Print Page | Close Window

Who to Kick in the Ca-REAR?!?!?!

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on NON-NOMINATED 2008 RELEASES w/LYNX!
Forum Name: SLY, UWE (or SOMEONE ELSE) for OUR 2008 WORST CAREER AWARD??
Forum Discription: Whom Should We "CROWN" as This Year's "KING of the RAZZIES®"???
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2631
Printed Date: October 23 2014 at 7:52am


Topic: Who to Kick in the Ca-REAR?!?!?!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Who to Kick in the Ca-REAR?!?!?!
Date Posted: April 07 2008 at 2:34am

WE STARTED OUT 2008 CERTAIN THAT OUR NEXT, BERRY DESERVING WORST CAREER ACHEIVEMENT RAZZIE® "WINNER" OUGHTA BE OUR AWL-TIME CHAM-PEEN, http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1110&PN=1 - SYLVESTER STALLONE (WHOSE http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=198 - RAMBO IS THIS YEAR's WORST ACHIEVEMENT FRONT-RUNNER).

BUT THEN WE SAW RAZZIE®  REPEAT OFFENDER / RECURRING WORST DIRECTOR NOMINEE (AND WORLD-CLASS BAD MOVIE MAVEN) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0093051/awards - UWE BOLL "DEFENDING HIMSELF" on YOU TUBE ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWqCNmfJ1hY&feature=related - LINK ). UWE's HILARIOUS, ANGRY and EXPLETIVE-CLUTTERED RANT, COMBINED with the FACT THAT BOLL COULD HAVE FOUR (or MORE!) FILMS RELEASED in 2008, SUDDENLY MAKES HIM a WORTHY ADVERSARY for OL' HAM-BONE/RAMBO HIZ-SELF... 

SO, in the TRUE DEMOCRATIC SPIRIT of the RAZZIES® ,  WE'RE SEEKIN' YER FEEDBACK: WHO DESERVES a KICK in the CA-REAR MORE: SLY or UWE?? 

FEEL FREE to LET US KNOW YER THOUGHTS BELOW ...WE DON'T REALLY GOTTA MAKE UP OUR MINDS 'TILL OUR FIRST PRESS RELEASE on THE 29th RAZZIES®  GOES OUT in LATE JANUARY, 2009...

SLY: "I shoulda known makin' another RAMBO movie would come back to bite me in the asp!"

 



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



Replies:
Posted By: Nasty Man
Date Posted: April 07 2008 at 2:37am

Are you kidding??  Compared to Stallone's long record of "service" to the Razzies, Uwe Boll is a Little Nazi Upstart.

It's gotta be Sly!

 



-------------
Everything SUX!


Posted By: #1-Film Freak!!
Date Posted: April 07 2008 at 2:43am

...Uwe may be a "Litle Nazi Upstart," but after "Name of the King" became his 17th box office bomb in a row, Boll's so-called "career" may finally be over. Besides, if all the films listed as possible 2008 releases after Uwe's name on his IMDb page ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0093051/ - LINK ) actually do get released in the US, he could top Eddie Murphy's record for most nominations in a single year.

Sadly, "Rambo" did just well enough worldwide that there's now talk of a "Rambo 5." Meanwhile, the scuttlebutt on Boll is that he's a done deal, totally toast. Seems to me, if we'll have another shot at Sly in a year or two and Uwe's on his way out, Boll's our boy for 2008!



-------------
Nobody LUVS movies more than ME!


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: April 07 2008 at 4:50am

Can't Sly & Uwe both get The WORST CAREER ACHIEVEMENT RAZZIE...or does have to be just one of them?

 



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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: April 07 2008 at 10:30am
Uwe all the way.

-------------
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: Berrynoia
Date Posted: April 08 2008 at 8:28am

Sly has won 10 Razzies to become all time cham-peen worst actor.  Uwe Boll has zero, with 2 nods.

The nod for Alone in the Dark fell short to Dirty Love's John Mallory Asher (also the Worst Picture winner) and the nod for Bloodrayne fell short to M. Night Shyamalan and Lady in the Water.  This year, I can see another "M. Night out-razzes the Toilet Boll for Worst Director" Razzie awards happening.

And about that four Uwe Boll movies in a year: not going to happen.  His movies tend to get pushed back a lot, and I believe he wanted to get Postal and In the Name of the King released in 2007.  At least we will have Boll as a consistent Razzie contender.

Sly easily deserves the Worst Career Acheivement Award, hands down.



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 08 2008 at 4:49pm

Deserving as Boll may be, the average movie goer doesn't know Uwe Boll from a hole in the wall. Most people have not only never heard of him, they haven't seen or heard of any of his films. On the other hand, everyone knows Stallone; and outside of his ardent fan club, everyone has their own favorite bad Stallone flick.

In the history of cinema, guys like Boll are a dime a dozen, and are just a lost to collective memory now as he will be in about 10 years. But Stallone's sublime ineptitude will march on for decades, much in the tradition of Ed Wood Jr. and The Three Stooges.

If any sort of Razzie Hall of Fame ever comes into existance, Boll will undoubtedly have a place of honor. But when it comes to a lifetime achievement award, Boll not only ranks well behind Stallone,  he is far less deserving than several dozen other worthy cinematic "icons."



-------------
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: JoeBacon
Date Posted: April 08 2008 at 5:13pm
Please don't lump The Three Stooges in with such inept knuckleheads as Da
Sly Man or Uwe the Toilet Bowl.

After seeing Drillbit Taylor, I got to say Owen Wilson is surely in the running
for a Razz-ing along with Paris Hilton's Hottie and the Nottie, First Sunday
and Leatherheads. Damn we just started April and here are six worthy
contenders already

And then there's Tommy's little gem coming down the pike too!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 08 2008 at 5:23pm
Sorry, but when it comes to The Three Stooges, one must tell it like it is (with all due apologies to Howard Cosell, who also made a Razzable cameo or two). Their shorts might be excusable, but their full length features, particulary after the passing of Curly, were cinematic toe jam.

-------------
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: Mrs. Magnatech
Date Posted: April 08 2008 at 6:26pm

Give it to Sly. The latest Rambo movie was the worst thing I've ever seen in my life. Anyone responsible for something that horrid deserves the kind of kick in the ass that only the Razzies can give!

 



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 09 2008 at 7:09am

I can watch most Stallone films more than once.  Ooo-He Blows films, on the other hand, causes my brain to freeze up, my jaw to drop, and my innards to writhe in pain.  I would go for Uwe Boll, hands down...he's worse.

 



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


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: April 09 2008 at 8:29pm

I say give Lifetime Achievement to Stallone. Even though Rambo wasn't nearly as bad as most of the sh*t movies coming out this year (Or the ones that have already come out) this has been a long time coming for him. However, I also think it's time for the Razzies to give Uwe Boll his due. But I would say his movies are going to be far more deserving of Worst Picture and Worst Director, at the very least...

 



-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: MJ Narcy
Date Posted: April 10 2008 at 3:36am
If you're looking at collateral damage the movies cause, Uwe Boll should win it hands down.

Sly has not killed off any video game franchises.  Uwe Suck has killed off more video game titles than Jack Thompson could dream of doing.

Uwel Hurl has done more damage to the video game industry by turning excellent games into really terrible movies.  Jack Thompson could not do anything that destructive.

Uwe the toilet Boll has angered G4 with his incompetence.  Sylvester Stallone has never angered an entire cable channel with anything he has done.

PS:  If you don't know who Jack Thompson is, just consider yourself lucky.


Posted By: WaterBoySucks
Date Posted: April 10 2008 at 4:01am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

I can watch most Stallone films more than once.  Ooo-He Blows films, on the other hand, causes my brain to freeze up, my jaw to drop, and my innards to writhe in pain.  I would go for Uwe Boll, hands down...he's worse.

 

  



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 10 2008 at 5:10pm

Originally posted by MJ Narcy

If you're looking at collateral damage the movies cause, Uwe Boll should win it hands down.


Sorry, but I am compelled to disagree for a reason I have already pointed out. Boll's movies have been such box-office duds that the associated "collateral damage" wouldn't inconvienence an ant hill for more than a couple of hours.

I don't question the man's aptitude for generating crap. I simply question the long term relevence of the crap he is generating. We aren't talking about the kind of delicious ineptitude guys like Ed Wood or Roger Corman could produce, which we all still love. Boll's stuff hasn't found any sort of following in contemporary terms, nor will it develop any signficant cult following down the road. That stands in sharp contrast to the unintentional hilarity Stallone has brought to the screen, which I'm sure will stand immortal among our progeny who will appreciate the finer points of bad cinema for generations to come.

And as I find myself promoting the "talents" of Stallone for the second time this week, there must be a really amazing ice skating competition going on down there in hell.



-------------
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: ITbeast
Date Posted: April 11 2008 at 4:24am

As much as I will admit that Uwe is a good likely nominee down the road, we must all remember who has been bringing in the Grade A Sh*t since 1984 (starting with my personal favorite "Rhinestone"). For a quarter of a century, Stallone has turned out the worst Hollywood has to offer and has raised the bar on his own personal brand of movie-making, up to and including Rambo/Rambo IV (or whatever the hell he decided to go with for the title of his ultimate sludge).

Anyways, while Uwe may be the next up and comming Career awardee, Stallone, with his 30 Razzie Noms and 10 "wins," has l-l-l-l-o-o-o-o-n-n-n-n-g-g-g-g been overdue!

So guess who I will be voting for??



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: April 11 2008 at 1:23pm
I'd say go with Stallone, simply because he has a longer track record, among the many good reasons already listed. 


Posted By: phe_de
Date Posted: April 12 2008 at 5:59am
Boll.

After all, Stallone made a few good movies that were commercial and sometimes critical successes (Rocky, Rambo, Demolition Man; possibly Tango & Cash...); but Boll? Has he made a redeeming movie?

To be fair, I have only seen one Boll movie so far (Alone in the Dark). But I consider it to be worse than the worst Stallone movie I've seen (that would probably be "Judge Dredd").



-------------
Everything is possible, and nothing is sure.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 15 2008 at 1:30pm

I'm not sure whether or not any of you guys have seen this, perhaps this link has been posted here before. But there is an online petition urging Uwe Boll to end his movie making career. Boll has actually stated that if the petition gets 1 million signatures, he will stop making movies...whether or not he lives up to that pledge remains to be seen.

In any event, you too, can sign. I was signee number 200,191

http://www.petitiononline.com/RRH53888/petition.html - http://www.petitiononline.com/RRH53888/petition.html

Incidentally, I think the fact that there aren't already well over a million signatures is solid proof of my earlier contention that most people just don't know who Boll is...

 



-------------
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: tomsmobr
Date Posted: April 16 2008 at 3:44am
There are 201578 Total Signatures on the Uwe Boll petition now...

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


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: April 16 2008 at 7:55am
I am now officially the 202106 signature to this petition,  but I have already seen 3 more signatures in the last minute on the site. Now my question is where is the one for Stallone at?

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 16 2008 at 5:00pm

The good news: Signatures are apparently rolling in at a rate of about 1500 per day. The bad news: Even if this rate remains constant, Boll will have approximately 2 more years to continue to make films, assuming he lives up to his pledge. We need to get proactive on this thing.



-------------
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: hastymanic
Date Posted: April 18 2008 at 5:06am

Stallone has actually been in some good films. Seriously! He's not great by any means, but it seems the Razzies have really singled him out, much like Kevin Costner.

Now, Uwe Boll is an entirely different story. Dreadful films, horrible direction....how and why do film studios even allow him near the lot, let alone put him behind a camera? Not one of his films has any redeeming value.

Uwe, go back to working the drive-thru at Wendy's...please!!!!!   

 



-------------
Hasty Manic
I am still looking for a movie worse than 'Manos: The Hands of Fate.' Alas, I remain ever hopeful!


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 18 2008 at 2:41pm
http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2556&get=last#16056 - Click this link to see a discussion in another part of the forum about the anti-Uwe Boll petition, with the result that Boll declares he is the only  genius in the industry while slagging Michael Bay and Eli Roth to boot.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 19 2008 at 5:03pm
Originally posted by hastymanic

Uwe, go back to working the drive-thru at Wendy's...please!!!!!   

First of all, I eat at Wendy's now and then...let's take it easy there.

Second of all, if Boll DID stop making films tomorrow most of the people who would know about it or care are on this board. This may be a bit political, but it still all comes down to the fact that if we announce next February that we have give a lifetime achievement award to Uwe Boll, 99.99% of America is going to ask, in unison, "Who the hell is he?"



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 19 2008 at 5:42pm

Not true!  If we gave Uwe Boll a lifetime "achievement" (failure?  disaster?  spew?) award, all the people over at http://www.bollbashers.com/ - BollBashers would ask in unison, "WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?!" . . .

 



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 20 2008 at 12:29am

With all due respect, "all the people over at BollBashers" appears to be one guy with a website. Again, I fully acknowledge the atrocity of Boll's work. BUT, most of his films have a rather limited audience appeal to begin with, and none of them have done squat at the box-office. (They probably wouldn't have even if they weren't bad.)  In fact, I don't think he has made a single film which box-office receipts have covered the cost of production.

Effectively, we are talking about a guy who has made a career pissing off a handful of people who play video games and read comics. And most of them never leave their parents' basement unless they are going to a Boll film, or to StarCon dressed as a Klingon.

Incidentally, the petition count stands at 208,840. Impressive in it's way, but it still amounts to less than 0.1% of the population (If we factor in the population of Germany, the percentage drops significantly)...although it may well represent amost everyone who has actually ever seen a Boll film.

 



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 20 2008 at 2:04am

I never noticed that about http://www.bollbashers.com/?page_id=107 - BollBashers .  I paid attention to the "we" on the front page under "About," but I didn't pay attention to the "Contact" page where Jan-Mathis Schurr is listed as being responsible for everything on the website.  Thanks for pointing that out.  The dude is astoundingly thorough, though.  I feel he should make a club out of it.

If he can find enough people who care! . . . 

As for the petition, I'm less impressed than you.  There's no way anyone can verify these "signatures," so they may very well represent far less of the U.S. population that 0.1%.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same people voting over and over.  Impressed?  No.  Amused?  Oh, yes.  It's very amusing that after Boll opened his "effing" fat mouth, the number of signatures of that petition jumped from 18,000 to close to 300,000 in a month.  He certainly got a reaction.

I wonder if a hacker could write a program that would continuously add signatures to the anti-Boll petition? . . .

I'm a little disillusioned now.  Not much, but a little.  I seemed to have taken a little bit of glee thinking that there was a small group of people who banded together on a website for the sole purpose of bashing Uwe Boll.  Now I find out that perception was incorrect, that it's just one amazingly thorough dude.  Oh, well. . . .

 



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 20 2008 at 10:32am
Yes, folks, someone started the pro-Boll petition!  It hasn't even broken 2,000 yet.  http://www.petitiononline.com/ub221965/petition.html - You can view it by clicking here . 


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 20 2008 at 3:40pm

You make a good point. Someone could probably start an internet petition to launch PeeWee Herman off the planet and it could easily get 200,000 signatures. Some of these petitions do have software that only permits one entry per I.P. address, but that is pretty easy to get around. And it is possible to load up petitions of that nature.

That is precisely why we don't have internet voting yet. No one wants the horror of some whiz kid in Japan managing to single-handedly elect Mr Green Jeans  President of the U.S.



-------------
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: MJ Narcy
Date Posted: April 21 2008 at 3:42pm
Apparently, Blizzard Software thinks Uwe Boll should get out of movie making.

Apparently, Paul Sams of Blizzard said, "We will not sell the movie rights, not to you…especially not to you."

Apparently, they believe a bad movie made by Uwe Boll will kill off their extremely profitable World of Warcraft Online.

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/04/18/uwe-boll-wont-ever-be-entering-the-world-of-warcraft/ - Click here for the story.


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


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: April 22 2008 at 1:26pm
Let's see here: At least Stallone appeared in and directed some critically acclaimed movies like the Rocky series

Uwe, however...just the name spells doom to any production. ALL of his movies are blasted by critics, not to mention that anti-Boll petition already has 200K+ signatures.

Definitely, Uwe should get the dis-honor.


-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 22 2008 at 6:08pm

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAA  NELLIE!!!!!!!

Originally posted by thomsonmg2000

Let's see here: At least Stallone appeared in and directed some critically acclaimed movies like the Rocky series

The first Rocky film was well received by critics and won Best Picture honors, almost certainly as the result of a couple better films splitting the vote. It remains one of the half dozen worst films ever to take home the Oscar, without much real argument. Not that it was a particularly bad film, but a decidedly undeserving Best Picture selection.

The second Rocky film was less enthusiastically received by critics, although it still managed to satisfy a fairly large audience.  Most of us regarded it as a typical, inferior sequel. The rest of the Rocky series was crap. That represents the best of Stallone's work.

That said, at least Stallone has built a legacy of sorts that is genuinely worthy of our recognition. As long as there is Spike TV and time slots to fill on the Turner Networks at 3 AM, on nights when Ron Popeil doesn't have any junk to peddle, Stallone's films will get airtime. I believe, and predict, that 10 years from now, it'll take hours of intense research to find out anything about Boll or his films. If we are going to bestow career honors on anyone, I think we should be looking in the direction of someone who is building a legitimate legacy of memorable bad movies, not a flash in the pan. Bad as Boll's movies may be, the only people who actually care spend upwards of 14 hours a day with video game controllers locked in their hands.

I think perhaps a Razzie rule of thumb might be worthy of consideration here...and just to satisfy my ego, I think we should call it,  THE SATURNWATCHER RULE OF THUMB: Any filmmaker who makes movies that primarily appeal to audiences in which only about 1% show up with, or will ever get a date (that doesn't have to be inflated) is probably not really worthy of our attention.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 23 2008 at 2:50am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

. . . the only people who actually care spend upwards of 14 hours a day with video game controllers locked in their hands.

That's just about everyone who was born in 1980 or later, Saturnwatcher.  Do you really want to dismiss the opinions of that many people?

Even worse, have you just let us know how old you are? . . .

 



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 23 2008 at 4:02am

I've never particularly hidden the fact that I am probably among the more senior members here age wise...The Mr. Green Jeans reference alone should have once again reinforced that.

BUT

Let's review some box-office numbers here...Boll's  highest grossing film to date was his 2003 release of House of the Dead which pulled in $10 million and change. Alone in the Dark dropped to about $5.1 million, Blood Rayne pulled in a dismal $2.4 million and In the Name of the King is going to fall short of $5 million. Dividing those numbers by the average ticket prices leaves only Alone in the Dark above a million ticket sales, the rest a paltry few hundred thousand. That is scarcely everyone born since 1980. It isn't even a signficant percentage of them, and yes, I'd dismiss a few hundred thousand people in a population of 300 million. But it does support my earlier contention that by now, just about everyone who has seen a Boll film has probably signed the petition, which is why the number of signees  isn't considerably higher.



-------------
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: April 23 2008 at 4:09am

221,471 to date...

I REALLY like comment # 221454

Can we add a third victim to this list...and one that I believe whose on-screen persona is worse than the two combined...one that's covered under that quote???



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 23 2008 at 6:36am

I remember Mr. Green Jeans.  I was raised on Captain Kangaroo.  I miss Bunny Rabbit and the ping pong balls. . . .

You could say the same for Ed Wood.  In fact, even fewer people have seen Ed Wood than Uwe Boll, that is, until after Wood died and Michael Medved declared him to be the world's worst director.  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=homevideo&id=bloodrayne.htm - Take the DVD rentals of BloodRayne , for example.  It pulled in $5.26 million in U.S. rentals through 02 Jul 2006, more than double its box office.  If we're to take $3 as the charge for a rental, that means almost 2 million innocent people unsuspectedly subjected themselves to that celluloid dreck (except for the one scene with Meat Loaf, which, as wonderful as it was, must have been an accident).  This doesn't take into account the number of times Sci Fi has shown Boll's films (Sci Fi is showing its edited version of BloodRayne again this Saturday, 26 Apr 2008, as a matter of fact). 

I doubt there were 2 million people who ever watched any single Ed Wood movie before 1980.

No, I disagree.  Millions of people know who Uwe Boll is, and have seen at least one of his movies.

I also feel, just like with Wood, after Boll dies, there will arise a group of ardent Boll fans who will talk about all things Boll and even bicker with the Wood fans over who is better. 

If that does occur, though, I sincerely doubt Boll will ever have a church constructed around his scripts and writings http://www.edwood.org/ - like there has been for Wood .

 



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 23 2008 at 7:24am

I dispute your contention that 40 years from now, Boll will be remembered and perversely idolized for ineptness in the fashion we now revere Wood. I seriously doubt he will be remembered at all. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, even Stallone's bad older efforts are still drawing chuckles frequently on cable channels...much more frequently than Boll's work is presented.

Nonetheless, an analogy can be drawn from an old joke defining two terms, and the differences in scale between events: calamity and catastrophe.

If George Bush and Dick Cheney went deep sea fishing and the boat sank, that would be a calamity. If someone rescued them, that would be a catastrophe.

Uwe Boll bad movies, typically seen by a few hundred thousand at the movies, and rarely appearing on cable: calamity

Sylvester Stallone bad movies typically seen by millions at the theaters and almost daily on some cable channel: catastrophe.

Worse still, Stallone has managed to convince a small portion of the population that is dreck is actually good. By every measure, Stallone is a much more important figure in cinematic history. Boll is just a temporal blip.

Incidentally...Mr. Moose controlled the ping pong balls...Bunny Rabbit just tricked the good Captain out of extra carrots daily. There was also every indication that Mr. Moose was a castrato, while Bunny Rabbit couldn't speak at all. Sort of makes you wonder what Mr. Green Jeans was actually doing spending so much time with barnyard animals.



-------------
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: PopcornAvenger
Date Posted: April 25 2008 at 4:02am
I actually like the Rambo films, but that's because I put my mind on autopilot and just soak up the violence. Certainly it's a case of beating that dead horse into dogfood . . . . but there's a lot of other movies much more deserving of Razzies than Sly's efforts. They're just formulaic pap, that's all, the celluloid equivalent of junk food.

Given that Uwe's career seems to be over (or the damage he can do reduced in scope) he'd have my vote for 2008's Worst Career award. I'm sure Sly can continue to dribble out cinematic dreck in the years to come.


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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 25 2008 at 10:59am

Actually, Popcorn, you just made another pretty strong point in Sly's favor. Stallone has been shoveling his droppings now for more than 3 decades. Boll's filmography contains only 3 credits as a director/writer/actor prior to 2000, so the bulk of his work has been done in less than 8 years. There is still some finite possibility that he could either abandon his career, leaving behind a bad, but small and largely unknown body of work...OR...he could actually learn from his misfires and produce a solid body of future work.

Doubtful as that may be, if we are considering someone for a career body of work, I'd argue that 8 years and a handful of films based on video games (a dubious plot of ground to sow for cinematic classics) isn't much of a data set. If Boll spends the next decade continuing to produce the kind of work he is doing now, he'll be deserving.



-------------
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: CptnHotsauce
Date Posted: April 25 2008 at 1:17pm
I'm going to go with Uwe on this one. Stallone may have made some really bad movies, such as Judge Dredd and Demolition Man, most of his sequels, and that adult movie he was in. But in thirty years will we see 2 monuments to Uwe Boll as a director? No we will not. Go to Zitiste, Serbia and there you will find a replica of the statue of that sits outside the Philadelphia Museum of Art, That of Mr. Balboa.To have one of his movies be reenacted almost every day by tourists, citizens and public officals is the kind of impact Uwe will never have. Mr. Boll is a self important a%$hat who rips other directors and needs to be put in his place.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 26 2008 at 2:22am
Originally posted by Razzilla

221,471 to date...

I REALLY like comment # 221454

Can we add a third victim to this list...and one that I believe whose on-screen persona is worse than the two combined...one that's covered under that quote???

Uwe Boll and Larry the Cable Guy together. . . . oh my. . . .



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 26 2008 at 2:31am

Because it is relevant to the current discussion, may I draw your attention to the fact that http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=homevideo&id=inthenameoftheking.htm - In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale , which hilariously went to DVD a mere 3 months after it bombed at the box office (although ITNOTK took in almost double of what BloodRayne did), hauled in $5.5 million in DVD rentals its first week on the market.  That's more money and far, far more viewers than ITNOTK garnered at the box office.

I'm sure it didn't hurt that Jason Statham appeared in it.

 



Posted By: PopcornAvenger
Date Posted: April 26 2008 at 5:24am
I agree if you consider the time and body of work Stallone is more deserving. He could be lined up for 2009's Worst Career Reward - maybe timed to coincide with the release of Rambo V - while it seems the window on nailing Uwe is closing. In other words, let's get Uwe "while the gettin's good" and lineup Sly for next year.

Also, frankly, his movies don't have the sheer toxicity of Uwe's cinematic poison (with the possible exception of Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot! ). I wouldn't be surprised if a study found Uwe's films to be carcinogenic. 

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 27 2008 at 12:22pm

Originally posted by PopcornAvenger

I agree if you consider the time and body of work Stallone is more deserving. 

That is the point of the award. If the best available argument for Boll is that we might not get another chance for whatever reason, it just isn't a strong enough justification. By my thinking, Boll is in the process of building an impressive resume for our future consideration, but to date his career body of work is small, largely unknown by most moviegoers and of nearly zero consequence against the backdrop of cinematic history.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 27 2008 at 4:03pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

. . .largely unknown by most moviegoers. . .

I've refuted this twice already, you repeated it again, so now I'm not going to let you say this anymore until you address my refutation.

Millions have seen Boll's films.  Mind you, it's been through rentals, but still millions have seen them.  I've already proven that twice, once with BloodRayne and now with In The Name Of The King.

So, saturnwatcher, how many millions of moviegoers have to see someone's film before they're no longer unknown?  Come on, since you keep on repeating this, be like Boll and give me a number.  You're coming across like you're dismissing the rentals of millions of people because it's inconvenient to your argument.  Answer this point, or show some integrity and drop yours.

 



Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: April 28 2008 at 11:34am
I agree with you cvc that Uwe Boll is known widely by millions of people ranging from the average Joe that was duped into watching his "Films", to gamers (And gamers can be quiet a powerful voice, don't believe me, ask Cooper Lawrence... that bitch). However I still do think Stallone deserves the lifetime nod this time. And this is coming from a guy who liked Rocky Balboa and Rambo (What can i say, it was kinda fun). But one good movie, and one okay movie doesn't make up for decades worth of crap.

I will say this though, Uwe Boll better win just about every other Razzie award (Worst picture, worst director, etc), He's releasing multiple sh*tty movies this year and has been all over the internet making an ass out of himself. If there is any God out there, this years Razzies will be the Year of the Boll, and what better way to compliment that than to also give Stallone his overdue Lifetime nod.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 28 2008 at 1:47pm

You know, Mayhem, I could go for that.  Have Boll sweep everything but Worst Actor (Stallone, unless someone could possibly "outdo" him) and Worst Actress (Paris, and no one could possibly "outdo" her), and give Stallone lifetime "achievement".  I'd prefer give Boll lifetime achievement this year, and then giving Stallone one next year when he releases Rambo V, but I'm open to Boll racking up the Razzies.

Of course, based on the clips I've seen, none of us are prepared for Postal when it comes out next month.  It will have everyone here shaking their heads in shocked stupor.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 29 2008 at 2:16am

Are you asking me to be impressed by a man whose movies typically earn a few hundred thousand ticket sales, and $5 million rentals? Not very impressive, considering that some of the rentals might have been multiples by the same renters.  However, it should be noted that A Sound of Thunder topped $5 million in video rentals, which pretty much sends your argument crashing down harder than the box-office take of a Boll film. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Strange Wilderness will top $5 million in rentals. That just isn't a very substantial figure.

Simple fact: Boll isn't well known by the movie-going public, his movies aren't widely seen, and there is no argument to refute that fact. His work may well be trash, but his career, as of this point, has been too short and too unremarkable to warrant a lifetime achievement award from us.

Originally posted by cvcjr13

] I've refuted this twice already, you repeated it again, so now I'm not going to let you say this anymore until you address my refutation.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 29 2008 at 2:50am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

However, it should be noted that A Sound of Thunder topped $5 million in video rentals, which pretty much sends your argument crashing down harder than the box-office take of a Boll film.

Actually, it doesn't, and you're evading my question.  Just because millions have rented the horrible A Sound Of Thunder doesn't define how many people have to see a director's movies before the director is no longer unknown.  But I think you're being funnier than Norbit.  "Millions of people have squandered their precious lives on A Sound of Thunder, and it is unknown."  Is that what you're saying?  With all seriousness?  That's funny.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Simple fact: Boll isn't well known by the movie going public, his movies aren't widely seen, and there is no argument to refute that fact. 

Don't need an argument when one has facts.  Hundreds of thousands of people have seen his movies on the big screen.  Millions of people have rented his movies on DVD.

And I don't need an argument when you're evading the question.  Come on, saturnwatcher, how many millions of people need to see Uwe Boll's movies before he is no longer unknown?

It's really funny.  Your argument is the Titanic, you've already hit the iceberg, and you're still saying nothing is wrong.

Millions of people don't count!  Sez saturnwatcher.

 



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: April 29 2008 at 3:11am

$5 million in video rentals just doesn't translate to "millions" renting the movie. In fact, it is probably considerably less than one million, given average rental prices, the number of multiple rentals, and the number of people who rent a movie, but never end up watching it.

Sorry, but the numbers you are presenting just don't add up to a large base of people routinely watching Boll's films. Quite the contrary, the numbers are very unremarkable. Movies with extremely weak box-office performances (although stronger than those typical of Boll productions) routinely top $20 million in rentals or better. All of Boll's films put together have a hard time generating those kinds of numbers. You can talk "facts" all you want, but the only fact here is that your own numbers refute your  argument.

Incidentally, just to use a movie you cited as an example, the domestic gross for Norbit was $95 million with nearly $25 million in rentals. That was for a bad film.  Boll's career numbers to date can't match that...possibly won't ever....The fan base for a terrible Eddie Murphy movie is two orders of magnitude greater than a typical Boll film.

 

addendum: I would also note here that you are misreading the numbers for A Sound of Thunder in much the same way you misread the numbers for Boll's film. I presented it specifically because its box-office take was extremely weak (although not out of line with many of Boll's recent efforts) and video rental performance was on par with Boll's better numbers. You'd have a hard time finding anyone who actually saw it. In effect, you seem to be looking at Boll's numbers in a vacuum, disregarding what is standard in the industry.  By any reasonable measure, Boll's films just don't perform well (in fact, extremely poor would not be inaccurate) either at the box-office or in rental.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 29 2008 at 7:05am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

$5 million in video rentals just doesn't translate to "millions" renting the movie. In fact, it is probably considerably less than one million, given average rental prices, the number of multiple rentals, and the number of people who rent a movie, but never end up watching it.

Woo-hoo!  What rental shop do YOU go to?

Average video rental price - $3.  Plug it in, baby.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Sorry, but the numbers you are presenting just don't add up to a large base of people routinely watching Boll's films.

Woo-hoo!  SW ignores the facts that don't suit him!

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Quite the contrary, the numbers are very unremarkable. Movies with extremely weak box-office performances (although stronger than those typical of Boll productions) routinely top $20 million in rentals or better. All of Boll's films put together have a hard time generating those kinds of numbers.

Woo-hoo!  Millions of people rent his movie, and SW sez that's unremarkable!

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

You can talk "facts" all you want, but the only fact here is that your own numbers refute your  argument.

Woo-hoo!  SW denies the facts, and then claims they aren't what they are!

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Incidentally, just to use a movie you cited as an example, the domestic gross for Norbit was $95 million with nearly $25 million in rentals. That was for a bad film.  Boll's career numbers to date can't match that...possibly won't ever....The fan base for a terrible Eddie Murphy movie is two orders of magnitude greater than a typical Boll film.

Woo-hoo!  SW sez the basis of "unknown" is comparison.

So, most people haven't seen Citizen Kane, so that's an unknown movie.

Most people don't own Eagles' Greatest Hits, so that's an unknown album.

Most people don't watch CSI, so that's an unknown TV series.

Obviously, comparing how many people view or listen to something to how many people view or listen to something else doesn't prove how well known these things are.

But not to SW.  Woo-hoo!

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

addendum: I would also note here that you are misreading the numbers for A Sound of Thunder in much the same way you misread the numbers for Boll's film. I presented it specifically because its box-office take was extremely weak (although not out of line with many of Boll's recent efforts) and video rental performance was on par with Boll's better numbers. You'd have a hard time finding anyone who actually saw it.

Woo-hoo!  Again, the average rental is $3.  Plug it in, baby.   You're the one misreading the numbers, and it seems to be because you don't like what the numbers say!

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

In effect, you seem to be looking at Boll's numbers in a vacuum, disregarding what is standard in the industry.  By any reasonable measure, Boll's films just don't perform well (in fact, extremely poor would not be inaccurate) either at the box-office or in rental.

That's the only logical thing you said in your whole post.  Yes, they're weak, and you've proven they're weak.  But weak does not translate into unknown.

To use an extreme to prove the point, let's go back to Ed Wood.  His numbers are incredibly weak.  Even the numbers for Tim Burton's movie about Ed Wood are incredibly weak.  Yet Ed Wood is well-known. 

Weak and unknown, then, are two entirely different things. 

Don't confuse the two.

Millions have seen Boll's film.  So, going back to the question you're still evading, how many people does it take before Boll is no longer unknown?

Let me say this again: You're not going to go unchallenged anymore, until you refute my point (much like Mayhem did), or you drop your point...

 



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


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: April 30 2008 at 1:51am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The bottom line, after all this back-and-forth, is that many may have heard of Uwe Boll (especially after his hilarious, widely seen You Tube rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWqCNmfJ1hY&feature=related - LINK ). But almost no one has actually seen most of his films. Can we at least agree on that point?? 



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


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: April 30 2008 at 3:35am

AMEN !! I never thought I would see someone with as much Hot Air as Saturnwatcher! But I think he may have found his match in  cvcjr13.

Good Job in keeping the Professor on his toes, and standing up for what you believe in -- a very formidable job with someone as articulate and knowledgeable as Saturnwatcher. However, when all is said and done, I completely agree with him on his viewpoint. Stallone has reached and polluted a lot more movie-goers in the last quarter century (Way more!) than Uwe has since his first movie was released in America 5 years ago, when nobody had the slightest idea who and what he was.

I agree that Uwe is well on his way to becoming the German Version of Ed Wood (and gaining a lot of steam in earning this reputation -- IMDB shows 6 "In Production" credits thus far). Again, how and who in the hell keeps financing this loser?? I'd say he will be a shoo-in for future Razzie consideration when HeadRAZZ is ready to pass out another Worst Career Achievement award, but right now I really think SlyBone is way over due for his abundant body of work (or body of sh*t, however you want to look at it) which he has generated since the early 80's.



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 30 2008 at 4:00pm
Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The bottom line, after all this back-and-forth, is that many may have heard of Uwe Boll (especially after his hilarious, widely seen You Tube rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWqCNmfJ1hY&feature=related - LINK ). But almost no one has actually seen most of his films. Can we at least agree on that point?? 

Of course we can agree to that!  I'm not sure all the films he's directed (12 released so far) are available in the U.S., but I feel confident that's a good thing!

I must point out that, in all this "back-and-forth", no one has tried throwing the onus of defining "unknown" and "known" back on me.  I will throw out a simple definition.

Obviously, "known" and "unknown" depend on how many people think about or remember you.  Since no one has turned the movie Brainstorm into a reality (thank goodness, for many reasons), this is not an observable fact.  So I suggest the next best thing.

You are known to the extent that people talk and write about you.  You are unknown to the extent that people don't talk and write about you.

Along this scale, you can be known within a group of people but unknown to everyone else.  For example, rock musicians and fans who read lots of liner notes know who http://www.harveymandel.com/ - Harvey "The Snake" Mandel is.  Most people, even those who have listened to thousands of songs, don't.

The more people who know who you are, the more people talk about you, the more people write about you.  Sometimes, though, it only takes one well-known person to name you, and then everyone is talking and writing about you.

Going back to Edward D. Wood, Jr., I can't imagine that anyone outside of a few movie buffs and movie critics knew who Ed Wood was, even after he died.  That all changed when Michael Medved gave a Golden Turkey Award to Ed Wood for being the Worst Director and to Plan 9 from Outer Space for being the worst movie of all time.  I'm not sure what happened from there, but it seemed over the years that people had to see for themselves, and then they wrote about it or told other people, and pretty soon, you have a lot of film buffs nowadays who say, "Oh, yeah, he's bad, but I have a lot of fun with Wood's movies."

That's my definition of being "known".  And ever since Boll mass released three reekers in a row - House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark and BloodRayne, people began talking about and writing about how bad he was.  And last year's boxing matches deserved all the RAZZing it received in miles of newsprint and internet webpages.  And In The Name of the King has only received a smidgeon of the ink Postal has received the last 9 months.  And Postal hasn't been mass released yet; it's only been shown in film festivals in this country.  Postal must be his most talked about film yet.

So, in no way can Uwe Boll be considered unknown at this point.  Although, yes, he is mostly known to movie critics, movie buffs and videogamers (which, by the way, is a large portion of the male population under 40), his reputation seems to be moving outside of these circles.  I won't be watching what Postal's box office will be.  It obviously will be dismal.  What I'll be watching is how much people will talk and write about that film.  THAT will be interesting.

I will end with pointing out what Blizzard, makers of the most popular online game, World of Warcraft, http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=26355213&part=rss&subj=6189641 - said when Boll had the nerve to ask them if he can buy the movie rights to their game .

"We will not sell the movie rights.  Not to you.  Especially not you."

Notice the word "especially."

Yes, Boll is known.

 



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: April 30 2008 at 5:59pm

I guess that's a compliment, ITbeast.  I guess even more that I'll have to take it regardless! . . .

No doubt Stallone beats Boll hands down for sheer number of years of laughably crappy movies.  I say, though, Boll's turds are "turdier" than Sly's (there's a thought!), and I'd like to see Boll get the award this year and Sly get it next year with Rambo V. 

Sly this year, Boll next year, Boll this year, Sly next year. . . . This almost sounds like we're discussing who should be the Democratic candidate for president. . . .

Originally posted by ITbeast

AMEN !! I never thought I would see someone with as much Hot Air as Saturnwatcher! But I think he may have found his match in  cvcjr13.

Good Job in keeping the Professor on his toes, and standing up for what you believe in -- a very formidable job with someone as articulate and knowledgeable as Saturnwatcher. However, when all is said and done, I completely agree with him on his viewpoint. Stallone has reached and polluted a lot more movie-goers in the last quarter century (Way more!) than Uwe has since his first movie was released in America 5 years ago, when nobody had the slightest idea who and what he was.

I agree that Uwe is well on his way to becoming the German Version of Ed Wood (and gaining a lot of steam in earning this reputation -- IMDB shows 6 "In Production" credits thus far). Again, how and who in the hell keeps financing this loser?? I'd say he will be a shoo-in for future Razzie consideration when HeadRAZZ is ready to pass out another Worst Career Achievement award, but right now I really think SlyBone is way over due for his abundant body of work (or body of sh*t, however you want to look at it) which he has generated since the early 80's.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 01 2008 at 2:01am

There is one other point in the discussion worthy of note. Most people make decisions regarding whether or not they see a movie based upon the content and who is in front of, not behind the camera. Regardless of how many people have ever seen any of Boll's films, and I'd still argue that the numbers aren't impressive, most of them probably couldn't tell you who directed them if you held a gun to their head. That is probably just as true of those who have seen one Boll film as those who have seen a few.

Incidentally, I dare say that sales for The Eagles Greatest Hits during the first month outpaced the grosses for any Boll film, and Citizen Kane has probably aired a few more times (sarcastic note) on TCM alone than all of Boll's films put together on any outlet. In any event, the box-office numbers for Kane, even at lower price levels are considerably better than any Boll film.

Further, if you are going to criticize points I make, at least do me the courtesy of addressing all of the relevant variables. Regardless of the average price of rentals, it does remain a fact that frequently, people rent movies and never watch them, or rent them multiple times prior to watching them, or rent multiple times for multiple viewings.  Even so, a figure of $5 million, even if every single person who watches it is a unique rental, still only translates to a little over a million viewers, not several million, which isn't impressive, even compared to numbers generated by other bad films.  Further, as I have noted above, a large percentage of those will not have clue one as to the identity of the director.

And if we can at least attempt to keep a measure of civility in the discussion, acknowledge that I have never denied any of your facts. I have simply pointed out that viewing them in the context of numbers generated by other movies, at the box-office and in rental/sales, doesn't support the contention that there is a large fan base for films directed by Boll, or that he is widely known by the general public. On the contrary, they suggest that Boll's films are widely ignored, more likely because the public just isn't enthusiastic about the content, not because they are Boll products.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 01 2008 at 2:52am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

There is one other point in the discussion worthy of note. Most people make decisions regarding whether or not they see a movie based upon the content and who is in front of, not behind the camera. Regardless of how many people have ever seen any of Boll's films, and I'd still argue that the numbers aren't impressive, most of them probably couldn't tell you who directed them if you held a gun to their head. That is probably just as true of those who have seen one Boll film as those who have seen a few.

You could say that just about any director.  The only exceptions that comes to mind right now is Alfred Hitchcock (then again, he had his own TV series were everyone could see him and hear him), Steven Spielberg (who for the most part produces rather than directs), and George Lucas (whom most people will have difficulty identifying in a crowd).  I have no figures on this, but it wouldn't surprise me that people could watch Mean Streets, Casino, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Gangs of New York, The Departed or The Aviator and still not realize they were all directed by Martin Scorsese.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Incidentally, I dare say that sales for The Eagles Greatest Hits during the first month outpaced the grosses for any Boll film, and Citizen Kane has probably aired a few more times (sarcastic note) on TCM alone than all of Boll's films put together on any outlet. In any event, the box-office numbers for Kane, even at lower price levels are considerably better than any Boll film.

I'm not disputing that.  My point was that most people don't own Eagles Greatest Hits and most people haven't seen Citizen Kane, yet that album and that movie are well-known.  So, comparisons of popular measures, such as albums sales or ticket sales, are not a good measure of whether something or someone is well-known or not.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Further, if you are going to criticize points I make, at least do me the courtesy of addressing all of the relevant variables. Regardless of the average price of rentals, it does remain a fact that frequently, people rent movies and never watch them, or rent them multiple times prior to watching them, or rent multiple times for multiple viewings.  Even so, a figure of $5 million, even if every single person who watches it is a unique rental, still only translates to a little over a million viewers, not several million, which isn't impressive, even compared to numbers generated by other bad films.  Further, as I have noted above, a large percentage of those will not have clue one as to the identity of the director.

Although there are people who rent movies and not watch them (which I would guess happens to Boll movies perhaps more than others), or rent them multiple times before watching them (which I would guess happens less frequently with Boll movies than with others), or rent them multiple times with multiple viewings (I seriously doubt this happens but with the most rare occasions with Boll films), it would surprise me if these all together constitute more than 5% of all rentals.  I'd bet the rental businesses have statistics on these, but I wouldn't know where to find them.  Most people I know watch the movies they rent, and there are very few movies they would rent more than once.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

And if we can at least attempt to keep a measure of civility in the discussion, acknowledge that I have never denied any of your facts. I have simply pointed out that viewing them in the context of numbers generated by other movies, at the box-office and in rental/sales, doesn't support the contention that there is a large fan base for films directed by Boll, or that he is widely known by the general public. On the contrary, they suggest that Boll's films are widely ignored, more likely because the public just isn't enthusiastic about the content, not because they are Boll products.

You're changing the status quo.  The question is not whether Boll has "a large fan base" (I'm guessing his fan base currently numbers 100,000 to 200,000, and I'm being generous), or that he is widely known by the general public (see my comments on directors in general above).  The question is whether Boll can be dismissed as unknown, and based on how much he is talked about and how much is written about him, no, he cannot.  As I explained in my post about what constitutes being well-known, many people know him, either as the dude who makes awful movies based on videogames, or perhaps even as the world's worst living director, if not the world's worst director, a title I will not give him myself.

And it would be great if the Razzies "award" him for his "effing" contributions to the cinematic septic tank.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 01 2008 at 3:46am

Originally posted by cycjr wrote

You could say that just about any director. 

Which has been my point all along. I don't and have never disputed that Boll has done bad work. My argument is that we should reserve any movement toward giving a career achievement award to a guy that 1. At this point hasn't really put together much of a career 2. Isn't widely known. and 3. probably has less name recognition than the guy who shines Sly Stallone's shoes. For all most people know, Boll is  the guy who shines Stallone's shoes.  If Boll continues along his present path for another decade, I'll be completely on your side in this debate.

As to your point that only about 5% of people who rent movies never watch them, are we to allow that it is a point of personal conjecture on your part, and not a quantifiable figure?

In summation: Boll's films have been box-office duds, and have not performed well in rental, falling well below standards set by recognized poor performers

Even among those who have seen one or more of his films, it does not necessarily follow that people who have seen them link them to Boll, or are even aware that he has been responsible for more than one of the films...in fact, probably quite the contrary.

His career to this point, while promising for our future consideration, has been too short for a career type reward. Who knows, the guy could quit or become good.

Stallone, by contrast, has had a long and storied career in bad roles and bad films, is probably closer to the end of his career than the beginning, flushed away a career that actually began promisingly, and has the type of name recognition that would make the award meaningful.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 01 2008 at 5:34pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

2. Isn't widely known.

This phrase is far more acceptable and probably a lot more closer to the truth than your earlier phrase, "unknown."  He is known very well by far too many people to be unknown.  But, and I feel only because of his boxing match challenge last year, Boll seems only beginning to be known outside of movie buffs and videogamers.

I wonder if Postal will bring Boll the revilement of a larger group of people?

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

As to your point that only about 5% of people who rent movies never watch them, are we to allow that it is a point of personal conjecture on your part, and not a quantifiable figure?

My point is only as much a personal conjecture as your point that those three things are significant.  Again, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the movie rental industry has statistics on this.  However, of course, most of this has changed with Netflix and Blockbuster.  You keep the discs as long as you want until you finally watch them.  I'm not sure how Netflix and Blockbuster work into overall DVD rentals, though.  That would be hard to quantify.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

His career to this point, while promising for our future consideration, has been too short for a career type reward. Who knows, the guy could quit or become good.

Nah.  He's headed for porn and cheap action flicks if he keeps going the way he's going.  I doubt he'd be able to afford buying the movie rights to videogames soon, which is fine.  His movies have little to do with their videogame namesakes anyway.

Anyway, after Postal bombs, will we see Seed or Far Cry (or either) hit the screen next?



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 2:40pm

Originally posted by cvcjr13

My point is only as much a personal conjecture as your point that those three things are significant.

Actually I left out a significant factor. Generally speaking, figures for video rentals are typical rentals/sales. Again, factoring sales of DVD's into the equation brings down viewership considerably.

At the end of the day, I remain compelled to argue (as someone surely should) that we are far to early in the game to be considering Boll for any time of career achievement award. Frankly, I think he is simply going to disappear from the scene from lack of funding. Hollywood history is litered with dozens of similar stories.

Then again, living in Denver allows me to point out the rare opportunities for redemption (or at least a potent cautionary tale). I remember a rookie quarterback we once had playing for the Broncos. During the first play of his first regular season game, he lined up behind his right guard instead of the center. He was so awful that within a few games, he was relegated to the bench behind a journeyman, and was actually 3rd string for a time behind another rookie.

He wasn't much better his second season, and  most of the fans thought the other second year QB should be starting instead. Most of the fans were ready to run him out of town by the end of that second year. But the coaches stuck with him.

He came around and led the Broncos to 5 Super Bowls, winning two of them and being named MVP in the second winning effort, and became the first Bronco elected to the Hall of Fame (imagine, a team that has played in 6 Super bowls has one hall of famer...the second just elected this year). That QB was, of course, John Elway.

Could Uwe Boll end up the John Elway of cinema? Probably not. But I doubt he'll  be the next Ed Wood either. His movies just aren't entertaining enough. But even in this instant gratification society, I advocate allowing time to make judgements, and lets give our career awards to the numerous figures for whom time has fairly made that judgement.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 1:58pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Actually I left out a significant factor. Generally speaking, figures for video rentals are typical rentals/sales. Again, factoring sales of DVD's into the equation brings down viewership considerably.

Not true.  Take a look at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/dvdrentals/chart/?wk=2008-04-27&p=.htm - Box Office Mojo's DVD Rental chart .  Note it says "rental", not "rental" and "sales".  Now, click the link that takes you to http://www.homemediamagazine.com/ - Home Media Retailing , where Box Office Mojo gets their rental information, and click the Digital Edition link near the upper right.  http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom042008/#/26 - If you were to select the edition for 20 Apr 2008 , go to page 22, and you will see their Top 20 Video Seller chart, compiled by Nielsen VideoScan.  Then go to page 24, and you will see their Top 20 Rentals chart, which they compile themselves.  Notice they have one chart for sellers, and one chart for rentals.

Man, saturnwatcher, I don't know where you came up with that.  When a chart says it's "rentals", why on earth would you ever think it included sales?  Tell me this was just a mistake.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

At the end of the day, I remain compelled to argue (as someone surely should) that we are far to early in the game to be considering Boll for any time of career achievement award. Frankly, I think he is simply going to disappear from the scene from lack of funding. Hollywood history is litered with dozens of similar stories.

Uwe Boll already had 12 films released, and he has another 5 in the pipeline, not counting They Wait and Alone in the Dark II, which he produces but doesn't direct.  http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0093051/ - Click here and check it out .  I'd like to blame Germany, but Germany has changed its rules about funding films.  Boll has somebody bankrolling him.  I have no idea who, but I don't think that's half as interesting as knowing the reason why.  In any case, you tell me--how many bad filmmakers keep on cranking out film after film with no end in sight?

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

That QB was, of course, John Elway.

Yeah, I remember watching Elway lose three Super Bowls almost in a row.  I thought he was going down with no Super Bowl wins like Dan Marino of the Miami Dolphins, but he managed to win two before he retired.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Could Uwe Boll end up the John Elway of cinema? Probably not. But I doubt he'll  be the next Ed Wood either. His movies just aren't entertaining enough. But even in this instant gratification society, I advocate allowing time to make judgements, and lets give our career awards to the numerous figures for whom time has fairly made that judgement.

For a second there, I thought you were going to give Boll the benefit of the doubt.  After 12 movies and reportedly squandering all that money on In The Name of the King (I think it was $60 million?), he's only made one good scene (the one with Meat Loaf playing a vampiric Bacchus-like character in BloodRayne, and that's only because Meat Loaf was perfect for the role). 

We'll see how the public reacts to Postal.  It could be ignored, it could be inflammatory, but at the very least, it seems to be yet another bad movie by the Bollmeister. 



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 05 2008 at 2:07am

You will note that I said "generally speaking" with regard to the sales/rental matter and several sources list the figures in the manner I described. Since you hadn't been particulary fortcoming in listing the sources of your figures up until that last post the point was not unreasonable.  However the figures are listed, it remains that rentals for Bolls movies are still unimpressive, and fall well below most movies recognized as poor performers.

Ultimately, my point stands. If we are going to be giving out awards based on "career achievements," there are dozens of people who's contributions to the art of bad cinema should be considered long before we  toss Boll's hat into the ring, especially considering that his "career" to date spans only a handful of years and a small number of movies. It wouldn't be difficult to compile a lengthy list of names of actors and directors who's careers spanned decades and names remain well known. But contrast, you'd have difficulty finding large numbers of people over 30 who have ever heard of Boll (and not a lot under 30). Ten years from now, it may be practically impossible in any demographic. Rushes to judgement rarely produce positive results. Let's put Boll on the backburner where he belongs and see if his efforts warrant our recognition at a more appropriate time.

Incidentally, whle Boll has announced plans for 5 future projects, it is not a given that all of them will see light of day. In Hollywood, nothing is inevitable until it actually happens. Ask Kevin Smith about The Green Hornet.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 05 2008 at 4:02pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

You will note that I said "generally speaking" with regard to the sales/rental matter and several sources list the figures in the manner I described.

Okay.  Be forthcoming.  Name these sources that combine rental and sales figures of DVDs together in one chart.  I'll go and check it out.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Since you hadn't been particulary fortcoming in listing the sources of your figures up until that last post the point was not unreasonable.

Not true.  When I listed the DVD rental figures for BloodRayne and for In The Name Of The King, I embedded links in both of those posts that, if you clicked on them, would have taken you to the Box Office Mojo pages that list those rental figures.  I use links like footnotes.  You can see where I'm getting my stuff.  Go back and check it out for yourself.

So, I've been very forthcoming.  You just didn't notice.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

 However the figures are listed, it remains that rentals for Bolls movies are still unimpressive, and fall well below most movies recognized as poor performers.

Actually, I find millions of rentals to be very impressive considering the movies themselves barely pull in hundreds of thousands of movie goers.  So, you dismiss them and I find them significant.

By the way, when I say "millions", I mean more than one.  Sorry I didn't clear that up when you first brought up the issue.  Now, if you mean "two or more", then let's just wait until tomorrow.  The new DVD Rentals chart will appear in http://www.boxofficemojo.com/ - Box Office Mojo , and I'd expect the total rentals for In The Name Of The King for the last two weeks to be somewhere between $7 and $8 million, which averages out to around 2 million rentals, Boll's best figure yet.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Ultimately, my point stands. If we are going to be giving out awards based on "career achievements," there are dozens of people who's contributions to the art of bad cinema should be considered long before we  toss Boll's hat into the ring, especially considering that his "career" to date spans only a handful of years and a small number of movies.

"Dozens of people. . . should be considered long before. . . Boll. . .".  Okay, name them. 

Now, since your definition of "millions" is probably "two or more", while my definition of millions is "more than one", you've set yourself a very high bar coming up with "dozens."  "Two or more" would make that 24 names you'd have to come up with.  Tell you what.  Use my definition.  You'd only have to come up with 13 that way. 

Name me 13 people who deserve a lifetime achievement award for being so bad that they're good than Uwe Boll, 13 people who haven't already gotten that recognition.

Of course, you'll start with Stallone.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

But contrast, you'd have difficulty finding large numbers of people over 30 who have ever heard of Boll (and not a lot under 30). Ten years from now, it may be practically impossible in any demographic.

I disagree.  There are millions, and I've already proved that.  Millions, last time I checked, is a large number of people.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Rushes to judgement rarely produce positive results. Let's put Boll on the backburner where he belongs and see if his efforts warrant our recognition at a more appropriate time.

So, after a dozen films, he's still doesn't have a long enough resume for you. 

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Incidentally, whle Boll has announced plans for 5 future projects, it is not a given that all of them will see light of day. In Hollywood, nothing is inevitable until it actually happens. Ask Kevin Smith about The Green Hornet.

Ugh.  You just caused me to remember the 1974 movie. 

I have stopped counting the Bollmeister out.  Last year around July, http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3160150 - when Freestyle Releasing announced that it would put the next three Boll films into theatres , I said to myself, "Yeah, right."  Well, obviously, things didn't go the way they first announced they would go, and it took them five months to get started.  But Freestyle first got In The Name of the King in theatres, and then turned around and placed what I felt was the most difficult one, Postal, in the theatres.  I would not be surprised if Freestyle pulls it off and puts Seed into theatres as well, although I don't know if they will make it before the end of this year.   

By the way, notice the links?  I want to make sure you don't think I'm not being forthcoming. . . .

 



Posted By: #1 Sly Fan
Date Posted: May 12 2008 at 2:04am
Bet you can guess from my signature who I think ought to get the Career Razzie next year: Boll is totally deserving, never having made even ONE good movie, while My Idol Sly has made nothing BUT good movies (though I don't expect a lot of agreement about that on this Forum!)...

-------------
YO: Quit Pickin' on Stallone!!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: May 12 2008 at 11:04am
Just keep this in mind, everyone, Uwe Boll has gone on record that he would gladly accept his Razzie Award if he "won" one (because he'll take all the awards he can get). Just think about it: Why give it to Sly the no-show, when you can give it to Uwe, who will be there and make an even bigger @$$ and joke of himself, by giving a speech about how this "award" proves he's the only talented genius in the film industry!!   

-------------
"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: tomsmobr
Date Posted: May 12 2008 at 1:16pm

I saw that Uwe Boll has another Movie coming on May 23rd called Postal here's The Offical Site http://www.postal-the-movie.com/index.htm - http://www.postal-the-movie.com/index.htm  plus there two different types of Trailers to view a PG and Second Trailer that Rated R.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: We already have a "preliminary" listing for http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=274 - POSTAL on our Forum -- Here's a http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=274 - LINK to it. It will also be our designated Worst of New Movie of the Weak choice for May 23...



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 14 2008 at 7:46pm

Oh, my words, I didn't believe this at first, but it's true!  It dates back to his nomination for Alone in the Darkhttp://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=62720 - Here's a link to the article in EuroGamer .

Originally posted by Michaels

Just keep this in mind, everyone, Uwe Boll has gone on record that he would gladly accept his Razzie Award if he "won" one (because he'll take all the awards he can get).

 



Posted By: deadguy76
Date Posted: May 22 2008 at 5:48pm
Postal is, once again, based on a video game. Like House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark and Bloodrayne. Although I'm a fan of video games, it pains me to see Uwe Boll adapting them to movies. Especially since some of them are quite entertaining games.

I heard there's an online poll somewhere, a petition to get Uwe Boll to quit making movies. It's at 279,000 votes now. Uwe Boll has stated that if votes get to I million he will retire. Please someone find this website!!!


-------------
"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


Posted By: #1-Movie-Fan!
Date Posted: May 23 2008 at 2:51am

I'm sure someone else must have posted this already, but here's the address to sign the Stop Uwe Boll petition: 

http://www.petitiononline.com/RRH53888/petition.html - http://www.petitiononline.com/RRH53888/petition.html   

 



Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 7:14am

Back to our all time champion of RAZZ...It seems MGM is thinking of a Rocky 7 (I kid you not!!!!), Anyways here is the http://www.moviehole.net/news/20080528_mgm_considering_rocky_7.html - link .



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 4:09pm
NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 4:49am
For all you UWE Boll Fans out there (or as we like to call them, you EEEWWW Balls Fans) here is a http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/postal/news/1730319/ - link to Rotten Tomatoes for an exclusive interview with The German Ed Wood of the 21st Century. It includies details on how he "almost" cast Kevin Costner in "The Name Of the King" -- amongst other things!    

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 5:34pm

Originally posted by ITbeast

For all you UWE Boll Fans out there (or as we like to call them, you EEEWWW Balls Fans) here is a http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/postal/news/1730319/ - link to Rotten Tomatoes for an exclusive interview with The German Ed Wood of the 21st Century. It includies details on how he "almost" cast Kevin Costner in "The Name Of the King" -- amongst other things!    

I see that Seed will not get a theatrical release.  In that interview, Boll blames it on it being rated NC-17.  Yeah, right.

So, we not only lost our chance at having a Boll three-fer, but we also lost our chance at weighing in on what probably would have been the worst horror movie released this.

I'm so heartbroken. . . .

 



Posted By: BigBaby
Date Posted: June 04 2008 at 4:44pm

Oh come on. I know Stallone isn't the best actor but at least (some of) his films are entertaining. Can you honestly say you didn't enjoy Rocky I, II, III, IV...or the original Rambo, even Judge Dread was kinda fun to watch.

I made the mistake of renting Blood Rayne and BR2, and after that vowed never to watch another Boll movie again.

...Uwe Boll hands down. 



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


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 05 2008 at 3:12am
I think you had us until you mentioned Judge Dredd. . . .

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


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 05 2008 at 5:53am
.... and Rocky's III and IV (At least BigBaby did not mention Rocky V).

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 2:36am

"Seed" might not get "worst excuse for a horror movie", but "Postal" can always get "worst excuse of a laugh-free comedy". I think the Razzies should change their rules so that straight-to-DVD movies can apply as well. There are alway sequels to somewhat decent or successful movies that star Z-list actors and actresses, and are pretty much nothing more than a rehash of the first movie, except with more nudity. 95% of the time, they are worse than anything in theaters and they also further prove Hollywood's all about milking as much cash as possible and the art of film comes second, if not last.

Yeah, in case you didn't notice, I'm really pushing for Boll to be the Lindsay Lohan/Eddie Murphy of 2009 and sweep the entire "awards".



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 6:55am
I'm with you, Michaels.


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: June 15 2008 at 4:25am
I'd say give it to Uwe. At least Sylvester can say he's a two-time Oscar nominee.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 6:49am
After seeing John Rambo (see my remarks in the discussion thread) there simply is no reasonable argument. Stallone deserves the award for that piece of crap alone and everything else is icing. Boll can't hold Stallone's jock, either for ineptitude, or anything as appallingly violent as Rambo IV.

-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 7:18am

Ineptitude?!  Appallingly violent?!  You haven't seen Postal.  If you count all the cultists, all the trailer park residents, all the neighbors, all the kids and adults at the Little Germany theme park, all the Al Qaeda terrorists--you'd easily have a higher death count than John Rambo, with far more kids shot to death (although I have to admit, no one in Postal threw a kid into a burning hut--but it would have fit).  And this doesn't even get into the opening sequence where the hijacked jet collides with the World Trade Center tower or the nuclear war at the end of the movie which takes out India, China AND all the major cities in the United States!

And Rambo never used a cat as a silencer, so there! 

Again, I can watch a bad Stallone movie several times over.  It would take all I could muster to watch a Uwe Boll movie twice, and that goes double for Postal. Although I can see Postal becoming a cult classic, actually.  It's that type of movie.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

After seeing John Rambo (see my remarks in the discussion thread) there simply is no reasonable argument. Stallone deserves the award for that piece of crap alone and everything else is icing. Boll can't hold Stallone's jock, either for ineptitude, or anything as appallingly violent as Rambo IV.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 11:33am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

Ineptitude?!  Appallingly violent?!  You haven't seen Postal

On the contrary, yes I have (the local film society managed to arrange a screening). I didn't like it, but I didn't find it anywhere near as gratituitous as John Rambo. At least there was some (dreadfully failed) effort to tell a story, and Boll was only making a half-assed effort at satire. Stallone was actually capitalizing on the current underbelly of xenophobia present in our society.  I'd hate to sit through either movie again, but if forced to do so, I'd chose Postal, with the reservation that the running time is about 10 minutes longer.

In any event, Postal will ultimately reach such a small audience that it won't have near the impact.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 12:36pm

You did?  You and I are part of a small group of unfortunate moviegoers, then. . . .

You'd rather suffer through the 10 extra minutes of Postal than the shorter movie of John Rambo. . . . Ouch!  That's funny. 

As far as small audiences goes, Postal was out of most of the dozen theatres it was in by the second week.  I didn't bother to keep track of it, since whoever it was that was distributing it, whether it was Running With Scissors or Boll himself, didn't provide the box office to trackers like Box Office Mojo.  It's audience now depends on DVD rentals and the devoted fans of the Postal videogames.

You're absolutely right about your assessment of Postal, although I find the phrase "making a half-assessed effort" to be way too kind.  That seems to connote he knew he was cutting corners on quality.  I feel he actually thinks he's making these wonderful, great movies on a budget.  This goes double for Postal, which he considers his masterpiece.  It's not that his effort is half-assessed; he's doing the best he knows how to do.  It's that he's delusional.  He doesn't understand how to direct a film, yet he thinks he does.

 



Posted By: myworksucks
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 4:08am
Well, way back when, Sly made decent movies. Uwe Boll has never made good movies. So the answer is pretty clear. Uwe Boll all the way.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 3:13pm
You want to talk about bad taste? Yes, "Rambo" was too violent ... but at least it didn't mock 9/11 like the opening minutes of "Postal" did. Sly will always have the first "Rocky" movie, but Boll has, well, nothing redeeming to his career.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 10:45am

Originally posted by Michaels

... Boll has, well, nothing redeeming to his career.

To date...but he could still surprise us one of these days. As I have pointed out previously, he still has a few good decades to come up with something. He probably won't, but hey, the Rockies made it to the World Series last year! Anything can happen. Sly, on the other hand, has the vast majority of his career behind him.

I would also point out, yet again, that Sly does reach a sufficiently large audience that his clap trap can do real harm. For that reason alone, giving him a deserved slap is almost a matter of public service. Boll may well be deserving, but giving him a Razzie will have all the public impact of catching and publicly executing Osama Bin Laden's pool man. Most people just won't care.



-------------
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: July 01 2008 at 12:48pm
Saying Boll has a few good movies in his future career is like saying Jessica Alba has an Oscar with her name on it. Not going to happen. Sure, Sly is mainstream, but he's gotten Razzies 10 times before and it hasn't stopped him. Boll on the other hand pops bad movies out like a tennis ball launcher, until finally someone noticed what crap he was making and cut off his money flow. Now Boll's in straight-to-DVD Hades, with his past five movies not even earning their budgets back and his last film being rejected from a theater release. A Razzie for him would be icing on the cake that is his downwardspiral of a "career" he no longer has ... if he ever had one in the first place. Hey, at least Sly doesn't make YouTube videos declaring himself the only talented person in the industry. Anyone who does that must get a Razzie, eh Mr. Boll.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 2:03pm

Originally posted by Michaels

Saying Boll has a few good movies in his future career is like saying Jessica Alba has an Oscar with her name on it.

WHOOOOAAA NELLIE! Allow me to repeat.

WHOOOOOAAA NELLIE!

I did NOT say that Boll has a few good movies in his future. In fact, if you would please be so kind as to actually read my post, you will probably note that I expressed doubt that Boll has ANY good movies in his future. I did, however, acknowledge the POSSIBILITY. If anyone would have told me in April of 2007 that the Rockies would be playing in the World Series that October I'd have given them a glass of warm milk and discreetly called the guys in the white coats. As a matter of tradition, lifetime achievement awards are ALWAYS given to people who are acknowledged to be in the late stages of their career. That effectively makes Stallone the logical choice. I have no problem with eventually considering Boll, but let's table the matter until he has reached a similar stage in his career.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 6:30pm

Uwe Boll IS in the late stages of his career.  You and the Bollmeister are the only ones who think otherwise.

And a lot more people would care about Boll getting a Razzie than you think.  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=homevideo&id=inthenameoftheking.htm - Take the recent rental totals for In The Name Of The King - almost $22 million worth.  That's a lot of rentals, which means a lot of people have seen at least one Boll movie.  And then there are the videogamers, not a small number of people, http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSWNAS233520080507 - considering the millions of copies Grand Theft Auto IV cranked out this year .  The videogamers know Boll.  No, more people would care about Boll winning a Razzie than they would about Bin Laden's pool man being executed.  Only you would wrongly think otherwise.

 



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 5:31am
At age 43, Boll still has the opportunity to haunt the cinematic halls for a long time to come...yes, possibly even redeem himself...stranger things have happened. And I'm sorry, but the numbers you keep tossing out for Boll's movies just aren't impressive. Films that are acknowledged to be howling dogs do better. Frankly, the vast majority of folks out there aren't particularly familiar with Boll, his films, or the video games from which they are adapted.

-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 2:38pm

Let's see. . . he claims he can't get Postal into movie theatres because it's too offensive, which, since you and I have seen it, we both know that's not the real reason (it's garbage).  He then claims Seed is going direct to video because it was rated NC-17 and he won't cut it, which is hogwash, because any entrepreneur would do the slim cuts the movie needs to make the ratings board change its minds, and when the DVD comes out, release a theatre version and an uncut version and make a lot more money. 

Fact is, his career is in the toilet, and you've even said it's improbable that it will ever return out of DVD hell.  So, the only reason you're contradicting yourself and insisting his career isn't over by overemphasizing the, oh my words, it's. . . it's. . .THE EFFING POSSIBILITY. . . . that something strange will happen, is so you can give Stallone the trophy this year instead of next year when we will PROBABLY have not only another RAMBO movie, but also another ROCKY movie to double-crown the goofus.

On top of that, you're dismissing the millions (and this time, I mean two or more) who are familiar with who Boll is because hundreds of millions are not, simply because it suits your Stallone diss-honor better by mischaracterizing the true measure of Boll's notoriety, painting him like some flunked out film student.

But, truth is, millions know him as a bad director, and that should not be dismissed by words like "aren't impressive" and comparisons with other "howling dogs" of films.

What's more, since your vacation, several posters have come out and said it should be Boll, not Stallone, despite your best arguments. 

So, I suggest you stick with facts rather than mischaracterizations.  Boll is known by millions, fact.  Boll career, short of a miracle, is over, fact.  Boll deserves the award, fact.  Stallone is working on releasing two more films, fact.

 



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 4:57pm

cvcjr13 speaks the truth. We are trying our best to put forward a case against Boll, but the higher-ups here seem to have their hearts content on giving the "award" to Sly no matter what. Yes, Sly's best years are behind him (although many considered "Rocky 6" an enjoyable surprise), but he is not retiring any time soon. Boll on the other hand, filmed all of the movies he is releasing this year all in a  row because his money flow is now gone. He will never get a theater release ever again. Of the two of them, Boll is the one whose career is over.

As for the arguement that no one knows of Uwe Boll, keep in mind, his fame is mostly Internet based. Look at sites like MySpace and YouTube, they get millions of hits daily, if not hourly. These days, the Internet is where people get their information, and you can get a ton on Boll in a matter of seconds. Heck, even Time Magazine has mentioned him once or twice, reporting on how people call hack writers and artists the "Uwe Boll of (insert art form here)". He's the subject of many polls on IMDb.com and his films are always in the Bottom 100 Lisiting. RT and Entertainment Weekly had articles about him. The man does get press, it's not like he's some super-indie director who you would never hear of. He's made movies with million dollar budgets and big name actors in them, although we'll never know how he got either of those resources.

Now we know you guys have it out for Stallone, but you can give him all the dis-honors you want, it'll just row off his back like the 10 "awards" before, and he'll still find work. Boll's the laughing stock of the film industry, like the proud Emperor walking around naked, but not being aware of it. His career is dead and buried, and the Lifetime Career Award will be the final shovel-full of dirt on his grave. Come on, do the right thing and give the "award" to the Toilet Boll.



Posted By: Vega six
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 6:33am
Leave Sly alone! I see nothing has changed around here. everyone is still bashing him. An actor's main goal is to provide entertainment and Sly had done that in great style. Go pick on Jolie or dicaprio for the love of peanuts!


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 9:37am
You my friend have a morbid sense of "entertainment" style and are welcome to it, however Jolie and DiCaprio are not at this time close in Human Atrocity as your beloved Idol. Besides I think Jolie was awesome in "Wanted", and the violence in that move was "G" rated compared Stallone's current masterpiece "Rambo" .

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Balboa6
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 11:17am

If you consider achieving tremendous success as an incredibly talented actor, writer, and director (with only a few bad career moves) "The Worst Career Achievement," then I'm afraid you're slightly mixed up.

Originally posted by tomsmobr

Can't Sly & Uwe both get The WORST CAREER ACHIEVEMENT RAZZIE...or does have to be just one of them?




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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 2:45pm

Originally posted by Vega six

Leave Sly alone! I see nothing has changed around here. everyone is still bashing him. An actor's main goal is to provide entertainment and Sly had done that in great style. Go pick on Jolie or dicaprio for the love of peanuts!

I was most definitely NOT entertained in any way, shape or form by John Rambo. I was appalled.



-------------
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: July 08 2008 at 3:00pm
Originally posted by cvcjr13

So, I suggest you stick with facts rather than mischaracterizations.  Boll is known by millions, fact.  Boll career, short of a miracle, is over, fact.  Boll deserves the award, fact.  Stallone is working on releasing two more films, fact.

Quite honestly, I think that you grossly overestimate how much name recognition Uwe Boll has, partially because you may not factor in just how large of a percentage of the American demographic is now made up of we old, pretentious a$$holes (as we were recently referred to in another thread by, surprise! a Stallone fan.) there are. The vast majority of them don't have the first clue who he is. On the point, we can agree to disagree.

In the final analysis, we have Stallone, with a long and well established career, mostly of laughably bad movies. He is closer to the end of his career than the beginning. Then we have Boll, who is well known in a comparatively small demographic and hasn't had anywhere near the impact on the social conscious of Stallone. I think he may be deserving, but I think we ought to set aside our social hunger for instant gratification and allow time to pass judgement on what has been a comparatively short career. In short, let's not fall into the trap so many voters for those little naked men statues have fallen into and cast a vote we may wish we could have back 20 years from now.

As an aside to Michaels, I'm not sure who you refer to as "higher ups," but aside for a somewhat larger number of posts than most of the membership, I, for one, have as many votes as any other paying member here...exactly ONE.



-------------
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: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 5:09pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

In the final analysis, we have Stallone, with a long and well established career, mostly of laughably bad movies. He is closer to the end of his career than the beginning. Then we have Boll, who. . .  a comparatively short career.

Excuse my snip, but I wanted to remove all that blah-blah-bullpucky  and get down to your point, which is actually one in Stallone's "favor" (diss-favor?).  What's more, http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2557&KW=razzberry+boll+next+year - Head RAZZBerry suspects that one of Boll's next three films will somehow be released in theatres in 2009 (I suspect he's referring to http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0400426/ - Far Cry , which is, sad to say, Don S. Davis' last movie).  So, if Stallone releases two laughable movies next year and Boll releases one putrid movie next year, either one could be diss-honored at the 30th award ceremony as opposed to the 29th award ceremony.

Which brings up another point--who do YOU want to diss-honor at the big 3-0, Stallone or Boll?  Chew on that one.  Personally, I'd rather cap 30 years with a big old RAZZberry to our All-Time Champeen. . . .

 



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 5:37pm
Originally posted by cvcjr13

[QUOTE=saturnwatcher]

Which brings up another point--who do YOU want to diss-honor at the big 3-0, Stallone or Boll?  Chew on that one.  Personally, I'd rather cap 30 years with a big old RAZZberry to our All-Time Champeen. . . .

Ah, another good point. 30 nods, 30 years, that does make more sense. Another thing to consider, the Razzies are for most part, an Internet based award show. Uwe Boll's fame is mostly from the Internet. So, it would make sense that an award show whose following is through the Internet would give a Lifetime award to a HACK who is most known through the Internet.

And yes, Boll's career was short, but man was it painful. Yeah, Stallone's bad movies are funny, but Boll's just makes your head hurt. And yes, Stallone's movies suffer from bad acting and weak scripts, but Boll's movies fail on ALL LEVELS. I'm not kidding, the cashiers behind the counters at movie rental stores warn people not to rent any of Uwe Boll's movies. Now if you are warned not to waste your money from some one whose job is to make sure he gets your money, you know the product he's selling is BAD.

Stallone will always have "Rocky". People love that character, they love the first movie, it's a part of American culture. No matter how many bad movies he makes, people will forgive him just for that one role and movie. But clearly that doesn't count for much here. Understandable. Boll .... has nothing. I mean his "best" movie is "German Fried Movie", a parody movie of a parody movie. And at least Stallone doesn't use actual video game footage as part of his movies.

But as said before, as Razzie members, we all get one vote. I just signed up for my membership and I'm putting it to the best use possible, giving this Award to Uwe "Toilet" Boll.




Print Page | Close Window