Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > RAZZIE® Basics > Entire RAZZIE® History, Year-by-Year: 1980-2013
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: DISCUSSION of 1999 RAZZIE® Nominees & "Winners"
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

DISCUSSION of 1999 RAZZIE® Nominees & "Winners"

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
Vheid View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: December 10 2010
Location: Utrecht
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1188
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: DISCUSSION of 1999 RAZZIE® Nominees & "Winners"
    Posted: May 19 2011 at 1:08am
What was the motivation behind nominating The Blair Witch Project for Worst Picture? I'll admit it was gimmicky but it was also very positively reviewed, I mean, weren't there any more deserving movies that could have taken it's place? 

Just wondering....  


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: May 19 2011 at 1:31pm
1999 was a pretty good year for movies, so it's hard to think of one off the top of my head to replace "Blair Witch." However, I think "Blair Witch" was very worthy of a Razzie -- All that hype, and the movie was nothing but a bunch college students running around in the forest with a camera. Half the time, you couldn't see or hear what was going on, and yet the movie made millions -- and even spawned a sequel! 

Never underestimate the power of clever marketing!  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I think Michaels pretty much said it all. Once the initial audiences had seen BLAIR WITCH and over-hyped it to everyone else, the film was bound to be a disappointment, which our Voting Members that year apparently found it to be. As the first "Internet/Virally-Marketed" movie, though, the original BLAIR WITCH was worthy of Oscar consideration for Best Snow Job. The movie itself blew, but the selling of it was brilliant...  


"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
Vheid View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: December 10 2010
Location: Utrecht
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1188
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2011 at 1:33pm
After watching (and mocking) Yu-Gi-Oh: The Movie yesterday with my little brother. I became curious about the RT-rating of the first Pokémon-movie...

It currently is at 14% on RT... So I was wondering why wasn't it part of the Worst Picture-race in 1999? It's a terrible movie with some of the worst writing I've ever seen, even in an animated movie (like the scene were Ash is brought to life by the Pokémons tears) and was much worse-reviewed than a lot of the actual nominees? 

So why was Pokémon: The Movie (and it's sequels) snubbed by the Razzies?   

Back to Top
HeadRAZZBerry View Drop Down
Berry Important MODERATOR
Berry Important MODERATOR


Joined: April 23 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5075
Post Options Post Options   Quote HeadRAZZBerry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2011 at 6:09pm
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Because we don't have many Voting Members under 10 years old (the target audience of the animated films you cited above)...   

Seriously, though, as I keep having to say over-and-over on this Forum --We cannot possibly nominate every bad movie that's released, and each year's list of nominated films and "achievements" is subject to the whims (and viewing patterns) of that year's Voting Membership...  


Ye Olde Head RAZZberry
Back to Top
Vheid View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: December 10 2010
Location: Utrecht
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1188
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2011 at 6:19pm
Wow... that sounded a bit harsh... I wasn't attacking the Razzies or the way this origanisation works... If that's what you thought?

The only reason... why i posted it, was because everyone keeps saying that they weren't enough bad reviewed movies in 1999... And I kind of wanted to bring the movie up as a counter argument...

By the way... If were not allowed to question past discissions of the Razzies... What is the function then of these Forums for the past Razzie-years?

update: Sorry, about that... I have a very low tolerance towards people who look down on me and I sometimes experience it a situation as such when people aren't doing it (I am already seeing someone for these problems)... If you don't like it that I bring up films that didn't make the Razzies, You could have just said it to me politely instead of using these denigrating remarks (even if you're the moderater of this site). I would have respected that a lot more and would have stopped doing it.

Another update: That previous apology, wasn't really a apology. So here I try again. Sorry about all of this...
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6735
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2011 at 7:06pm
Man! I'm so sick of people disliking those movies. The R.T. concensus always say things like "If you don't watch the show or play the games, you won't like this movie". If that's your case, then why would you want to watch the movie in the first place?!
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
GTAHater767 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: October 25 2009
Location: I shall not say
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1350
Post Options Post Options   Quote GTAHater767 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2011 at 10:34pm
I agree that Wild Wild West deserved Worst Picture for 1999. The Haunting was the most deserving runner up. Nominations for The Phantom Menace were okay, because it and Attack of the Clones are tied for worst Star Wars film of the hexilogy.
 
In March 2003, the Simpsons made fun of Star Wars episodes I and II in the episode "C E D'oh." Carl Carlson brandishes a green carbon rod as a lightsaber. He says, "I think The Phantom Menace sucked more." Lenny Leonard counters, clashing his carbon rod, then says, "I think Attack of the Clones sucked more!"
 
But I digress. I don't know if people always thought Big Daddy was average, or if it grew on people in certain ways that it how has 56% at Rotten T, give or take 4%.
 
And if The Blair Witch Project got nominated for Worst Picture, there surely was nothing to choose from for 1999. The problem with that was the backlash it raised when an urban horror legend alleged that it was based on a real incident of 3 student filmmakers mysteriously vanishing in a New England forest.
 
Personally, I think they should've nominated End of Days and Entrapment instead. And perhaps replace The Phantom Menace with Message in a Bottle.
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags. 29; As Above, So Below
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: July 15 2011 at 8:25am
All I gotta say to anyone who complains about the "Star Wars" prequels having Razzie nods or wins (mostly because you're probably under the age of 20 and didn't grow up with the original trilogy), I don't care how pretty the CGI looked, ALL THE OTHER ASPECTS OF FILMMAKING SUCKED TO HIGH HEAVEN. Yeah, the original movies may looked dated because they are from 30 years ago, but at least they were well made movies.
"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
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6735
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2011 at 10:57am
Originally posted by GTAHater767

In March 2003, the Simpsons made fun of Star Wars episodes I and II in the episode "C E D'oh." Carl Carlson brandishes a green carbon rod as a lightsaber. He says, "I think The Phantom Menace sucked more." Lenny Leonard counters, clashing his carbon rod, then says, "I think Attack of the Clones sucked more!"
I thought you only quoted SOUTH PARK.Oh,well.
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
GTAHater767 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: October 25 2009
Location: I shall not say
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1350
Post Options Post Options   Quote GTAHater767 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2011 at 12:47pm
Originally posted by Michaels

All I gotta say to anyone who complains about the "Star Wars" prequels having Razzie nods or wins (mostly because you're probably under the age of 20 and didn't grow up with the original trilogy), I don't care how pretty the CGI looked, ALL THE OTHER ASPECTS OF FILMMAKING SUCKED TO HIGH HEAVEN. Yeah, the original movies may looked dated because they are from 30 years ago, but at least they were well made movies.
I don't disagree with nominations for the Star Wars Prequels because I did or didn't like them, let alone because of the eye-candy CGI. I just think they were easy to underpass. I often wonder why Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones got nominated instead of The Master of Disguise. And Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Kicking & Screaming, and War of the Worlds were part of what watered down the 2005 Awards. Those 3 movies had middle-of-the-road reviews and were nominated simply because they were more seen, but they robbed A Sound of Thunder, Michael Bay's The Island, and Elektra! In fact, Revenge of the Sith is the only one of the prequels I'd ever defend. It was a decent movie, though not a great one, and it's by far the least of 3 evils! For a Star Wars movie, it was okay, but not really good.
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags. 29; As Above, So Below
Back to Top
SchumacherH8ter View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 06 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2929
Post Options Post Options   Quote SchumacherH8ter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2011 at 1:21pm
Master Of Disguise makes Attack Of The Clones look like Empire Strikes Back.
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Transcendence
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: July 15 2011 at 9:14pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

I just think they were easy to underpass. I often wonder why Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones got nominated instead of The Master of Disguise. And Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Kicking & Screaming, and War of the Worlds were part of what watered down the 2005 Awards. Those 3 movies had middle-of-the-road reviews and were nominated simply because they were more seen, but they robbed A Sound of Thunder, Michael Bay's The Island, and Elektra!
Again, it all comes down to which movies the Razzie voters actually saw that year. Like 90% of the movie going public, I doubt any voters saw "Master of Disguise" or "Sound of Thunder". That, and who wouldn't want to Razz the shell of its former self that "Star Wars" had become?!
"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
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6735
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 23 2012 at 7:15am
Yesterday I saw THE OTHER SISTER. Why was Juliette Lewis nominated for Worst Supp. Actress if she was the lead?
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6735
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2012 at 12:22pm
Originally posted by Vits

Yesterday I saw THE OTHER SISTER. Why was Juliette Lewis nominated for Worst Supp. Actress if she was the lead?
Nobody? Oh, well...

Skip to 01:12.



Any thoughts?
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
rushmore View Drop Down
Berry Best Friend
Berry Best Friend


Joined: January 14 2014
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 35
Post Options Post Options   Quote rushmore Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 23 2014 at 12:21am
I thought the title of worst actor of the century for Sly Stallone was harsh and undeserved, why not worst of the decade? and he wasn't even that bad in the 90's, he didn't received as many razzie awards for worst leading actor as Kevin did 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down