Print Page | Close Window

DISCUSSION of All-Time RAZZIE® Champs

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: RAZZIE® Basics
Forum Name: Entire RAZZIE® History, Year-by-Year: 1980-2012
Forum Discription: Every Golden Raspberry Nominee & Every "Winner" in Every Category...EVER!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1110
Printed Date: April 23 2014 at 8:55pm


Topic: DISCUSSION of All-Time RAZZIE® Champs
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: DISCUSSION of All-Time RAZZIE® Champs
Date Posted: June 26 2006 at 6:22am

WE'VE JUST UP-DATED and MOVED our ALL-TIME CHAM-PEENS LIST -- HERE's the http://www.razzies.com/forum/alltime-razzie-champeens-list_topic5372.html - to SEE IT in ITS NEW HOME.  

FEEL FREE to KEEP on DISCUSSING the LIST BELOW...  





-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: moorlock2003
Date Posted: October 20 2008 at 12:08pm
Shouldn't it be "All-Time Razzie Chumps"?

-------------
Fred Cooper


Posted By: stallonefan1
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 5:30pm

Its funny that you nominate Stallone every year for every movie he's in. Usually that means when you talk about someone so much that means you really cant get them off your mind. You're pathetic!

And I just gotta ask --WHO DO YOU LIKE?? You nominate some of the Greatest Actors that ever graced the silver screen.George C Scott??? Are you people on crack? Seriously.He IS the Greatest Actor of all time.Its funny because people like him go on to win for Masterpieces like Patton and youre hardly recognized...lol  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: George C. Scott was a RAZZIE nominee for EXORCIST III ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099528/awards - As for being "pathetic," you are the one spending time and thought defending a multi-millionaire bad actor who we stopped RAZZing years ago -- and who himself agrees much of his own work wasn't exactly "art." 



-------------


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 1:49pm
I think that the RAZZIES deserve a break from the cable movie channels.  Just about all the classic movie channels are doing "31 days of Oscar" (ptui) as a theme...and we're being unceremoniously left out of the mix.  

Why can't there be a "30 Daysof RAZZIES" preceding that Naked Gold Man fetish they throw out each year???  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, Encore-on-Demand DID run a Mini-RAZZIE-Fest (featuring 10 RAZZIE "Winning" movies) at this time of year in 2009 ( http://www.razzies.com/forum/encore-skeds-razzie-movie-series-in-2009_topic3409.html - ).  We were hoping it would become an annual event, but never heard back from them about doing it again this year...  


-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 2:15pm
I don't think there's enough alcohol in the entire world to dull the pain of having to sit through an entire month of Razzie-winning movies! Our kind of movies need to be watched in small doses -- not in all-day-long marathons spread across a month!  

-------------
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.


Posted By: cartman1337
Date Posted: February 07 2010 at 3:09am
True, but watching Oscar-winning movies all day long for a month can get torturous as well, keeping in mind most of them are dramas. I don't know about the rest of you, but I find many of the so-called "best drama" movies to be rather boring, especially if I'm not in the mood for them...

So maybe a combined Oscar/Razzie celebration at the networks wouldn't be a bad idea? After a couple of dead serious dramas, a light-hearted and silly Razzie "winner" would be a welcome break before going back to those deadly serious Oscar movies again.   : )  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I don't think there's enough alcohol in the entire world to dull the pain of having to sit through an entire month of Razzie-winning movies! Our kind of movies need to be watched in small doses -- not in all-day-long marathons spread across a month!  


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 07 2010 at 7:39am
Yes, well, that's just different strokes for different folks. What one person thinks is a quality movie, another person thinks is a boring one. The Oscars do favor dramas, in fact, I think "Annie Hall" was the last comedy to win Best Picture (you can correct me if I'm wrong, HeadRazz), and that was in 1977! 
 
But I do like your idea of a Oscar winner vs. Razzie winner marathon, as a cable channel shows what won Best Picture in 1980, followed by what won Worst Picture in 1980 and so on for the past 30 years!


-------------
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.


Posted By: bbally
Date Posted: March 05 2010 at 10:55am
I have to say, I don't buy Stallone being named Worst Actor Ever -- I mean, there are worse actors out there. Anybody remember Hulk Hogan? The Hulkster makes Sly look like Marlon Brando. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: OOPS! Interesting choice of who to compare Duh Sly-ster to -- Since http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000008/awards - was himself a four-time RAZZIE nominee, and eventually "won" as http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116654/awards - for the wretched 1996 remake of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116654/ - ...  


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 05 2010 at 11:37am
We all have our picks for the Worst Actor Ever, but in terms of Razzie voters, they felt Stallone was the worst, time and time again. Maybe his acting would improve if he STOPPED MUMBLING ALL THE TIME!

-------------
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.


Posted By: bbally
Date Posted: March 05 2010 at 12:45pm
Well, like I always say, the popular vote isn't always the right vote. 

Interesting sign-off, by the way, though a little too elitist for my taste Wink


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 05 2010 at 9:14pm
Well, the popular vote might not be the right vote, but it's the vote that gets you the award. As for being elitist -- hey, at least I'm not saying "I'm BurnHollywoodBurn, and I'm better than you". Because then I would just be an ass! 

-------------
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.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 06 2010 at 11:47am
Originally posted by bbally

Well, like I always say, the popular vote isn't always the right vote. 

It was in 2000, but we got stuck with that other moron for 8 years anywayCry

-------------
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


Posted By: bbally
Date Posted: March 06 2010 at 2:47pm
You also had guys like Hulk Hogan who's trying to be a movie star for over 10 years now, I mean after making garbage like 3 Ninjas: High Noon At Mega Mountain, he is far more deserving of the worst actor title than Stallone. Or what about Steven Segal, granted I still enjoy watching Above The Law, Hard Target and Undersiege but my goodness he can't act to save his life and don't get me started on Shaquille o' Neal.

At least Stallone actually had good performances like Rocky I-II, First Blood, Nighthawks, Escape To Victory, Paradise Alley and Cop Land. Now, don't think I'm one of the blind Sly fans because I hated Stop Or My Mum Will Shoot, I wasn't too crazy about Rhinestone either and I wished he never got within a meter of Get Carter (That remake is an insult to the UK classicAngry)


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 06 2010 at 4:02pm
Originally posted by bbally

You also had guys like Hulk Hogan who's trying to be a movie star for over 10 years now, I mean after making garbage like 3 Ninjas: High Noon At Mega Mountain, he is far more deserving of the worst actor title than Stallone. Or what about Steven Segal, granted I still enjoy watching Above The Law, Hard Target and Undersiege but my goodness he can't act to save his life and don't get me started on Shaquille o' Neal.

At least Stallone actually had good performances like Rocky I-II, First Blood, Nighthawks, Escape To Victory, Paradise Alley and Cop Land. Now, don't think I'm one of the blind Sly fans because I hated Stop Or My Mum Will Shoot, I wasn't too crazy about Rhinestone either and I wished he never got within a meter of Get Carter (That remake is an insult to the UK classicAngry)

In the end, out of Hogan, Segal, and Stallone, the Sly Guy has had the most success throughout the decades. And I think it's that success that made him a target of the Razzies every time he had a bad movie. It's a "oh, how the mighty have fallen" thing.


-------------
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.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 4:24pm
So finally you admit that your opinion about Stallone isn't objective... It's because of his success! That is a good thing...


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 5:17pm
Yes, but being successful and being talented are two different things, and Stallone is not both. 

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

So finally you admit that your opinion about Stallone isn't objective... It's because of his success! That is a good thing...


-------------
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.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 6:12pm
Yes he's both... You guys are just blind! And honnestly it's pissing me off because I agree on almost everything with you and this is why I like Razzie Awards.. but I will never agree with your hating on Stallone!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 6:26pm
What do you care if we hate on Stallone? If you're convinced he is so great, then it really shouldn't matter to you that he's a running joke here.

-------------
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.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 6:33pm
Because it's still my idol, so it's just getting me mad, that's all!
 
And honnestly when you're bashing on crappy actors like Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Rob Schneider, Adam Sandler (I like his movies, but he's SO bad), BEN AFFLECK (what an AWFUL actor!!!!), I couldn't agree more with you!  
 
But when at the same time you're bashing on my idol, please understand me -- it's pissing me off!


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 6:49pm
Well then, you might understand why we are shaking our heads trying to figure out why you're putting Christian Bale in the same league as Steven Seagal, when one of them has strong acting chops, has had three or four Oscar worthy performances, and the other can't even talk straight and sleepwalks through every movie. 

Plus, you have to understand, not everyone loves Stallone. But if you really think that highly of him, like I said before, what some people write about him on some message board shouldn't drive you so crazy.  


-------------
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.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 7:23pm

Whatever you think about Stallone, I couldn't agree more on Seagal! But I hate Bale because, honestly, he cannot act! He always has the same expression on is face, and has done no great movies nor performances!  



-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 8:37pm
So clearly you haven't seen "American Psycho," "The Machinist" or "Public Enemies," because those are his best movies and performances. 

And frankly, Stallone's facial expressions don't change much either, so that seems like a weak excuse.


-------------
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.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 11:22pm
I keep telling you people: Stallone is okay. He's by no means a very good actor, but he's nowhere near the worst ever. Do you think I'M overpraising Stallone?

-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 10:19am
Who else think that Brian Levant and Dennis Dugan should be among the All Time Razzie Champions? The movies they direct aren't all bad, but they ruin them visually... 

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 11:42am
Brian Le Vant has directed twice as many television shows as movies. Besides, The Razzies have only ever *tagged 4 of his movies: Both Flintstones films ('94, '00), Jingle All The Way ('96), and The Spy Next Door ('10).  
 
Dennis Dugan would be the much better choice, because he's directed about as many movies (13 by the end of 2011), but the RAZZIES have tagged 6 of them: Problem Child ('90), Big Daddy ('99), The Benchwarmers ('06), I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry ('07), You Don't Mess With the Zohan ('08), and Grown-Ups ('10). 
 
*Before you question me, I'm saying "tagged" to mean nominated for and/or winning at least 1 RAZZIE, and/or bing discussed on the RAZZIES Forum. 


-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 1:08pm
I know that. I'm bummed since they haven't won. Even if they do win for this year, they will still be far from being All Time Champions.  

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 3:07pm
Nah, Stallone's okay at best ... on a good day. He's best when he plays the lovable, buffed up goof, like in the first "Rocky" and "Antz."  

Originally posted by GTAHater767

I keep telling you people: Stallone is okay. He's by no means a very good actor, but he's nowhere near the worst ever. Do you think I'M overpraising Stallone?


-------------
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.


Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 12:33pm
I'm surprised Stallone has received the most Razzie nominations and awards. Stallone has made so many good films, and I'm suprised the second and fourth Rocky films were nominated for anything at all. You're telling me the voters didnt like the classic battle in Russia, with such lines as "I will break you!"? Many of the films that receive Razzies arent the worst films, just the worst best films...or films that just don't look so good compared to very good films, but don't suck when they stand alone.  




-------------
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 1:34pm
Yes, Stallone has made ENTERTAINING movies, but they are far cries from being GOOD movies. Yes, I agree that I don't understand why he is singled out from the rest of the no-talent action movie bunch (Steven Seagal, any one?), but he's who Razzie voters go after.

-------------
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.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 10 2010 at 7:05pm
See corrections below... 

No further comment.Wink  

Originally posted by ramonesun

Im suprised (sic) he recieved (sic) the most nominations and awards. Stallone has made so many good films, and im suprised (sic) the second and fourth rocky were nominated for anything at all. Your telling me the voters didnt (sic) like the classic battle in Russia, with such lines as "I will break you!"? Many of the films that recive (sic) razzies arent (sic)the worst films, just the worst best films...or films that just don't look so good compared to very good films, but don't suck when they stand alone.


-------------
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


Posted By: Jennifar
Date Posted: December 09 2010 at 8:48am
Why can't there be a "30 Daysof RAZZIES" preceding that Naked Gold Man fetish they throw out each year???


Posted By: fifth
Date Posted: January 23 2011 at 7:49pm
Hey, it is interesting to go through all the nominations of that time when it all started. I found it very exciting to make a note of the winners and watch it to just judge how bad a movie can be. I am planning to see each one when I get time. 

I just  hope that such lists will be posted in the future also.  

 


-------------
hello


Posted By: Deepanshu
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 7:59pm
That's right -- ANYBODY can become a Voting RAZZIE® Member...


Posted By: Jennifar
Date Posted: March 08 2011 at 7:59am
what about Steven Segal, granted I still enjoy watching Above The Law, Hard Target and Undersiege but my goodness he can't act to save his life

-------------
http://stopringinginearshelp.com - stop ringing in ears


Posted By: leeyn
Date Posted: March 26 2011 at 8:19pm
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find many of the so-called "best drama" movies to be rather boring, especially if I'm not in the mood for them...Wink


Posted By: evanfoster
Date Posted: May 02 2011 at 3:23pm
I'm surprised that you didn't slip Mel Gibson in there somewhere!


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 02 2011 at 5:28pm
Because Gibson has never won a Razzie...or even been nominated.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: May 02 2011 at 6:51pm
Originally posted by Vits

Because Gibson has never won a Razzie...or even been nominated.
I'm sure his time will come with his new movie "Beaver". I mean come on, a man who goes crazy and talks through a beaver puppet, how is that NOT Razzie material?!

-------------
"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)


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: May 02 2011 at 9:30pm
I agree the idea itself is RAZZIE material, but if the reviews are okay, it'll be redundant. I've got my crosshair set on Jumping the Broom and Something Borrowed instead. Their reviews are much worse.

-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: barny
Date Posted: May 15 2011 at 3:53pm
I totally agree with you on the below. Sure,  Stallone is not a great actor (we all know that). So far, 29 nominations and 10 Awards, that's a record!  

But I think that Steven Segal should run very close to that record. He is good at performing martial arts, but as an actor?!?  

Originally posted by Jennifar

what about Steven Segal, granted I still enjoy watching Above The Law, Hard Target and Undersiege but my goodness he can't act to save his life





-------------
http://www.minilaptopcomputersworld.com - mini laptop computers
http://www.topmininotebookcomputers.com - mini notebook computers


Posted By: Miguel Jacinto
Date Posted: May 16 2011 at 8:19am
Popularity doesn't always mean that something is good! Love the post anyway http://www.visitarlondres.com/vuelos - . Thanks Razzie chumps!!!!!!!!!  SmileSmileSmile

-------------
londoncalling


Posted By: qiuyinffy
Date Posted: May 16 2011 at 6:59pm
Being successful and being talented are two different things, and Stallone is neither. 

-------------


Posted By: Morra Morra
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 11:29pm
Yeah, this award-winning movies are great, but for me they are like homeopathic drugs. They cure you only if you take very small dose.. Despite of dull comedies, which I can watch all day long when I'm sick..


Posted By: livinlargeinthesun
Date Posted: May 30 2011 at 1:58pm
I agree. There are much worse actors then Sly -- Not that he's great or anything, I just think there's much worse.  




Posted By: pupu3
Date Posted: June 01 2011 at 10:31pm
I don't think there's enough alcohol in the entire world to dull the pain of having to sit through an entire month of Razzie-winning movies! Our kind of movies need to be watched in small doses -- not in all-day-long marathons spread across a month!


Posted By: jacket250
Date Posted: June 02 2011 at 9:16pm
Yes he's both... You guys are just blind! And honestly, it's pissing me off because I agree on almost everything you choose, and this is why I like the Razzie Awards..




-------------


Posted By: dickvan
Date Posted: June 03 2011 at 12:05am
or chimps :-)


Posted By: TecSimple
Date Posted: July 21 2011 at 9:12pm
ClapClapClapClap niceeeeeeeeeee


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: July 22 2011 at 3:25am
Welcome to the forums, TecSimple.

-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: Yingchun
Date Posted: August 04 2011 at 1:39am
You guys are just blind! And honestly it's pissing me off because I agree with almost everything you choose, and this is why I like Razzie Awards.. but I will never agree with your hating on Stallone!






-------------


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: August 04 2011 at 1:46am
Well, he's been a target of the RAZZIES for some time, I thought you'd learned that already.
 
Am I being too harsh?


-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 12:02pm
I don't think anyone here hates Stallone. I've had to explain this to you Stallone apologists for a few years now. Hate is a strong emotion, reserved for serial killers, the authors of genocide, child molesters, The Smurfs etc. I am pretty sure Stallone is none of those. Stallone is a guy who caught lightning in a bottle with one mediocre film in the mid-70's that managed to get nominated for an Oscar and actually managed to win due to an obvious mathematical flaw in the Oscar voting system. (In fairness, we employ the same one here.) He isn't a good actor, he isn't a good director, he isn't a good writer. If you choose to enjoy his work, more power to you. There are rather bad films that I personally enjoy. I, however, do not pretend that there is a flaw in the tastes of others because I have guilty pleasures.  

Originally posted by Yingchun

You guys are just blind! And honestly it's pissing me off because I agree with almost everything you choose, and this is why I like Razzie Awards.. but I will never agree with your hating on Stallone! 
 


-------------
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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 5:16am
I agree with most of saturnwatcher's statements. Yes, Stallone was at the right place, at the right time, with the right movie ... and that's where his talent and success end. Yes "Rocky" is a great feel-good movie, but that's it. Just because you make one feel-good movie doesn't make you untouchable for the rest of your career. However, I do not agree with the "mathematical flaw" theory that he often uses for when the Oscars make mistakes. In the end, with the mind-set of the mid-70s, America needed that feel-good movie, and the Oscars rewarded "Rocky" for being that. The Oscar voters are people, too, and sometimes, people just like a fluff story that leaves them warm and fuzzy inside.

-------------
"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)


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 5:47am
Like Slumdog and The King's Speech?

Originally posted by Michaels

I agree with most of saturnwatcher's statements. Yes, Stallone was at the right place, at the right time, with the right movie ... and that's where his talent and success end. Yes "Rocky" is a great feel-good movie, but that's it. Just because you make one feel-good movie doesn't make you untouchable for the rest of your career. However, I do not agree with the "mathematical flaw" theory that he often uses for when the Oscars make mistakes. In the end, with the mind-set of the mid-70s, America needed that feel-good movie, and the Oscars rewarded "Rocky" for being that. The Oscar voters are people, too, and sometimes, people just like a fluff story that leaves them warm and fuzzy inside.



-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 7:12am
Yes. Well,those movies and ROCKY all got good reviews. I don't know if ROCKY was the first of it's kind, but I'm sure it was close, so it's understandable why it was considered the best of that year, and remains a classic. But the same happens with TAXI DRIVER and NETWORK,so it's not that big deal who won. And years from now, people will look back at SLUMDOG and THE KING'S SPEECH the same way they do BENJAMIN BUTTON, BLACK SWAN and THE SOCIAL NETWORK. 

Originally posted by Vheid

Like Slumdog and The King's Speech?
  




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 4:46pm
Vits, I prefered Slumdog over Benjamin Button.... But both movies aren't really films of a lot of substance...

And your probably right that The King's Speech will be just as much forgotten as Black Swan, The Social Network and Inception... but that doesn't make them worse that Speech...


-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 5:52pm
No,I meant all those movies will be remembered.Maybe not all of them considered classics,but they won't be forgotten.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 7:47pm
Originally posted by Michaels

However, I do not agree with the "mathematical flaw" theory that he often uses for when the Oscars make mistakes. In the end, with the mind-set of the mid-70s, America needed that feel-good movie, and the Oscars rewarded "Rocky" for being that. The Oscar voters are people, too, and sometimes, people just like a fluff story that leaves them warm and fuzzy inside.
Since AMPAS categorically refuses to release voting results, it is impossible to determine what actually happened. However, there were three clearly better films nominated for Best Picture that year, which leads to a very strong suspicion that there was a vote split that ended up favoring a comparitively weak film with a core of support.

-------------
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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 8:02pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Since AMPAS categorically refuses to release voting results, it is impossible to determine what actually happened. However, there were three clearly better films nominated for Best Picture that year, which leads to a very strong suspicion that there was a vote split that ended up favoring a comparitively weak film with a core of support.
Could be, and the winning vote went to the warm and fuzzy movie whether than the better movie. As for the AMPAS never releasing the voting results ... what could they be hiding? "Rocky" was no doubt the first (or last) movie that they played favorites to.

-------------
"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)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 8:15pm
Rocky wasn't the first movie that I suspect won as the result of a vote split. I have strong suspicions that it happened in at least 2 previous instances. However, I don't think that there is a clear indication that it has happened since.

-------------
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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 8:33pm
Permit me to add to my remarks above. While I don't think that there is a strong indication that any Best Picture since Rocky has won as the result of a vote split, there are actually several years since where a measure of suspicion can be offered. The best candidates in the years since are 1980, 1981, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2000 and 2004.

-------------
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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 8:53pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Permit me to add to my remarks above. While I don't think that there is a strong indication that any Best Picture since Rocky has won as the result of a vote split, there are actually several years since where a measure of suspicion can be offered. The best candidates in the years since are 1980, 1981, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2000 and 2004.
So either politics or payoffs were involved?

-------------
"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)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 8:02am
Originally posted by Michaels

So either politics or payoffs were involved?
I don't think anything that sinister is involved. Quite the contrary, I think that utilizing a firm like Price-Waterhouse makes it pretty difficult for the results to be rigged (not impossible, but certainly difficult, since someone there knows the results and would blow the whistle). I just think that there have been a few occasions where films that ordinarily would have finished 3rd or 4th have won because the votes get split between two or three better films.
 
Let's say that there are two really strong films in the running, either one of which might have drawn, say 54% of the vote if the other hadn't been nominated. There is a 3rd film which has a solid base of support, say 28% of the vote. The rest of the field is going to divide up the remaining 18%. If the votes for the top 2 are more or less evenly split, the 3rd film in the group is going to win.


-------------
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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 12:14pm
I say it has more to do with the politics and payoffs. I mean, HELLO, does Harvey Wienstein rings any bells? That man will sell out his own mother if it meant a movie with his name attached to it would win an Oscar in any category.

-------------
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.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 1:36pm

This whole mess is exactly why that if a film wins Best Picture at the OSCARs, I don't necessarily think it's the best film of the year. It often comes pretty close; the reviews, other nominations, other victories, and accolades in other award ceremonies (like the BAFTAs) have to back it up before I potentially declare it the #1 Best Film of the year. Lo and behold, upon seeing the film, I'll likely agree with the OSCARS' selection for Best Picture, even if others don't!

Gladiator: #1 Best on my Countdown of Cinema 2000.
 
A Beautiful Mind: #24 Best on my Countdown of Cinema 2001. When I compiled the 2001 list, I wanted to avoid cliches as much as possible with the order I put them in. Besides, this film lost points for some flaws, particularly that John Forbes-Nash only heard the voices of three of the characters; he never saw them visually. #1 on my list was Gosford Park. I'm surprised at how little heat I've taken for not putting Harry Potter, A Beautiful Mind, The Lord of the Rings, or Moulin Rouge at the top of my list. It was because I didn't want to be just like everybody else back then.
 
Chicago: #5 Best on my Countdown of Cinema 2002. I imagine this to be where you people start to disagree with me. I'm not as harsh in my analysis of films as HeadRAZZBerry and other members with post quantities in the quadruple digits at the RAZZIES. #1 on my list was The Pianist.
 
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: #1 on my Top 30 Films of 2003.
 
Million Dollar Baby: #4 on my Top 30 Films of 2004. Looking at my Best Films lists going back to 2000, 2004 is my favorite. #1 was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It wasn't a Best Picture runner-up, but all 5 finalists were in the top 10 that year.
 
Crash: #15 on my Top 30 Films of 2005. It lost some points because the reviews were good, but not great, and because it reinforced Asian stereotypes. Judging by the name of the film, I'd say it's the one that says Asians are bad at driving cars. 2005 was a particularly bad year for film, if you ask me, and if my cohorts didn't agree with me naming Good Night and Good Luck #1, I don't trust any of you will either.
 
The Departed: #1 on my Top 30 Films of 2006. It had enough other accolades to back it up, if you ask me. Then again there wasn't much competition for Best Picture in 2006 either.
 
No Country For Old Men: #1 on my Top 40 Films of 2007. At first, none of my peers agreed with me. Many people I heard say No Country For Old Men wasn't good enough to win Best Picture said Juno deserved it. Most of my younger peers who outright disliked or hated NCFOM said they actually liked Norbit! 7 months after I published the first edition of the 2007 list, people suddenly stopped supporting Norbit and started supporting No Country.
 
Slumdog Millionaire: #2 on my Top 40 Films of 2008. "Two Double-O-Eight" was such a nasty year for film that I left slots #40-#38 blank on the Top 40. My dad and step-mom saw this before it was famous, and said it was among their best experiences of the time. It was a pretty close call, but I put The Dark Knight at #1.
 
The Hurt Locker: #1 on my Top 40 Films of 2009. In Episode 1404, You Have 0 Friends, Kip Drordy questioned whether The Hurt Locker deserved Best Picture. 2009 had a massive quantity of worthwhile films, and all 9 runners-up were on my Top 40 for that year. The universal acclaim and almost 50 accolades that caught my attention justified my decision, in my eyes.
 
The King's Speech: #2 on my Top 40 Films of 2010. Once again, all 9 runners-up were on my BEST list. I put The Social Network at #1, but it was by an extremely narrow margin! I know that many of the best films of the New Millennium may not be remembered for years to come, but upon seeing them, I honestly believe they were the best those years had to offer. As for films being remembered, that factors into my Retro Best of lists, which cover films from 1999 and before.


-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 3:17pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

A Beautiful Mind: #24 Best on my Countdown of Cinema 2001. When I compiled the 2001 list, I wanted to avoid cliches as much as possible with the order I put them in. Besides, this film lost points for some flaws, particularly that John Forbes-Nash only heard the voices of three of the characters; he never saw them visually.
1)So...you're admitting personal thoughts intervened with your choices.Just like the Oscars...sometimes.
2)It's a flaw if you're the kind of person who prefers when movies based on real life have to be as accurate as possible.Some don't care about that.For me,it depends.I think him not seeing them would've ruined the movie.
Originally posted by GTAHater767

Chicago: #5 Best on my Countdown of Cinema 2002. #1 on my list was The Pianist.
I gave THE PIANIST 4/10.I admit my personal thoughts intervened as well.Because half of my family is jewish,I try my best not to feel emotional when watching Holocaust movies.But that's not the only reason.The movie suffered from bad narrative(it's based on memoirs and not a novel,which was written by someone who wasn't a pro writer).
Originally posted by GTAHater767

Million Dollar Baby: #4 on my Top 30 Films of 2004. #1 was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
I gave them 5 and 8* respectively.

*I saw it a during a period when I needed to say happy endings.It could be a 9 if a I see it again.
Originally posted by GTAHater767

The Departed: #1 on my Top 30 Films of 2006. Then again there wasn't much competition for Best Picture in 2006 either.
THE DEPARTED:9
THE QUEEN:4
LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE:7
BABEL:9
I'd say I liked BABEL more,but I'm happy with THE DEPARTED.
Originally posted by GTAHater767

The King's Speech: #2 on my Top 40 Films of 2010. I put The Social Network at #1, but it was by an extremely narrow margin!
I would've been happy with 127 HOURS,BLACK SWAN or TRUE GRIT,which I gave them all 9.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 9:55pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I say it has more to do with the politics and payoffs. I mean, HELLO, does Harvey Wienstein rings any bells? That man will sell out his own mother if it meant a movie with his name attached to it would win an Oscar in any category.
I would offer that if we are discussing which movies get nominated, there almost certainly is a lot of politics and payoffs. But once the actual voting starts, I just don't buy it. It is one thing to significantly influence a silly organization like the Hollywood Foreign Press and manipulate the Golden Globs, which probably happens every year. But to make a firm impact on some 7000 AMPAS voters and try to swindle an auditing firm like Price-Waterhouse with a very solid reputation...you'd have an easier time convincing me that JKF was shot by 6 drunk Martians behind the railroad overpass near the grassy knoll. However, as I have attempted to point out above, the voting system lends itself to bizzare results, and I'm absolutely certain that a few movies, and probably actors have benefited from a flawed system. If I could ever get my hands on the voting results from a few years where there have been suspicious winners, I think I could prove it. But since AMPAS won't release results, it will have to remain a suspicion.

-------------
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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 6:43am
Considering that all the major film studios are owned by mega-rich corporations with plenty of money to burn, it wouldn't be all that hard to payoff a good percentage of 7000 voters. Just saying.

-------------
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.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 7:25am

But 4 of the last 6 Best Picture winners weren't the product of major studios. Conspiracies are always easy to cook up, but I haven't seen very many for which there is reasonable evidence. A suggestion of impropriety isn't impropriety. To draw an appropriate quote from the bowels of Hollywood, "SHOW ME THE MOOOONEEEEY!!!!! Or, to employ Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." In this case, I think the voting system is ultimately the problem.



-------------
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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 9:43am
I know saturnwatcher is the kind of person who is always ready with his shotgun to shoot down any and all conspiracies that are brought up, but given this day and age in which governments are pretty much doing the bidding of Wall Street and banks because that's where their money for their political campaigns are coming from, can you really blame people for claiming other areas of business are paying under the table to get the results that they want?

Given the current lazy approach of pumping out nothing but sequels, reboots, and remakes by the dozens every year because they want "sure things", is it really hard to believe all Hollywood cares for is where the buck stops, even if it means their most beloved of award shows? I'm pretty sure the Golden Globes are not alone, even if the Oscars has several times the amount of members to it.

As for the past 4 "independent" movies to win Best Picture, that's where the politics side of Hollywood comes in.  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

But 4 of the last 6 Best Picture winners weren't the product of major studios. Conspiracies are always easy to cook up, but I haven't seen very many for which there is reasonable evidence. A suggestion of impropriety isn't impropriety. To draw an appropriate quote from the bowels of Hollywood, "SHOW ME THE MOOOONEEEEY!!!!! Or, to employ Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." In this case, I think the voting system is ultimately the problem.


-------------
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.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 10:03am
Guilty as charged, for a simple reason...I will offer one more quote from a different context. The late Arthur C. Clarke was once asked what he thought of UFO's. His reply, "If you have never seen a UFO, you aren't very observant. And if you have seen as many as I have, you won't believe in them any more." I feel exactly the same way about conspiracies (and for the record, UFO's). Typically, the effort that would need to be expended simply makes them implausible, especially since, in this instance, it would not generally be one group working towards a single end, but several competing groups each having to outdo the efforts of others. That would make for a pretty messy situation, to put it mildly.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I know saturnwatcher is the kind of person who is always ready with his shotgun to shoot down any and all conspiracies that are brought up,


-------------
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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 10:11am
How so?  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

As for the past 4 "independent" movies to win Best Picture, that's where the politics side of Hollywood comes in.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 12:32pm
One that comes to my mind would be "Hurt Locker" and the need to finally give a female director Best Director (and Best Picture along with it) just to shut up people who claim the Oscars are sexist. I don't mind though, because "Hurt Locker" was a damn good movie, and "Avatar" was just a fun display of what CGI can do these days.  

Originally posted by Vits

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

As for the past 4 "independent" movies to win Best Picture, that's where the politics side of Hollywood comes in.
How so?
 



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 1:00pm
Now that I think about it...a lot of people claim THE DEPARTED won because BABEL (which won the Golden Globe and several other awards) was too similar to CRASH, and they didn't want to show favoritism.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 1:05pm
Babel is so-o-o-o many times better than Crash...  

But then, I really hate Crash and consider it one of the biggest mistakes in recent Oscar-history.


-------------


Posted By: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 2:13pm
I thought Crash was lame. And I agree that the Oscar thing with Crash was a joke.

-------------
Pictures move, do they?


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 2:23pm
Again...how many people are against CRASH mainly because they think Oscar voters are homophobes?

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 2:50pm
Oh yeah, "Babel" should have won, but that was the year of "Okay, we need to finally give Martin Scorsese his Best Director Oscar that we have been denying him for decades now!" and Best Picture just went along with it.  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, Best Director is voted on (in the nominating process, at least) only by AMPAS members in the directing branch -- but Best Picture is the one category on which every voting member casts their ballot. So the pool from which each list of nominees was culled is not the same one. Thus, suggesting that "Best Picture just went along with it" is technically not a correct assessment of how Oscar voting works...  




-------------
"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)


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 2:51pm
Yeah, that was the year of  "we might get heat for giving Best Picture to a movie about gay cowboys, so let's go with the safer bet and give it to the movie about racism." I don't hate "Crash," but I wouldn't call it the Best Picture of that year...    

Originally posted by Grounder the Critic

I thought Crash was lame. And I agree that the Oscar thing with Crashwas a joke.
 


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I may be setting off a hornet's next of angry discussion here, but here's a http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000003/2006 -
Out of curiosity, I also went to RT and checked the ratings for all five 2005 Best Picture nominees, and with 76% favorable ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1144992-crash/ -



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 3:05pm
I would've been happier if the Oscar results had been like the Globes: Best Picture for BABEL, and Best Director for Scorsese

Originally posted by Michaels

Oh yeah, "Babel" should have won, but that was the "Okay, we need to finally give Martin Scorsese his Best Director Oscar that we have been denying him for decades now!" year and Best Picture went along with it.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 3:36pm
Crash winning goes beyond that... It shouldn't even been the runner up for Best Picture...
It shouldn't even have been nominated (it wasn't even nominated for the Globes)...

The film is bad... It has all the depth of a melodramatic television movie....
And it calls itself a anti-racism movie but meanwhile depicts Asians and Arabs as uneducated stereotypes... I was recently flipping through the channels and saw that Crash was on TV....
I tried rewatching, but I just couldn't... It's very unpleasent to watch...

Originally posted by Vits

Again...how many people are against CRASH mainly because they think the Oscars are homofobes?


As for The Departed... It's a decent and well made movie...
But it just feels very inferior when you put it next to Infernal Affairs....
I know someone who isn't even willing to watch it, because he liked the original that much...


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 3:38pm
Yeah, all the past winners' reasons have been listed above. "Hurt Locker": gotta give Best Director to a woman, "Departed": gotta give Scorsese his long awaited props. "Crash": there's no gay cowboys there. In other words: politics.

And I'm not saying those were bad movie that didn't deserve to win, I'm just saying that they won for the wrong results. And no saturnwatcher, it wasn't because anyone was given "gifts" for their votes (although I'm sure it has happened in the past, but like I said, not to all 7000 members, just even to get the vote to swing in your direction).

-------------
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.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 13 2011 at 6:17pm
I would agree with Head Razz that Goodnight and Goodluck should have won Best Picture in 2005. It is one of the most underrated films of the past decade or so, imho. 

-------------
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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 6:58am
Really? I just saw it a high profile docu-drama and not much else. Sure, it was a nice little reminder of when the news actually challenged the government, rather than be its PR service, but I didn't consider it a Best Picture winner.  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: So what would you have designated as 2005's Best Picture??  




-------------
"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)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 6:49pm
The stakes where higher than that in the time period this movie is portraying. They were again in 2005 and still are now. Most of the country just hasn't figured that out yet. But we have a considerable portion of the population that claims to hate and distrust government, yet allows themselves to be spoon fed by the PR arm of one political party (despite the fact that they also claim to hate and distrust the press). It was an important movie. Too bad more people didn't see it and really think about the message.
 
The wisdom of Edward R. Murrow:
 
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
 

No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.
Everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences. No one can eliminate prejudices - just recognize them.  

Originally posted by Michaels

Really? I just saw it a high profile docu-drama and not much else. Sure, it was a nice little reminder of whe

n the news actually challenged the government, rather than be its PR service, but I didn't consider it a Best Picture winner.


-------------
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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 9:23pm
That's the thing, I think 2005 was just the wrong year for that movie to be released. If it were released today, it would have gotten more notice for the reasons stated above, since it speaks even more loudly today.

-------------
"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)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 9:32pm
I am inclined to disagree...2005 was a much more necessary time to release it. I doubt that it would get that much more attention today.

-------------
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


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: June 17 2012 at 7:30pm
I lost track of all of Adam Sandler's "wins" that I'm beginning to suspect he might have surpassed da gas bag known as Stallone...

-------------
Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 18 2012 at 3:09pm
Stallone has won 10, while Sandler has won 5.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: June 18 2012 at 8:29pm
Sandler actually has six. Worst Actor '99 for Big Daddy and Worst Actor, Actress, Screenplay, Screen Couple, and Ensemble '11 for Jack & Jill.

-------------
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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 19 2012 at 6:56am
You're right. IMDB didn't list the nominees for Worst Ensemble because... well... too many names!

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window