 |
|
COMPLETE 2010 RELEASES LIST (Jan 1 - Dec. 31) |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 4445464748 139> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google Boomarks Google Buzz MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search  Topic Options
|
BurnHollywoodBurn 
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum 
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
 Post Options
 Quote Reply
 Topic: COMPLETE 2010 RELEASES LIST (Jan 1 - Dec. 31)Posted: June 09 2010 at 4:18am |
Okay, that's a much better list, and I couldn't disagree with their #1 choice. #2 however shouldn't can't since those are actual people from a "reality" series. |
|
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
|
 |
|
|
BurnHollywoodBurn
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 09 2010 at 4:21am |
Wow, I don't know which is the more campy fixation, Miguel and his deep, seething hatred for all things "Twilight", or MWG and his raging hard-on for this "Final Destination" movie that no one else here cares about. |
|
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
|
|
|
|
saturnwatcher
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: July 14 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2577 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 09 2010 at 2:26pm |
 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
BurnHollywoodBurn
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 09 2010 at 2:32pm |
|
Another thing to point out about the "FD5" movie that MWG and ONLY MWG cares about: just because you have worked with a great director, that doesn't mean you are a great director as well. Case in point: David S. Goyer. He helpped Chris Nolan write the stories and scripts for "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight". However, when Goyer tries to write and/or direct movies by himself, they all suck to high heaven!
|
|
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
|
|
|
|
kelemenmarc
Berry Important Member 
Joined: December 23 2008 Location: Hungary Online Status: Offline Posts: 68 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 09 2010 at 3:15pm |
|
I made a little stat..
THIS YEARS RAZZIE CONTENDERS (Jan 1 - Jun 11) SHE'S OUT of MY LEAGUE 59% (why this movie is still here as a contender with 60%?) THE KARATE KID 53% SHREK FOREVER AFTER 51% JUST WRIGHT 49% LETTERS TO JULIET 44% ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FROM PARIS WITH LOVE 37% THE WOLFMAN 33% CLASH OF THE TITANS 3-D 30% REMEMBER ME 28% BLACK WATER OF ECHO'S POND 24% REPO MEN 22% LEAP YEAR 21% THE BACK-UP PLAN 21% THE LAST SONG 20% LEGION 19% COP OUT 19% VALENTINE'S DAY 18% SEX AND THE CITY 2. 17% THE TOOTH FAIRY 17% WHEN IN ROME 16% OUR FAMILY WEDDING 16% KILLERS 14% NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 13% THE SPY NEXT DOOR 13% MARMADUKE 11% THE BOUNTY HUNTER 8% FURRY VENGEANCE 6% CRAZY ON THE OUTSIDE 0% AND THE NOMINEES ARE NOW MADE FROM ROTTEN TOMATOES: WORST MOVIE: Crazy on the Outside (Winner) Furry Vengeance The Bounty Hunter Marmaduke The Spy Next Door WORST ACTOR: Tim Allen - Crazy on the Outside (Winner) Brendan Fraiser - Furry Vengeance Gerard Butler - The Bounty Hunter Owen Wilson - Marmaduke Jackie Chan - The Spy Next Door WORST ACTRESS: Jennifer Aniston - The Bounty Hunter (Winner) Katherine Heigl - Killers Kristen Bell - When in Rome Sarah Jessica Parker - Sex and the City 2. Miley Cyrus - The Last Song |
|
|
FYC:
Worst Movie: The Bounty Hunter Worst Actor: Johnny Depp (Alice in Wonderland / The Tourist) |
|
|
|
|
BurnHollywoodBurn
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 09 2010 at 5:16pm |
|
Didn't we have a discussion about not needing daily, weekly, or monthly updates for possible Razzie contenders because HeadRazz keeps his own records? The ONLY listings that matter are the ones that appear on the voting ballots.
|
|
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
|
|
|
|
MiguelAntilsu
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: August 30 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1467 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 10 2010 at 7:53pm |
|
Kelemenmarc, let me give you a few pointers. Limited release films aren't nominated unless they bear some significant notoriety in the cast, crew, concept or critics' reviews. As result of the past few years' ceremonies, we do not choose the film with the lowest RT percentage as the worst movie of the past year. It has to either be a box office bomb, a critical bomb, have someone notorious in it or behind it, or a combination of those reasons. I tend to vote for cases in which the movie itself was bad. There are even worse movies that haven't been released yet. One of those films leads the race for Worst Movie of 2010 in my book. |
|
|
|
|
BurnHollywoodBurn
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 10 2010 at 9:08pm |
|
|
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
|
|
|
|
cvcjr13
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: September 01 2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1161 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 10 2010 at 10:35pm |
|
Well, then Miguel, forget Eclipse. Seltzerberg's next movie has a name - Vampires Suck - and a release date - 18 Aug 2010. Fox will distribute.
|
|
|
|
|
MiguelAntilsu
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: August 30 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1467 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 11 2010 at 10:53am |
|
Don't tell me there are "dozens of movies coming out a thousand times worse". Nothing can be worse than Seltzerberg or The Twilight Saga. Both will eventually get Razzies. |
|
|
|
|
Vits
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 01 2010 Location: Chile Online Status: Online Posts: 4879 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 11 2010 at 12:41pm |
|
Speaking of that,Seltzerberg is officially out of by ballot for the worst filmmaker.Why?They co-wrote SCARY MOVIE.The same goes for Thomas McCarthy for co-writing UP.And for Miguel Littin,since DAWSON ISLA 10 had bad directing but good writing.
The remaining nominees are David Lynch,John Carney and Whit Stillman.Since I gave 5/10 to both ERASERHEAD and ELEPHANT MAN,Lynch could also be out.Now I'll watch BLUE VELVET.
|
|
|
|
|
BurnHollywoodBurn
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 11 2010 at 1:42pm |
|
Miguel: Need I remind you of "The Killers", the wannabe "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" movie. Not to mention the stacked with Repeat Razzie Offenders flick that is "Expandables". As bad as "Twilight" might be, it will look like a masterpiece compared to those movies in the eyes of Razzies voters.
Vits: No, Seltzerberg ARE among the worst of the worst filmmakers. Having minor writing credits to a screenplay that was written by a total of six people doesn't excuse you from making five or six unfunny, unwatchable movies in a row. |
|
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
|
|
|
|
saturnwatcher
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: July 14 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2577 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 11 2010 at 3:44pm |
|
Head Razz could undoubtedly provide a more comprehensive summary of the number of errors in Miguel's recent post, but I will take a shot at it:
1. Limited release movies can and have received nominations, provided that they meet the same criteria required by AMPAS. Most recently, that required a theatrical run of at least 7 days in Los Angeles County with the run beginning prior to the end of the calendar year.
2. Significant notoriety of cast, crew, concept or critical review isn't as important as the film being bad, although one of those elements can certainly help bring attention.
3. Being a critical or box-office bomb or having someone notorious behind it isn't the end all. Ultimately, it is a matter of what a plurality of some 700 voters believes to be the worst movie on the ballot.
4. With all due respect, your vote seems to have more to do with whether or not the film is part of the Twilight series, which isn't necessarily synonomous with it being bad.
If you wish to summarize your personal criteria for casting your ballot, feel free. But please refrain from speaking for the rest of us.
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
cvcjr13
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: September 01 2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1161 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 12 2010 at 4:48pm |
|
I just looked at the top 20 box office champs so far this year. So far, when you combine domestic and foreign box office, just about every one of the top 20 movies have already turned a profit or will obviously turn a profit in the coming weeks. There are two glaring exceptions.
One is Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time which cost an estimated $200 million and has so far taken in a worldwide total of $224 million. If the rule of thumb holds true that a movie needs to make twice as much at the box office to break even, PoP:TSoT will need to make $400 million worldwide, and I can't see it happening at its current box office. If it does make it, it will be just barely. Otherwise, it will be relying on DVD sales, rentals and TV rights to make up the difference.
The other, and the most glaring one, is The Wolfman. It cost $150 million, and brought in $139 million worldwide. If the rule of thumb still holds true, it needed to bring in $300 million, which means it bombed and badly. Hopefully, Hugo Weaving will not have to waste his talent on a sequel. Hopefully, it will be remembered with a lot of Razzie nominations next year, because it's such a bad movie, because it was such a waste of talent, because the box office was lousy, and because it has one of the more unintentionally funny scenes of the year.
|
|
|
|
|
BurnHollywoodBurn
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 13 2010 at 11:22am |
|
Sure, "Prince of Persia" and "Wolfman" bombed, but I'm sure other movies are more Razzie worthy based on the pure suck factor of the overall movie making. Movies aren't making much at the box office any more. It looks like the days of every movie taking in $100 million on opening weekends are either dying or dead.
|
|
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
|
|
|
|
cvcjr13
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: September 01 2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1161 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: June 13 2010 at 12:54pm |
|
I guess one of the points of my previous post wasn't clear.
I'm not disputing that most movies do not turn a profit; that will always be true. And I'm not disputing the business model of the motion picture industry remains that the blockbusters more than make up for the plethora of busts.
I am pointing out that, using the rule of thumb that a movie needs to make twice its box office to be profitable, so far most of the top 20 movies this year have more than surpassed than mark, despite there being markedly fewer tickets sold and despite the increase in cost of these movies.
Take number one, Alice in Wonderland. It cost $200 million to film, and it took in over $1 billion dollars worldwide. That's a five-to-one return on the original investment. That movie alone would pay for PoP, The Wolfman, Robin Hood and any number of other questionable and unprofitable movies.
I'm not sure how we wind up with this result in a time where the ticket prices are going up, there are fewer people going to the theaters, movie piracy is increasing exponentially, there's over 15 million Americans out of work, the total box office is almost equal to last year and, most importantly, most new movies suck. Why are so many in the top 20 profitable with all these negative factors going on? I'd like a news story to look into that.
I should have added Robin Hood alongside PoP:TSoT. Robin Hood cost $200 million, it needed to bring in $400 million, and so far, worldwide, it was brought in $282 million. It seems likely that it will bring in $30-40 million more in domestic and $60-70 million in the rest of the world. However, that's just breaking even for an epic action retelling of a favorite character's story starring Russell Crowe. It's not satisfactory.
But most of the rest of the top 20 have done and are doing incredibly well as far as profits are concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 4445464748 139> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
