just didn't get G.I. Joe. I didn't get its sense of humor, the story line,
none of it. I've heard from reviews that it helps to be familiar with the
whole world of G.I. Joe. Fine, I can accept that as an excuse. That still
doesn't justify the lame dialogue, flaccid acting, lame visual effects, and
cheap art direction.

So did I need to see it before viewing Watchmen and not after to
have a better mindset? I mean G.I. Joe doesn't even come close to
Watchmen, or even Trannies Too, because as much as I put down
Transformers, it at least wasn't boring. G.I. Joe is boring. In fact, if it
weren't for the fact that I saw G.I. Joe in theaters with the loud speakers
and stuff, I probably would have fallen asleep. At least that would have
have been more productive.
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 29 2009 at 4:30pm
I think like reading the comic "Watchmen" before seeing the movie (in which not doing so resulted in some people giving it bad reviews for not understanding what it was they watched), you needed to know about the old 80s TV series or the current comic book series to understand "GI Joe", otherwise you wouldn't get any of the little in jokes they made or who anyone was. The difference being while "Watchmen" was good for what it was (it would have worked a lot better as a TV mini-series on HBO), "GI Joe" missed its mark and was just a live action cartoon gone wrong.
Back to Top
movieman View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 23 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 220 		Post Options Post Options   Quote movieman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 7:39am
Just as I predicted, this movie suffered the same fate as Watchmen
with its significant drop after its opening weekend. So far it has grossed
$255 million, which means its opening of $140 million still accounts for
56% of its total gross. By the end of its run, it'll be lucky if it makes $300
million.

Then again, even if it stops making money right now, it will still be
considered a success seeing how it only cost $50 million to make. By
Hollywood's perspective, that makes it a $205 million surplus, unlike
Watchmen, which cost $130 million and only grossed $107.

And I agree with Michaels about why the uninitiated were disappointed
with Watchmen. A lot of the backstory and character development is
given in between chapters through the Under the Hood excerpts,
letters between characters, newspaper reports, etc. I have to say that if I
hadn't read the novel before watching the movie, I probably would have
been baffled by a lot of it which raises a good question as to how well
Watchmen stands on its own. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I
do think that its biggest strength and biggest weakness is that it feels
more like a conversion of the book, rather than an interpretation.
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 3:42pm
Originally posted by movieman

Just as I predicted, this movie suffered the same fate as Watchmen
with its significant drop after its opening weekend. So far it has grossed
$255 million, which means its opening of $140 million still accounts for
56% of its total gross. By the end of its run, it'll be lucky if it makes $300
million.

Then again, even if it stops making money right now, it will still be
considered a success seeing how it only cost $50 million to make. By
Hollywood's perspective, that makes it a $205 million surplus, unlike
Watchmen, which cost $130 million and only grossed $107.

And I agree with Michaels about why the uninitiated were disappointed
with Watchmen. A lot of the backstory and character development is
given in between chapters through the Under the Hood excerpts,
letters between characters, newspaper reports, etc. I have to say that if I
hadn't read the novel before watching the movie, I probably would have
been baffled by a lot of it which raises a good question as to how well
Watchmen stands on its own. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I
do think that its biggest strength and biggest weakness is that it feels
more like a conversion of the book, rather than an interpretation.


Well, it's good to know someone agrees with me about why "Watchmen" failed. However, in terms of "New Moon" making "ONLY" $300 million, that's not a B.O. bomb by anybody's standards. Plus, a third movie of the series is in the works, and there's talk about making two movies out of the fourth book. Hopefully by then, teenage girls will move on to something else.
Back to Top
TaRaN-RoD View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: November 20 2009
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154 		Post Options Post Options   Quote TaRaN-RoD Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 16 2010 at 10:03am
By FAR, the worst movie of the year!!!!!! Really deserves and the ''Worst Picture'' Razzie Award, and the ''Worst Picture of the Decade''! Completly!!!!

Robert Pattison: ''Worst Actor''
Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Actress''
Robert Pattison and Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Screen Couple''
Taylor Lautner: ''Worst Supporting Actor''
Chris Weitz: ''Worst Director''
Melissa Rosenberg: ''Worst Screenplay''

And a special ''Worst Visual Effects'' razzie Award!!!

This is what I think of you, cast and crew of Twilight!
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2136 		Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 16 2010 at 5:18pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

By FAR, the worst movie of the year!!!!!! Really deserves and the ''Worst Picture'' Razzie Award, and the ''Worst Picture of the Decade''! Completly!!!!

Robert Pattison: ''Worst Actor''
Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Actress''
Robert Pattison and Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Screen Couple''
Taylor Lautner: ''Worst Supporting Actor''
Chris Weitz: ''Worst Director''
Melissa Rosenberg: ''Worst Screenplay''

And a special ''Worst Visual Effects'' razzie Award!!!

This is what I think of you, cast and crew of Twilight!

Wow. So much hate for a movie that does not apply to you. Let's be honest here. The direction by Mr. Weitz was arguably better than that of Hardwicke's. He gave the film a distinctive look. It was beautiful. The Visual Effects were great too, considering the low budget compared to movies with $150 million. And the actors were good too but that's just me. You guys can argue against that.
Back to Top
TaRaN-RoD View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: November 20 2009
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154 		Post Options Post Options   Quote TaRaN-RoD Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 16 2010 at 8:36pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


Wow. So much hate for a movie that does not apply to you. Let's be honest here. The direction by Mr. Weitz was arguably better than that of Hardwicke's. He gave the film a distinctive look. It was beautiful. The Visual Effects were great too, considering the low budget compared to movies with $150 million. And the actors were good too but that's just me. You guys can argue against that.


Don't even want to argue against the stupid thing you just said! But at least, I'll put my little word: Sleepy
Back to Top
hard hearted hannah View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: January 18 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1 		Post Options Post Options   Quote hard hearted hannah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 18 2010 at 10:40pm

please people, don't lose objectivity


Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Actress''.... maybe
Taylor Lautner: ''Worst Supporting Actor''  right
Chris Weitz: ''Worst Director'' .... maybe too
Melissa Rosenberg: ''Worst Screenplay'' definitivamente

 
more... is let driven for the hate
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down