Print Page | Close Window

Is This the 13th Film in the Series??

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 2009 RELEASES
Forum Name: FRIDAY THE 13TH (2009)
Forum Discription: Jason's Back...If Anyone Still Care-z-z-z-z-z-z-z...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3466
Printed Date: December 17 2014 at 9:39pm


Topic: Is This the 13th Film in the Series??
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Is This the 13th Film in the Series??
Date Posted: February 07 2009 at 3:59am

IT WASN'T ENTIRELY CLEAR from PRESS MATERIALS IF THIS IS ACTUALLY a REMAKE, a PREQUEL...or WHAT.

BUT WHATEVER IT THINKS IT IS, IT'S CLEARLY ONE MORE EXAMPLE of the BANKRUPTCY of MODERN HOLLYWOOD MOVIE-MAKING...

FROM the FOLX RESPONSIBLE for the RAZZIE®-NOMINATED  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0324216/ - 2003 TEXAS CHAINSAW "REMAKE/PREQUEL," THE 2009 VERSION of http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=339 - FRIDAY THE 13TH COULD BE the FIRST-EVER REMAKE of a http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080761/awards - RAZZIE ® http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080761/awards - WORST PICTURE NOMINEE . AND IT WILL APPARENTLY GIVE UNDEAD/HOCKEY-MASK-LOVING/PSYCHO-SLASHER JASON the "BACK STORY" WE'VE ALL BEEN BREATHLESSLY AWAITING.

BUT IF YOU'RE BREATHLESSLY AWAITING ANYTHING ORIGINAL from HOLLYWOOD in 2009...YOU'RE LIKELY to WIND UP BLUE-in-the-FACE!

JASON: "Yo, conveniently naked girl -- My Mom alwaze told me not to swim in yellow water..."



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



Replies:
Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 07 2009 at 1:16pm
Oh, the sweet irony that perhaps on the 30th anniversary of the Golden Raspberry Awards, a remake of one of the original 1980 Razzie nominees might also get a Worst Picture nod.

-------------
"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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 07 2009 at 3:13pm
NOOOOOOOOOOOO! You've crossed the line on this one! I'm kidding. I don't really care but obviously a lot of people care...this will make money.


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: February 07 2009 at 3:43pm
Yea I'm sure it will make money, there's still a built-in audience.

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


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: February 09 2009 at 12:11pm
This looks pretty underwhelming. I've only seen the TV edit of the original,
which was pretty lame.


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: February 09 2009 at 1:15pm
I figured this one would get a forum. Despite one of the better casts I've seen in a film like this (Supernatural's Jared Paladecki, Sky High's Danielle Panabaker, Disturbia's Aaron Woo, The Mentalist's Amanda Righetti), this one looks bad. They even added a backstory to Jason Voorhees, but considering what director Marcus Nispel did with Leatherface in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (even despite his claims that he's not making Jason sympathetic), trying to take an 80's legend and shill it to today's idiotic horror crowd (those who are making the Saw franchise a cash cow every year) is just begging for a Razzie nod. Are they even screening this for the critics?


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: February 10 2009 at 3:44pm

From what I've heard, Friday the 13th (the day) is said to be an omen of good or bad luck.  This film probably fits the latter.  According to what I've read, I can't tell exactly what the remake's connection to the original is.  Someone said that it starts with events leading up to where the original started.  Another guy said that the film actually covers the events of the second film and not the first one.  That makes sense because Jason doesn't appear until the end of the first one.  RT editor Alex Vo is watching every film in the series leading up to this film's release (I'd rather not do the same).  I think that this remake might make one or more of the other three horror films this year easier to watch.  Did you get the photo from the source of the RT review posted on this film?  I saw a photo exactly like that one on the site, and the dirty caption you put might scare away a few people who don't have strong stomachs (Thank goodness I'm not in that group).

To answer your question in the title, this is technically the 12th film in the franchise.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 11 2009 at 2:27am

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

To answer your question in the title, this is technically the 12th film in the franchise.

Yeah, he's right. There have been ten "Friday the 13th" movies, plus "Freddy vs. Jason", and now this remake. That's 12 movies too many. From what I have heard the big twist of this movie that stands out from the rest is that instead of Jason slowly walking towards his running prey and somehow being able to catch up with them anyway, he now runs. As M. Night would say, "Wow! What a twist!".

And back to day of Friday the 13th being a day of bad luck, it dates back to Norse mythology in which Loki, the 13th Norse God whose day of worship was Friday, killed Baldur, the son of Odin, the king of the Gods. This set into motion, Ragnarok, the Norse version of the end of the world in which all Norse Gods were killed. And like all holidays, the tradition in society has been shaped over the years to the day of dread that it is today.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 12 2009 at 3:28am
Originally posted by Michaels


Yeah, he's right. There have been ten "Friday the 13th" movies, plus "Freddy vs. Jason", and now this remake. That's 12 movies too many.




Well, 11, anyway. When it first came out, good or not, the slasher genre hadn't been... slashed to death like it has been at this point. Or to be even more fair, since it was the mom in number 1, and we got the hockey mask in 3, we'll call it 9 too many. That way we get the movie history out of the series that we need. The iconic mask, and the actual Jason. But then, the other ones clearly aren't as memorable. I've never been a Jason fan though, he's got to be about the most boring killer ever. He just sorta stands there... then he pops up and kills you with a machete, and he doesn't like, mangle you or anything, it's just a decapitation or through the gut. And why is he killing? Because you're a teenager having sex. Sounds like he belongs in the Vatican or something. I've always preferred Freddy, or better yet, Pinhead, who've both been in at least 5 movies too many a piece, as well.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 12 2009 at 11:06am

"'Friday the 13th' is about the best 'Friday the 13th' movie you could hope for. Its technical credits are excellent. It has a lot of scary and gruesome killings. Not a whole lot of acting is required. If that's what you want to find out, you can stop reading." - Roger Ebert

Sounds good enough for me.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 12 2009 at 3:59pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

"'Friday the 13th' is about the best 'Friday the 13th' movie you could hope for. Its technical credits are excellent. It has a lot of scary and gruesome killings. Not a whole lot of acting is required. If that's what you want to find out, you can stop reading." - Roger Ebert

Sounds good enough for me.

Well, Ebert was never a fan of slasher movies ("dead teenagers movies", as he likes to call them). So basically, what he is saying is if you are going to see it just for how well they do the kills, this is your wet dream come true. For the rest of us, it's already #1 contender on the Worst (or Unwanted) Remake list.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 13 2009 at 6:57am
MWG liked it? Well, I've never disagreed with him before, clearly it must be amazing.

*Demmit... Sarcasmometer broke again*


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 13 2009 at 8:49am
Originally posted by Michaels

Originally posted by moviewizguy

"'Friday the 13th' is about the best 'Friday the 13th' movie you could hope for. Its technical credits are excellent. It has a lot of scary and gruesome killings. Not a whole lot of acting is required. If that's what you want to find out, you can stop reading." - Roger Ebert

Sounds good enough for me.

Well, Ebert was never a fan of slasher movies ("dead teenagers movies", as he likes to call them). So basically, what he is saying is if you are going to see it just for how well they do the kills, this is your wet dream come true. For the rest of us, it's already #1 contender on the Worst (or Unwanted) Remake list.

MovieWizGuys reviews standards and reading in between the lines that he wants to hear have always been a kind of High but to sum it up like what HeadRAZZ put out, another recycled/reboot of a dead franchise in order to squeeze what little dry blood that maybe in it's lifeless body



-------------
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: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 13 2009 at 8:49am

I'm Back!!!!



-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 13 2009 at 8:56am
Originally posted by ITbeast

Originally posted by Michaels

Originally posted by moviewizguy

"'Friday the 13th' is about the best 'Friday the 13th' movie you could hope for. Its technical credits are excellent. It has a lot of scary and gruesome killings. Not a whole lot of acting is required. If that's what you want to find out, you can stop reading." - Roger Ebert

Sounds good enough for me.

Well, Ebert was never a fan of slasher movies ("dead teenagers movies", as he likes to call them). So basically, what he is saying is if you are going to see it just for how well they do the kills, this is your wet dream come true. For the rest of us, it's already #1 contender on the Worst (or Unwanted) Remake list.

MovieWizGuys reviews standards and reading in between the lines that he wants to hear have always been a kind of High but to sum it up like what HeadRAZZ put out, another recycled/reboot of a dead franchise in order to squeeze what little dry blood that maybe in it's lifeless body

I love slashers. In these movies, I don't care about the cliches because I love them. When someone trips, I laugh. When the killer appears out of nowhere, I laugh. They're so entertaining and the kills are just over-the-top fun. I liked MBV3D too. The 3D helped a lot.



Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 13 2009 at 7:19pm

Trust me we know, it your demographic group that keeps these sad, senseless, overly done, brainless, and pathetic crap from being released in the first place. You should be proud of yourself, during these hard economic times it is people like yourself that keeps feeding the families of the people who subject us to this whole sale retardation propaganda that drops the average I.Q. by at least 20 points. 



-------------
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: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 14 2009 at 9:11am
Originally posted by ITbeast

Trust me we know, it your demographic group that keeps these sad, senseless, overly done, brainless, and pathetic crap from being released in the first place. You should be proud of yourself, during these hard economic times it is people like yourself that keeps feeding the families of the people who subject us to this whole sale retardation propaganda that drops the average I.Q. by at least 20 points. 

You're rude, immature, and just plain condescending and to think you're an adult with pointless grmmatical and spelling errors. I really can't take this anymore. This place is filled with mean idiotic people who feel like they're surperior to people who watch these types of movies. Hey, do movies making money affect your life? Apparantly so, since you cynical, old people complain 24/7 on films you'll never see in your life and would probably forget to bash on about a week later.

Remain as angry people complaining about nothing original getting released these days. Become the sad, single, obese men you are, sitting in your parent's house. I just can't take it anymore. I'm not wasting my life on you complete idiots who drop more IQ to the people who are reading your posts than watching these "god awful" remakes as you all say. Even the five films nominated for Best Picture are based off books/lives.

No, really. I am sick and tired of this ongoing condescending comments to me and you may laugh at me while I'm saying all of this because it's the internet. You wouldn't act like this to a teen in real life but the internet is a fantastic thing because you can get away saying some of the most offensive, mean, incredibly rude comments that would probably get you in trouble in real life. It's just sad, seeing the way you adults act like to a person like me because I'm an optimist and don't go around complaining 24/7 like you guys do.

And it's just oh-so-funny how you would generalize my demographic when literally nobody in my high school was talking about this movie. This week, I was going to watch "Coraline" and not "Friday the 13th" but no, you basically assume I'm a dumb person when I'm the top 10% of my class with a 5.2 GPA. I'm not dumb and just because I watch films that you "may not find tolerable," that doesn't make me dumb. I'm probably smarter than you dumb pricks who can't even add 1 + 1 without using the calculator. I'm not going to swoop down to your level. You're just sick and a cold human being who doesn't deserve to live.

Oh, and this movie made $19 million on Friday. Thought I would let you know.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 14 2009 at 11:38am

Sorry dude, but you walked into this one.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I really can't take this anymore. This place is filled with mean idiotic people who feel like they're surperior to people who watch these types of movies. Hey, do movies making money affect your life? Apparantly so, since you cynical, old people complain 24/7 on films you'll never see in your life and would probably forget to bash on about a week later.

If all we do is insult you, why do you bother posting here anyway? We've been through this time and time again. And why do we care which movies make money? Because the more money bad movies make, the more bad movies will come out as a direct result of it.

Remain as angry people complaining about nothing original getting released these days. Become the sad, single, obese men you are, sitting in your parent's house.

That's the image you wish was true about us, but in the end, this is a token Internet insult that is thrown around without thought. Note: no matter what the media says, not every people who uses the Internet is an anti-social shut-in.

I just can't take it anymore. I'm not wasting my life on you complete idiots who drop more IQ to the people who are reading your posts than watching these "god awful" remakes as you all say. Even the five films nominated for Best Picture are based off books/lives.

Movies based off of books are adaptations; there's a difference. This "Friday The 13th" is a remake, as in a rehashing of what was once an original idea that really can't be made better just by adding modern day slang, fashion, and technology. "Gone With The Wind" was an adaptation, too, but the movie is fine the way it is. If it was remade, however, we would be trashing the remake just the same.

It's just sad, seeing the way you adults act like to a person like me because I'm an optimist and don't go around complaining 24/7 like you guys do.

We act like this because this is clearly a site that mocks certain movies and then you jump to these movies defense, and then act surprised when we say you can't tell a good movie from a bad one. Seriously, why bring this on yourself? We also keep pointing out how you rate movies by "expectations", which you're not suppose to do, you're suppose to go in with a blank slate, not hoping to see certain things and then give a good or bad review based on the film's contents not having what you expected it would.

And it's just oh-so-funny how you would generalize my demographic when literally nobody in my high school was talking about this movie.

Maybe not YOUR high school, but I bet money it was the talk of every teenager in every other of the thousands of high schools in America. 

This week, I was going to watch "Coraline" and not "Friday the 13th" but no, you basically assume I'm a dumb person when I'm the top 10% of my class with a 5.2 GPA.

Once again, a GPA can't be any higher than 4.0, so please stop saying this proves you're smarter than us or a better judge of movies. 

I'm not dumb and just because I watch films that you "may not find tolerable," that doesn't make me dumb. I'm probably smarter than you dumb pricks who can't even add 1 + 1 without using the calculator. I'm not going to swoop down to your level. You're just sick and a cold human being who doesn't deserve to live.

Again, with the childish Internet insults. You're stooping (not "swooping") lower than us by saying such a silly comment.

Oh, and this movie made $19 million on Friday. Thought I would let you know.

Well then, here comes the official 13th movie of the series sometime in the next two years (yes, I count spin-offs and crossovers like "Freddy Vs. Jason"). Expect to see that one on our forum's list when it comes out, if you still want to hang out with us cold, evil, stuck up, old farts. 



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 14 2009 at 4:51pm

Oh, it's oh so convenient for you to ignore almost half of my well thought out comments. Please, don't do that. You know the user who I was speaking to so please, stay out of our discussion. If you feel the need to somehow bump in and come in to side with him, that's just shows how incredibly idiotic you are. You know that user was very condescending and just plain ignorant. He has no idea who I am and what I do in my life whatsoever.

If all we do is insult you, why do you bother posting here anyway? We've been through this time and time again. And why do we care which movies make money? Because the more money bad movies make, the more bad movies will come out as a direct result of it.

I wasn't talking to you. Yes, I was making generalizations about you guys living in your parent's home and all of that because of the anger building up inside me but you became a problem too.

Movies based off of books are adaptations; there's a difference. This "Friday The 13th" is a remake, as in a rehashing of what was once an original idea that really can't be made better just by adding modern day slang, fashion, and technology. "Gone With The Wind" was an adaptation, too, but the movie is fine the way it is. If it was remade, however, we would be trashing the remake just the same.

You've completely missed my point. I wasn't saying that all of those are adaptations so that they're bad too, I'm just saying it just because.

We act like this because this is clearly a site that mocks certain movies and then you jump to these movies defense, and then act surprised when we say you can't tell a good movie from a bad one. Seriously, why bring this on yourself? We also keep pointing out how you rate movies by "expectations", which you're not suppose to do, you're suppose to go in with a blank slate, not hoping to see certain things and then give a good or bad review based on the film's contents not having what you expected it would.

There are plenty of people who come here making accounts and putting one comments and never using their accounts again. I'm just staying here longer than them because of the conversations. And yes, I can tell the difference between a good movie and a bad movie so how am I surprised?

And there is no rule if there should be expectations or not. Obviously, many people have expectations for movies all of the time. Even this film, Friday the 13th, have expectations from fans of the original. It's not wrong. People have expectations for even good directors and people who have built a good reputation so don't tell me I can't do something when 90% of the population already does. You don't go into the spoof movies with a blank slate. Nobody does that.

Once again, a GPA can't be any higher than 4.0, so please stop saying this proves you're smarter than us or a better judge of movies.

News flash: GPA varies between different schools. Most schools have the GPA out of 6 or a 5.6. Of course my GPA can be over 4. I said I have a GPA of a 5.2 because I do. I'm not making it up. The highest score on the SAT isn't 1400 anymore. It's 2100. There are honors/AP classes in high school now, meaning you can take college classes in high school which saves you money for college if you pass the AP test. This isn't new to me but perhaps new to you. There, I've just introduced this new system you've never noticed.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 14 2009 at 5:19pm

I wasn't talking to you. Yes, I was making generalizations about you guys living in your parent's home and all of that because of the anger building up inside me but you became a problem too.

Okay, so instead of using all of your smarts, you let your anger get the better of you and said very foolish things. Understandable.

You've completely missed my point. I wasn't saying that all of those are adaptations so that they're bad too, I'm just saying it just because.

Just saying because? What was the point? The other major difference is that these adaptations were made to be good, not made for the sole reason to make money like remakes are.

There are plenty of people who come here making accounts and putting one comments and never using their accounts again. I'm just staying here longer than them because of the conversations. And yes, I can tell the difference between a good movie and a bad movie so how am I surprised?

Because you seem to be one of the very few people who gives high reviews to movies that are otherwise universally panned.

And there is no rule if there should be expectations or not. Obviously, many people have expectations for movies all of the time. Even this film, Friday the 13th, have expectations from fans of the original. It's not wrong. People have expectations for even good directors and people who have built a good reputation so don't tell me I can't do something when 90% of the population already does. You don't go into the spoof movies with a blank slate. Nobody does that.

Yes you can. You can go into any spoof movie simply knowing they are going to poke fun of popular movies, that's all you need to know. But what I mean is how you judge the entire final grade for your reviews based on your expectations. I mean come on, 6 out of 10 for "Disaster Movie" because it made you laugh 6 or 8 times instead of the 2 times you expected to laugh? That's like someone giving an action movie a 3 out of 10 because the final fight sequence was only 10 minutes long instead of the 30 minutes they were hoping for.

News flash: GPA varies between different schools. Most schools have the GPA out of 6 or a 5.6. Of course my GPA can be over 4. I said I have a GPA of a 5.2 because I do. I'm not making it up. The highest score on the SAT isn't 1400 anymore. It's 2100. There are honors/AP classes in high school now, meaning you can take college classes in high school which saves you money for college if you pass the AP test. This isn't new to me but perhaps new to you. There, I've just introduced this new system you've never noticed.

Okay, but your high GPA still doesn't mean you have great taste in quality movies. I mean you're up against people here who work in the industry and have seen thousands of movies that probably date back 70 years. They would know a good movie from a bad one and would have the common sense not to defend bad movies in a forum that will not agree with them.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 8:18am

Groups of beautiful people go camping to have themselves killed by the
infamous Jason Vorhees in predictable, uninspired, bloody ways.

So you're a fan of slasher films? Or are you one of those people who
wonder why this franchise has inspired eleven sequels, reboot,
spinoffs, or what have you? Well, I can say now: People just love,
love, love Mr. Vorhees so you know he's not going anytime soon. Right
off the bat, I have to say this film looked exciting and fun by its
publicity. The hype around it is amazing, although not as big as
"Twilight" or "High School Musical" but it's pretty big. That's just
the problem. The film is not good. It's not even a good slasher film
and if you know me, I love slashers. I love the clichés and the camp
and the ridiculous over-the-top death scenes but this one is different.

How is it different, you ask? First of all, it's boring. The movie
moves surprisingly slow and the pace was uneven all around. Second, the
movie is not entertaining. The film takes itself way too seriously with
the lame jokes flying over peoples' head as if they were bad dialogue.
Third, most of the characters are one dimensional and so unsympathetic
that you want them to die the second you lay eyes upon them. Fourth,
the death scenes aren't too great either. They're rather uncreative.
Fifth, the film is just too predictable that the movie bores you. The
movie, as a whole, is just lifeless.

Everything that makes a good slasher movie is not here. The scares are
just way too average. The only things that actually scare are the pop
up scenes but those get old after being done several times in just the
first few minutes. So what's good about the movie? Well, I can say,
technically, the film is fantastic. This film knows how to get the
camera at the best angles and the use of sound is just fantastic.
However, I doubt that's what people are looking for in this type of
film.

Jared Padalecki doesn't have much to work with because, after all, it's
just a slasher. Everyone else either plays a character who loves sex or
either loves drugs and that's such a shame. Yes, there are movies out
there where they wink at the audience because of the clichés, as if
poking fun of the genre, which is totally fine by me, but this film
felt like the clichés were just there because of the bad script. The
filmmakers also took some characteristics of Jason Vorhees in the
previous films but also added elements of their own and some, I will
say now, is laughable while others are surprising, although it doesn't
do much.

Overall, the film is a huge disappointment. "My Bloody Valentine 3D,"
which came out like a month ago, was better and more entertaining than
this and also had more to offer. This film is just a list of ongoing
clichés and predictability that does not have fun with itself and
doesn't know how to entertain an audience. The film should have been
good but what can you say? You can't always get what you want. 4/10



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 5:53pm
Okay, so at least you gave this movie a more modest and reasonable grade than you usually do.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 16 2009 at 3:25am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

quote]Once again, a GPA can't be any higher than 4.0, so please stop saying this proves you're smarter than us or a better judge of movies.


News flash: GPA varies between different schools. Most schools have the GPA out of 6 or a 5.6. Of course my GPA can be over 4. I said I have a GPA of a 5.2 because I do. I'm not making it up. The highest score on the SAT isn't 1400 anymore. It's 2100. There are honors/AP classes in high school now, meaning you can take college classes in high school which saves you money for college if you pass the AP test. This isn't new to me but perhaps new to you. There, I've just introduced this new system you've never noticed.

[/QUOTE]

I find it odd that the standards would have changed from a 4.0 maximum (although I've heard of up to a 4.3), (and the SATs were out of 1600, not 1400) without the country being told about it. Even old fogeys like Michaels and myself would probably be aware of this major systemic change. I'll concede that I don't know how your school does things though. I might be able to believe that you have a 5.2/6, but I can tell you right now - and I'm saying this out of honesty, not to be mean - that judging from your grammar, you don't get perfect grades in school. They could be pretty decent, probably comparable to what I used to get, anyhow. But not high enough for a "holier than thou" complex.

But lets take a step back for a moment. MWG is usually on his own with his opinions, and he sticks out the fight, so there's something to be commended there. And let's face it, there's no accounting for taste.

Finally, I'd like to say that "bad" movies making money does affect our lives. I can't stress enough that there is a finite amount of money that can exist before it starts to lose its value. When millions of these dollars are in the hands of Seltzerberg, who gained their fame and forture for the mere price of a saddle, with which to ride the coattails of the Wayans Bros., that means that the little money I have, which I earn the hard way by working until midnight one day, and coming back at 4:30am the next, giving my damnedest every day, still needing to wonder whether or not I'm even going to have those $h!tty hours to go back to the next week, so two talentless hacks can live the good life by making a "joke" like - Indiana Jones is a black midget (HILARIOUS, right?), yes, that affects my life. The economy is like a living organism and it requires balance, and the amount of money the entertainment industry has at its disposal on the whole is sickening. They give us the lowest common denominator, what they think is going to give them the most money, and all we ask is for a little originality or some quality. Ok, I should probably stop now.

/rant/


Posted By: Olif
Date Posted: February 16 2009 at 6:12am

When the original "Friday the 13th" film was released (1980), I was in high school at the time. I went to this flick at a second run "scratch theater”. (All seats-$1.00!) I was with my friend, along with his girlfriend at the time! She kept screaming in my ear every time somebody was gonna get whacked! All-in-all, I though it was a rip roarin’ stupid picture! I wasn’t too surprised when a “Part 2” was released. I was rather surprised when “Part 3” came about, and I gave up when “Part 4” hit the theaters.

In short, even though I was within this film’s demographic audience, I found the “Friday the 13th” movies to be dumb as anything! I’ve seen a lot of bad movies in the 1980’s -many of them were “good-bad” movies. “Friday the 13th” was one of two “cash cows” for Paramount in that decade. (The other one was the “Star Trek” franchise!)

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Welcome back to our Forum, Olif...and I, too, like Pixie Stix (though they contain next-to-nothing actually found in nature)...



-------------
I like Pixie Stix!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 16 2009 at 11:57am


I find it odd that the standards would have changed from a 4.0 maximum (although I've heard of up to a 4.3), (and the SATs were out of 1600, not 1400) without the country being told about it. Even old fogeys like Michaels and myself would probably be aware of this major systemic change. I'll concede that I don't know how your school does things though. I might be able to believe that you have a 5.2/6, but I can tell you right now - and I'm saying this out of honesty, not to be mean - that judging from your grammar, you don't get perfect grades in school. They could be pretty decent, probably comparable to what I used to get, anyhow. But not high enough for a "holier than thou" complex.
 

I was about to say, those numbers did seem made up. I KNOW for a fact that a perfect SAT score is 1600, and seeing as how MWG said 1400 just goes to show he hasn't taken the test yet. And there's no way they would raise the score to 2100 without it making front page news across the country. But I can believe in a 5.0 GPA, but anything higher still sounds made up. But if he really thinks that makes him so much smater, just a little tidbit, I my GPA was 3.6 out of 4.0. And I have a feeling most people here had GPAs just as high if not higher, so I wouldn't be so quick to throw around words like "morons", "stupid", "idiots", etc.


Finally, I'd like to say that "bad" movies making money does affect our lives. I can't stress enough that there is a finite amount of money that can exist before it starts to lose its value. When millions of these dollars are in the hands of Seltzerberg, who gained their fame and forture for the mere price of a saddle, with which to ride the coattails of the Wayans Bros., that means that the little money I have, which I earn the hard way by working until midnight one day, and coming back at 4:30am the next, giving my damnedest every day, still needing to wonder whether or not I'm even going to have those $h!tty hours to go back to the next week, so two talentless hacks can live the good life by making a "joke" like - Indiana Jones is a black midget (HILARIOUS, right?), yes, that affects my life. The economy is like a living organism and it requires balance, and the amount of money the entertainment industry has at its disposal on the whole is sickening. They give us the lowest common denominator, what they think is going to give them the most money, and all we ask is for a little originality or some quality. Ok, I should probably stop now.

Very well said. I just isn't fair for average people to work their fingers to the bone to earn a few hundred or thousand dollars, while those two hacks earn millions by doing lazy, lackluster movies. Some may call it being jealous, but others see it for what it is: rewarding half-assed work, the same as businessmen getting million dollar bonuses, even though they caused their companies to be ran into the ground.



Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 17 2009 at 12:13pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

You're rude, immature, and just plain condescending and to think you're an adult with pointless grmmatical and spelling errors. I really can't take this anymore. This place is filled with mean idiotic people who feel like they're surperior to people who watch these types of movies. Hey, do movies making money affect your life? Apparantly so, since you cynical, old people complain 24/7 on films you'll never see in your life and would probably forget to bash on about a week later.

So, does this mean we can't be friends anymore??? Oh, Well Some how I will just have to go on. Oh by the way grmmatical is spelled "grammatical" just in case you missed it. I will admit when I wrote my blog entry I could not get the spell check to work that day so I apologize for my horrible spelling that day and promise to do better. Now I would not say this place is filled with "MEAN" people however you are right about us being cynical, That is why we express our opinions at this forum. I had no doubt this film would make money (Little surprised at the $40 for the weekend, thought it would only make about $30), it just proved my grammatically incorrect worded previous entry about the demographic group that buys into this "fine" entertainment of film making that you hold dear to and just for your information I did watch most of the Friday the 13th movies (On Cable or Video) and it got funnier with each installment, My favorite being Jason X (I'm laughing now just thinking about it)

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Remain as angry people complaining about nothing original getting released these days. Become the sad, single, obese men you are, sitting in your parent's house. I just can't take it anymore. I'm not wasting my life on you complete idiots who drop more IQ to the people who are reading your posts than watching these "god awful" remakes as you all say. Even the five films nominated for Best Picture are based off books/lives.

Now to set the record straight about a few things you pointed out in this next paragraph...

- I'm not sad most of the time, but I do get sad on occasion

- I'm married with 3 kids

- Yes I am Obese and do need to get my Fat A$$ to the Gym

- As far as living at my parents house I currently rent (But want to buy). So needless to say I am currently not living with my parents right now.

Now if you can't take what we say in this forum in stride like most of us do here no one is forcing you to click the mouse and browse your way here. The one thing you are sadly mistaken on is how we all agree what is put into this forum (I personally did not agree with some of the choices put forward for RAZZIE Gold this year like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) and do not understand when something like John Rambo was totally missed.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

comments to me and you may laugh at me while I'm saying all of this because it's the internet. You wouldn't act like this to a teen in real life but the internet is a fantastic thing because you can get away saying some of the most offensive, mean, incredibly rude comments that would probably get you in trouble in real life. It's just sad, seeing the way you adults act like to a person like me because I'm an optimist and don't go around complaining 24/7 like you guys do.

Now, I can't remember every word that I have ever blogged on here in the last 3 years but I can't remember ever being out right mean, rude, or derogatory against anyone at this forum (Maybe #1 Sly Fan, but he had it coming). This is how I am pretty much in real life around my friends, co-workers, and family (Grant it, I will not walk into a board room and act the same way). There is nothing wrong with being a optimist and we probably need more people like that in he world, but I honestly think you are blowing what I said way out of per-portion. I personally like how you defend some of these cinematic jewels that we talk about to the bitter end and do not let our opinions sway you, nor would I want you to change that stance.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

And it's just oh-so-funny how you would generalize my demographic when literally nobody in my high school was talking about this movie. This week, I was going to watch "Coraline" and not "Friday the 13th" but no, you basically assume I'm a dumb person when I'm the top 10% of my class with a 5.2 GPA. I'm not dumb and just because I watch films that you "may not find tolerable," that doesn't make me dumb. I'm probably smarter than you dumb pricks who can't even add 1 + 1 without using the calculator. I'm not going to swoop down to your level. You're just sick and a cold human being who doesn't deserve to live.

Oh, and this movie made $19 million on Friday. Thought I would let you know.

When I said demographics I should have been more specific on "The type of Person" who sees this kind of film,and not the age group. Trust me I bet there were several people of my age group or higher that saw this movie as well (Does not say much for us "older people"). Nor did I ever say that you personally were dumb, and I apologize if you took it that way. Keep those grades up and stay in that 10% of your class (I Bet your parents are so proud )for it will only make it better for you in life, especially in the working community.

Your Statement "I'm probably smarter than you dumb pricks who can't even add 1 + 1 without using the calculator. I'm not going to swoop down to your level." You basically did and in allot of ways much worse, If you look back on most of our blog entries I don't think anyone ever came right out and said "dumb pricks" or "doesn't deserve to live".

One last thing, I am not a cold human being (even through I wish I was) and no one deserves to die. I have had to many people close to me die and that is not something I would wish upon anybody.

SPECIAL NOTE OF APPRECIATION: I just want to give forum member "Michaels" a special thanks for covering for me this weekend and trying to keep things real to one of our most junior members, Thanks again!!!

 



-------------
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: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 18 2009 at 12:50am
To throw in another chunk of variety to MWG's colorful tapestry, I'm single, but I date when I have time. I've been "sad" since I was much younger than MWG is now, so I get to exempt myself via grandfather clause. I'm about 5'10" and weigh about 155, so I've got a pretty average build. I played football and ran track in high school.
And as for not being an optimist, I'll tell you the same thing I told Miguel - you don't need to like everything that comes out. In fact, when the majority of movies that are coming out are remakes, sequels, and other no-risk, guaranteed moneymakers with no style or soul of their own, I feel that it's important to criticize. I implore you to look at Rotten Tomatoes weekly. Let us know when you see more than 2 movies in the top 10 with a Fresh rating. It's rare, I assure you.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 18 2009 at 11:56pm

I was about to say, those numbers did seem made up. I KNOW for a fact that a perfect SAT score is 1600, and seeing as how MWG said 1400 just goes to show he hasn't taken the test yet. And there's no way they would raise the score to 2100 without it making front page news across the country. But I can believe in a 5.0 GPA, but anything higher still sounds made up. But if he really thinks that makes him so much smater, just a little tidbit, I my GPA was 3.6 out of 4.0. And I have a feeling most people here had GPAs just as high if not higher, so I wouldn't be so quick to throw around words like "morons", "stupid", "idiots", etc.



Just a simple google search would let you know they added another section to the SATs, a writing section. So, hey, I did my math wrong when I said 1400 when it was obviously 1600. Who doesn't make mistakes? There's 800 points each and the new section would obviously add another 800 point which would total to 2400 and I know what I'm talking about. You're just lazy to google it to see if I'm right or not. And yes, it has been 2400 for quite awhile.

And about the GPA issue, like I said, it's different for every school. Mines have it on a 5 point scale if there's no honors/AP courses. It's on like a 5.6 scale if you are taking college courses. It's not that hard to understand. I can give you the website to my school but I can't risk giving off my location. But also, you could have also just googled that and you would find the following link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*&q=gpa+6.0+scale - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A* &q=gpa+6.0+scale

Now to set the record straight about a few things you pointed out in this next paragraph...

- I'm not sad most of the time, but I do get sad on occasion

- I'm married with 3 kids

- Yes I am Obese and do need to get my Fat A$$ to the Gym

- As far as living at my parents house I currently rent (But want to buy). So needless to say I am currently not living with my parents right now.

Now if you can't take what we say in this forum in stride like most of us do here no one is forcing you to click the mouse and browse your way here. The one thing you are sadly mistaken on is how we all agree what is put into this forum (I personally did not agree with some of the choices put forward for RAZZIE Gold this year like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) and do not understand when something like John Rambo was totally missed.

Again, if you are incapable of reading such simple lines, let me just spell it out for you: Like I said posts above, I was angry, so I wrote out the nastiest things to only one person, who, ironically, doesn't seem to post me back. That message was not addressed to any of you, again, like I stated above, so please, don't tell me about your private life. That's scary and weird.



Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 19 2009 at 5:09am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Again, if you are incapable of reading such simple lines, let me just spell it out for you: Like I said posts above, I was angry, so I wrote out the nastiest things to only one person, who, ironically, doesn't seem to post me back. That message was not addressed to any of you, again, like I stated above, so please, don't tell me about your private life. That's scary and weird.

Well, I guess that will teach you to post in anger now won't it. So the lesson you have taken away from this is this (I hope)...

1) If you do not want hear the answer to something don't make accusations to people you know nothing about.

2) Before you reply to a blog entry that made you all steamed up and warm inside wait an hour or two and calmly blog your answer back, take the time to re-read the original entry and your answer before clicking the "submit" button.

3) Again, if you don't think you can handle the criticism then browse away from this forum because everybody runs that gauntlet when they blog at this site.

One last thing, I think it's wonderful that you have such a good academic GPA as I have stated before but by the way you represent yourself and reply with such childish remarks like "if you are incapable of reading such simple lines, let me just spell it out for you" you obviously are carrying a 1.0 in maturity and dealings in life, witch you may acquire when you become more social and get older, there is always hope.

By the way if "YOU" had bothered to read my previous post I was the one that posted the "Demographics" entry on Page 1 of this thread and I did respond to your "Opus" of a rant including making my "Demographic" entry more clear that it was not targeted at your age group but the type of person.

I honestly think you just need one big cyber hug , because I don't think your getting the emotional support from your Friends or family on the home front. So when you are ready just  me back and will play nice.

 



-------------
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: February 20 2009 at 12:53am
[QUOTE=moviewizguy]Just a simple google search would let you know they added another section to the SATs, a writing section. So, hey, I did my math wrong when I said 1400 when it was obviously 1600. Who doesn't make mistakes? There's 800 points each and the new section would obviously add another 800 point which would total to 2400 and I know what I'm talking about. You're just lazy to google it to see if I'm right or not. And yes, it has been 2400 for quite awhile.

And about the GPA issue, like I said, it's different for every school. Mines have it on a 5 point scale if there's no honors/AP courses. It's on like a 5.6 scale if you are taking college courses. It's not that hard to understand. I can give you the website to my school but I can't risk giving off my location.[quote]

Yes, it's all very important that we not know the town where you live in. Even if we did know which town, we still wouldn't know the exact street address that you live on, and it's not like we're going to pull a "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" on you by traveling to your home and beating you down for comments you posted on the Internet, but whatever.

This was all very educational, but once again, it was never your GPA that was in question, it's your taste in movies. See, you're young and right now, your taste in movies is either horror or comedy. Everyone else in this forum is anywhere between 20-60+ and we've seen more of a variety of movies over our years. Within the next 5 or 10 years, your taste for movies will change as you watch more diverse movies and you'll realize there's more elements that make a movie good besides what over the top and creative ways you can kill people, or if poop and fart jokes made you laugh more times than you expected they would. I'm talking about elements like themes, ideas, characters, plots, emotions, and dialog. We do this "we're smarter than you when it comes to judging movie" stuff because we have seen more quality movies than you that date back to before 1977. And then you counter this with what your GPA is, which has nothing to do with being able to tell a good movie from a bad one. So if you want to keep up with us, start watching more Turner Classic Movies, and once you've learn there's more to movies than creative kills and poop jokes, then you can say how much we don't know what we're talking about. Until then, don't hide behind your GPA, because that has everything to do with noting around here.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 20 2009 at 2:32pm

Originally posted by Michaels

This was all very educational, but once again, it was never your GPA that was in question, it's your taste in movies. See, you're young and right now, your taste in movies is either horror or comedy. Everyone else in this forum is anywhere between 20-60+ and we've seen more of a variety of movies over our years. Within the next 5 or 10 years, your taste for movies will change as you watch more diverse movies and you'll realize there's more elements that make a movie good besides what over the top and creative ways you can kill people, or if poop and fart jokes made you laugh more times than you expected they would. I'm talking about elements like themes, ideas, characters, plots, emotions, and dialog. We do this "we're smarter than you when it comes to judging movie" stuff because we have seen more quality movies than you that date back to before 1977. And then you counter this with what your GPA is, which has nothing to do with being able to tell a good movie from a bad one. So if you want to keep up with us, start watching more Turner Classic Movies, and once you've learn there's more to movies than creative kills and poop jokes, then you can say how much we don't know what we're talking about. Until then, don't hide behind your GPA, because that has everything to do with noting around here.

You are ignorant because you're stereotyping and/or generalizing. I've enjoyed some films that are listed here, yes, but never have I post them on my top 100 or top 10 for the year. I watch it and forget about it. They're just seen because they're entertaining.

However, I watch a lot of other films. Just this month, I've seen "Eastern Promises," "Bend It Like Beckham," "Closer," and many others. Last month, I've seen "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Doubt." Last year, I've seen "4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days," "The Curious Case of BB," "Transsiberian," "Zero Day," "Elephant," "Burn After Reading, "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day," "The Blair Witch Project," "Lars and the Real Girl," "Run Lola Run," "House of Sand and Fog," "The Queen," "Waitress," "The Visitor," "Death at a Funeral," "Friends With Money," "The Lookout," "Tell No One," "Vertigo" (yes, I just saw "Vertigo" last year) and--you get the point.

You guys just never seem to know because there aren't any topics to talk about them on so please, don't tell me that all I watch are comedies and horrors. I, as you couldn't tell by now, have a diverse taste in movies. I enjoy all kinds.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 20 2009 at 2:55pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

 You are ignorant because you're stereotyping and/or generalizing.

You throw around words like "ignorant" and "stupid" the same way Miguel throws around the word "corrupt". I came to this "sterotyping" because we have many bad comedies and horrors listed here and you defend most of them, which lead me to believe that these are the only two kinds of movies you watch. It's nice that have seen some high quality movies, but you've still given rather high grades to low quality movies. However, in the end, it's your choice to give praise to bad movies in this forum where the members' goal is to rip these movies apart.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 21 2009 at 9:39am
Originally posted by Michaels

You throw around words like "ignorant" and "stupid" the same way Miguel throws around the word "corrupt". I came to this "sterotyping" because we have many bad comedies and horrors listed here and you defend most of them, which lead me to believe that these are the only two kinds of movies you watch. It's nice that have seen some high quality movies, but you've still given rather high grades to low quality movies. However, in the end, it's your choice to give praise to bad movies in this forum where the members' goal is to rip these movies apart.

A 6 and a 7 is not high.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 21 2009 at 10:32am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

A 6 and a 7 is not high.

Sorry, but 7 is much, much closer to 10 than it is to 1. That and I think movie grades should go by the "out of 5" or letter grades. 10 is only good for IMDb.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 22 2009 at 3:04am
Originally posted by Michaels

Sorry, but 7 is much, much closer to 10 than it is to 1. That and I think movie grades should go by the "out of 5" or letter grades. 10 is only good for IMDb.

I actually like "out of 4." I do "out of 10" because it's IMDb's way. I just convert the ratings.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 22 2009 at 4:54am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I actually like "out of 4." I do "out of 10" because it's IMDb's way. I just convert the ratings.

My point exactly. IMDb's way shouldn't be the standard, it's too high. "Out of 4 or 5" and letter grades are much more practical. 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 28 2009 at 3:56am
[QUOTE=moviewizguy]

However, I watch a lot of other films. Just this month, I've seen "Eastern Promises," "Bend It Like Beckham," "Closer," and many others. Last month, I've seen "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Doubt." Last year, I've seen "4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days," "The Curious Case of BB," "Transsiberian," "Zero Day," "Elephant," "Burn After Reading, "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day," "The Blair Witch Project," "Lars and the Real Girl," "Run Lola Run," "House of Sand and Fog," "The Queen," "Waitress," "The Visitor," "Death at a Funeral," "Friends With Money," "The Lookout," "Tell No One," "Vertigo" (yes, I just saw "Vertigo" last year) and--you get the point.



Again, PLEASE don't tell me that English is one of the subjects in which you're getting A++++'s. Yikes, that was a hard paragraph to read.


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 4:26pm
I don't plan on seeing this movie 'cause I'm not much of a fan of horror movies, though I keep watching THE SHINING numerous times because of Jack Nicholson. And also, I enjoy watching those Treehouse of Horror episodes from THE SIMPSONS, even though segments from most of those episodes have been hits and misses...

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 12:30am

Originally posted by sportsartist24

I don't plan on seeing this movie 'cause I'm not much of a fan of horror movies, though I keep watching THE SHINING numerous times because of Jack Nicholson. And also, I enjoy watching those Treehouse of Horror episodes from THE SIMPSONS, even though segments from most of those episodes have been hits and misses...

Good man, that's common sense for you.



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 4:52am
I have to say, that personally, I see Horror movies as a sort of guilty pleasure, and I watch them more for the effects then for the story, or the plot. I am kind of obsessed with make-up effects, and have been for the better part of 2 decades now.

Part of that, is because some of the money I make each year, comes from Haunted House work, and I like to try to recreate some of the interesting effects I see on the screen. So I actually end up looking at the Horror movies, not always as entertainment, but as a sort of idea generator.

And to be fair, there are some occasional gems in with the horror movies... just not that often. But some of the ideas the have for wounds are just inspired. :)


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 10:13am

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

I have to say, that personally, I see Horror movies as a sort of guilty pleasure, and I watch them more for the effects then for the story, or the plot. I am kind of obsessed with make-up effects, and have been for the better part of 2 decades now.

Part of that, is because some of the money I make each year, comes from Haunted House work, and I like to try to recreate some of the interesting effects I see on the screen. So I actually end up looking at the Horror movies, not always as entertainment, but as a sort of idea generator.

And to be fair, there are some occasional gems in with the horror movies... just not that often. But some of the ideas the have for wounds are just inspired. :)

My point actually. The only reason why these movies make money is because of people rushing into the theaters just to see what over the top ways people can be killed off. No one cares about the plot. Heck, even moviewizguy said he saw it just for the kills, yet he wrote a stupid review about how crappy the story was. Go figure. Why else is the "Saw" series in its sixth installment?! Because of people like him.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 8:10pm
I started watching Horror movies in college simply for the fact that I had never given them a chance up until then. (That, and we had one of the most bad ass video stores every right by campus.)
I feel that Horror movies have played an incredibly important role in the development of the film industry. It's just such a great genre to cut your teeth in. (Pun intended.) Think of some of the people who've gotten their starts in Horror: Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, Jennifer Anniston, Johnny Depp, Kevin Bacon...
But then we look at what's happening to the industry these days... Horror movies aren't just being played in drive-ins, they have comparatively low budgets to action movies, but they're expect to bring bank home. And it used to be that to make a Horror movie, you needed to think of a good gimmick, but now they're just remaking old American ideas or RECENT Japanese and Korean films. It's pathetic.
I've recently heard the remakes being defended as "Well, the younger kids these days didn't get the opportunity to see these movies in the theaters," well, neither did most people. People weren't making hundreds of millions. The new Friday is poised to make almost as much as all of the other movies of the same franchise, albeit because of the successes of the originals, they're numbers were higher because they had more studio backing. Now, inflation hasn't gotten too much worse since the 80s, but because of the budgets of the Michael Bays and Jerry Bruckheimers of the world, the price of a ticket has sky-rocketed, which makes it even easier for the new Horror movies to violate you. (Another pun intended.)
I'm not sure where my ranting has taken me now, so I'm going to stop. The moral is, screw Horror remakes, screw Horror sequels, and screw Hollywood's manipulation of the public. Start making good movies again. I know that living out there makes you feel entitled to 8 or 9 figures a year, but if you don't have a good idea, don't make something just to make something. There are better things on which everyone's money can be spent.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 10:11pm
I will still argue for the basic necessity of films like this. But, sadly, at the moment I am too damn tired to really make a coherent point... But, being an idiot, I think I will try... So I present to you "CriticalFrank got Two hours of sleep yesterday and has been up for 18 hours since, and is now trying to think logically!"

I think, that there is an undue amount of vitriol spent on movies such as this. YEs, they are bad, and seemingly unnecessary, however in the end it is the same idea that has been the foundation of ...well... all entertainment mediums... There are no new ideas. There just aren't. Instead, what you are going to get is rehashes of familiar thematic elements. Good Vs. Evil, etc etc etc. Whereas most films just borrow upon the common thematic storyline (such as Underworld building off of the same basic concept of Romeo and Juliet - ie the tale of forbidden love, between members of different families) Remakes, make that thematic borrowing just a bit easier, by lifting larger story elements. Characters and specific plot-points, etc.

And yes, I agree, there are better ways for a studio to spend 30 million bucks, sometimes, it is just nice to sit back, let the brain go into neutral, and enjoy a little bit of guilty pleasure.

I have a simple policy. A movie must deliver upon it's central premise, to justify its existence. For example, a comedy must deliver laughs, a thriller must deliver thrills. When a comedy does not deliver a single laugh it is an utter failure. When a horror movie doesn't deliver on certain thrills, it is an utter failure. And while Friday the Thirteenth may not have been completely terrifying, it did at least have a few small jumps, and some very nice atmosphere.

Think about this (and my mind sinks deeper into the warm pudding consistancy here, so bear with me...) Would people have the same issues with it, if they changed Jason's mask to something completely different (for the sake of amusement on my behalf, I am picturing the Watchmen Smilie face Button) and proceded to call him something else , such as Frank? Follow those two minor changes with a simple title change ( I have no idea on that, so I'll just call it "Whistling in the Woods"). At that point, you have visually distanced it from the original, you have changed the characters name, distancing it that way, too. And you have changed the title, causing a third fundamental change. When you consider the changes to Jason's basic MO, it starts to look thes like a remake, and more like a re-imagining.

Should we look at Hollywood's love of remakes, as any different then their love of adaptations? Adapting video games, books, plays, etc. To film? How is the remake fundamentally different from that? The only real difference is that it is adapting within the same medium. And if we discount the remake as a valid artform, so too must we necessarily discredit other adaptations as invalid. Should we then go and say that Dark Knight was less amazing then it was, since it was technically not an original idea? Should we rob Peter Jackson of his Oscar for Return of the King, because it was only an adaptation of a book, and not an original work? Each director puts a unique spin on the source material, therein lie the art. That is why we can look back at old movies, that were just adaptations themselves and say "Wow, that was pretty amazing."

I have to apologize, but darn it if I don't love trying to think when I am exhausted...  I hope at least one or two of the things I've said actually make some semblence of sense though... If not, please, feel free to ignore the entire rambling mess...


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 13 2009 at 12:34am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I've recently heard the remakes being defended as "Well, the younger kids these days didn't get the opportunity to see these movies in the theaters," well, neither did most people.

Yeah, and most people haven't seen all 100 Films in the AFI Great Movie List, so by that logic, all of them should be remade?  

Horror remakes have a set formula: hire no name cast of teenagers (or at least some who have been on CW programs), have gimmicky serial killer, have at least one sex scene or scene of female nudity, have killer take out each teenager one at a time in the most illogical ways, the "virgin" is the last one to live in the end, ending hints at possible sequel ... repeat. Why do they get away with it? Because these movies are cheap and make more than their money back thanks to people who have lived off these slashers as childern and are no longer put off by violence.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 13 2009 at 8:51pm
Ah, but you're wrong, Michaels... They don't even bother to put the gratuitous nudity/sex scene in most of them anymore.
And to Frank, consider this... Back in the day, people were willing to make a movie that might be a bad idea. Look at, for example, the one listed on the main page - The Brain That Wouldn't Die or whatever it's called... I know they made a Mystery Science Theater 3000 about it. That's not a remake or a ripoff or an adaptation. This, again, is why I'm not content with The Love Guru winning the recent Razzie. Bad movie, but it was a SOMEWHAT original idea. It wasn't bad and a blatant cash-grab, it was just bad. Hollywood shouldn't be afraid to make a just plain bad movie every now and then. Instead, they go with the absolute safest bet to make money. The remake/ripoff/adapt thing is fairly recent. Right now, we're remaking all of the movies that Hollywood USED to have the balls to give a shot. What do you think the meetings used to be like for slasher movies... For the original LHOTL or FT13 or Halloween? "Yea, we're going to brutally murder people, on camera, and that's the whole point... To be as gross as possible." Before people knew it was going to make money, how many people recoiled in digust at the idea of, well, probably the way many people looked at Saw and Hostel at first. Like "Who the hell would be sick enough to want to watch that?!!" and then the millions roll in, and now it's all good in the hood. An adaptation is good if it's meant to be timely, or it makes a point, or if it's just damn well done. And as to the idea of creating a Smiley Faced masked killer known as... Well, let's call him Judgemental Paco instead, that way you don't get accused of influencing kids or something... people are going to recognize it if it's just another Jason. And people generally realize that Jason is really just a rip off of Michael Myers, but the hockey mask was a little more fun, so they made more of those than the other.
If these remakes/ripoffs/adapts, (let's start our own little meme/acronym and call them RRAs) were made a little more sporadically, it might not be so annoying, but as it stands, it's just such a blatant exploitation of the market. And quite frankly, we seem to be dumb enough to buy into it, and they seem content to keep us dumb, creating a vicious cycle of stupid movies. There are just too many movies being made these days, and the more they make, the higher the budgets get, the higher the ticket prices get, the more money they make... etc. And you end up with a bunch of idiot millionaires who happen to have been in the right place at the right time. Not to turn this into too much of a political thing here, but I'm watching these clips of financial experts talking about how taxing the rich is like penalizing the people who are working harder for their money... That's BS. Some dude is sitting in a factory somewhere (probably the last one in the US) and he's lost 2 fingers and has scars all over his arms, sweating all day long for about $30,000 a year and there's some CEO making $2,000,000 for saying, "OK, yea let's do that, but not that... Phew, what a long day, let's go play some golf." Not to say that all of the rich don't work hard, but a lot of them grew up privileged and were handed the jobs they have today, and of course they're going to throw as much as they can behind it to keep themselves making as much as they possibly can, and try to turn themselves into the victims, and ironically, doing that is probably the most work they'll ever have to do in their lives.

Summary of needlessly long rant: Don't feel sympathy for the snake-oil salesmen, and don't reward their laziness.


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 3:59pm
I've seen a ton of movies that have referenced Friday the 13th. I kept hearing from some people that Friday the 13th on any month is like bad luck, but it's not always true...

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: May 07 2009 at 12:17am
I'm going to reveal the REAL plot...

from the tombstone thread...


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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: May 07 2009 at 2:00am

Not only did you give away the end of the plot to THIS movies...but the plot of EVERY slasher movie ever made!

 



-------------
"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: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 07 2009 at 4:11am
Originally posted by Michaels

Not only did you give away the end of the plot to THIS movies...but the plot of EVERY slasher movie ever made!

Ha! See, there's where you're wrong!

Most of the other slashers don't have killers named Jason!



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 07 2009 at 11:33pm
The real difference in slasher movies is what do they wear on their face? A Hockey mask? a mask made of skin? a... whatever Michael Myers wears? Freddy's face? Lindsay Lohan?

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 08 2009 at 4:51am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

The real difference in slasher movies is what do they wear on their face? A Hockey mask? a mask made of skin? a... whatever Michael Myers wears? Freddy's face? Lindsay Lohan?

Whatever Micahel Myers wears on his face? You mean the Original, or the Rob Zombie remake? In the original, it was a William Shatner mask, painted white, and with messed up hair... It was the best they could afford on their budget...



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 08 2009 at 11:49am
K... Wasn't ever sure. Never paid that much attention. Wasn't all that in to Halloween.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 08 2009 at 4:37pm

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

K... Wasn't ever sure. Never paid that much attention. Wasn't all that in to Halloween.

Halloween was one of the first movies I ever watched, and also stands as a great testament to what could be done on a shoestring budget... Fancy effects and billions of dollars aren't needed to captivate audiences... Sometimes all it takes is a White William Shatner mask... and a knife.



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 09 2009 at 1:40am
I think a better movie might just be Shatner with a spoon. And he could be doing just about anything. As weird as that cat is these days, I'm sure he could be entertaining for 2 hours.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 09 2009 at 6:22am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I think a better movie might just be Shatner with a spoon. And he could be doing just about anything. As weird as that cat is these days, I'm sure he could be entertaining for 2 hours.

Spoons aren't interesting... Now, a large wooden Spork... THAT would be art.



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: May 09 2009 at 8:42am

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Spoons aren't interesting... Now, a large wooden Spork... THAT would be art.

Hey, remember, Alan Rickman was going to cut out Kevin Cosnter's heart out with a spoon in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves". Because, you know, spoons are dull and it would take longer. But yes, a spork would be the perfect murder weapon for yet another slasher movie.



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 09 2009 at 9:31am
Originally posted by Michaels

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Spoons aren't interesting... Now, a large wooden Spork... THAT would be art.

Hey, remember, Alan Rickman was going to cut out Kevin Cosnter's heart out with a spoon in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves". Because, you know, spoons are dull and it would take longer. But yes, a spork would be the perfect murder weapon for yet another slasher movie.

A spork as a murder weapon. That would make for a great movie, as long as it had enough sense to NOT take itself seriously... The right amount of humor in there, would make for some fun times... Especially if William Shatner was the killer.



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 09 2009 at 12:03pm
I dunno if I asked, but who's seen both American Psycho movies?... I don't really have to tell a joke, you'll start laughing if you've seen them both.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 10 2009 at 7:05am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I dunno if I asked, but who's seen both American Psycho movies?... I don't really have to tell a joke, you'll start laughing if you've seen them both.

I've seen both... sadly, I just watched the second one last night... That was seriously awful. I think Mila Kunis needs to kill her agent...



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 10 2009 at 6:45pm
That was a legendary "sequel." It should be mandatory viewing for all school children and nuns.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 11 2009 at 12:13am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

That was a legendary "sequel." It should be mandatory viewing for all school children and nuns.

To scare them away from all sequels ever?

To teach them why Mila Kunis' agent needs to be shot?

Just because school children and nuns are evil, and thus deserve that kind of punishment?



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: May 11 2009 at 9:55am
Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I dunno if I asked, but who's seen both American Psycho movies?... I don't really have to tell a joke, you'll start laughing if you've seen them both.

I've seen both... sadly, I just watched the second one last night... That was seriously awful. I think Mila Kunis needs to kill her agent...

See, that's reason number one why I think the Razzies should add DVD released movies to the ballots. Maybe we can do cross promotion with Netflicks?



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 11 2009 at 6:59pm
Originally posted by CriticalFrank

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

That was a legendary "sequel." It should be mandatory viewing for all school children and nuns.


To scare them away from all sequels ever?


To teach them why Mila Kunis' agent needs to be shot?


Just because school children and nuns are evil, and thus deserve that kind of punishment?



Yep.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 12 2009 at 12:24am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley



Yep.

Ok, had to make sure I got that one on the nose.



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: June 21 2009 at 8:30am
Just watched this, and it was about as good as you could expect. Yeah, it's
more of the same, bit at least this time around it's done more slickly and
with a little more style, and actually appears to have been made by adults
and not by special schoolchildren.

If Prom Night can get off scott-free of any nominations, I don't see this
one as a contender of any categories.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 22 2009 at 3:10am
It just seemed like another cash grab, nothing too horrible. It didn't seem to grab as much cash as it had hoped, either.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 22 2009 at 9:36am

Yeah, I heard Hollywood originally wanted to call "remakes" "cash grabs," but then realized "remake" just sounded better. 

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

It just seemed like another cash grab, nothing too horrible. It didn't seem to grab as much cash as it had hoped, either.

 



-------------
"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: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 2:50am
I think they use re-boot to sound more positive, actually. But the REAL official term should be "Razzie Nominee".

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 9:59am

Ha ha, I like that. Can you imagine newspapers writing "This weekend is the release of the latest Razzie Nominee of the Friday The 13th series"? At least then they'd be telling the truth.



-------------
"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: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 8:54pm
It's just fate, I tells ya.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: kelemenmarc
Date Posted: August 18 2009 at 3:48pm
For your RAZZIE Consideration:

Worst Supporting Actor:
Jared Padalecki (I think he was supporting and very very terrible, and it's not was his first worst movie, just remember House of a Wax, and he bad performance = RAZZIE NOMINATION)
Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel


-------------
FYC:
Worst Movie: The Bounty Hunter
Worst Actor: Johnny Depp (Alice in Wonderland / The Tourist)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 12:44pm
*Bringing discussion back to life*

Originally posted by Michaels

I was about to say, those numbers did seem made up. I KNOW for a fact that a perfect SAT score is 1600, and seeing as how MWG said 1400 just goes to show he hasn't taken the test yet. And there's no way they would raise the score to 2100 without it making front page news across the country.

They added a new section to the SAT, the WRITING portion, which counts as another 800 so there is 2400 points total. In the writing, you deal with grammar and such along with writing an essay which is scored between 1 and 12, I think. You can look this up on Google. More info here: http://homeworktips.about.com/od/standardizedtests/a/writing.htm - http://homeworktips.about.com/od/standardizedtests/a/writing .htm

But I can believe in a 5.0 GPA, but anything higher still sounds made up.

It's called a "weighted" GPA. It's out of 6 points. "Unweighted" GPA is out of 4.

But if he really thinks that makes him so much smater, just a little tidbit, I my GPA was 3.6 out of 4.0. And I have a feeling most people here had GPAs just as high if not higher, so I wouldn't be so quick to throw around words like "morons", "stupid", "idiots", etc.

I finally got my transcript which have both my weighted and unweighted GPA scores and my GPA out of 4 is a 3.7778.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 5:23pm
Isn't that original conversation from like a year ago?

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 05 2009 at 2:51am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Isn't that original conversation from like a year ago?

Yeah, well over a year actually. It started all the way back with "Disaster Movie", in which MWG gave the movie his usual 6 or higher out of 10 review and called the movie "funny". Thus began 10 pages worth of debate that the movie sucked on every level and he didn't know what he was talking. But then "DM" managed to get away scott-free of any award "wins", so all the pages are useless now, just as bringing this thread back to life is pointless. But you know, MWG likes to point out how I'm always saying it's his taste in movies that we mock, not his IQ, so why is it he once again has to bring up his GPA? You wou'd if I posted something so many times, it would get through to him.

(Oh, and I believe GPA debate ended with us agreeing that yes, SOME schools do go as high as 5.0 or 6.0, but I was 3.6 out of 4.0 back in my high school days when 4.0 was the standard, not that this little factoid has anything to do with my taste in movies).



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 05 2009 at 10:27am
Originally posted by Michaels

But then "DM" managed to get away scott-free of any award "wins", so all the pages are useless now, just as bringing this thread back to life is pointless.

Well, I brought it back up because I finally got my GPA out of 4 and I thought you'd be interested in what it was. This is why I posted my GPA in my previous post: 3.7778.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 23 2010 at 10:26pm

I know you're not going to go this far, but I believe it was in the RAZZIES' best interests to nominate this for Worst Prequel, Sequel, Remake, or Ripoff.



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 24 2010 at 7:45am
Don't worry, I'm pretty sure it's going to make the final five, at least in that catagory.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 14 2010 at 2:17pm
I can't keep watchin'this,nor the NIGHTMARE IN ELM STREET and CHILD PLAY movies.Why?The villians always come back with no explanation,except they're inmortal or somethin'.I just feels endless.

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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: March 14 2010 at 3:55pm
I was a trifle disappointed that this didn't get nominated for anything. Alas, I HAVE heard this isn't the worst horror film of 2009.
 
NI JUU GO BAN


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 14 2010 at 4:28pm
I saw it last night. It's your run fo the mill, paint by numbers horror movie. It adds nothing to a series that should have been abanded decades ago. Michael Bay's quest to rape the movie business continues.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 1:48pm
I still remember when Danielle Panabaker went to a mexican talk show to promote this movie.In every promo she and the hosts were screaming.It turns out during the interview she talked about the training to be a scream queen.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 3:49pm
Originally posted by Vits

I still remember when Danielle Panabaker went to a mexican talk show to promote this movie.In every promo she and the hosts were screaming.It turns out during the interview she talked about the training to be a scream queen.
And clearly even her training wasn't enough to save the movie.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: March 16 2012 at 7:56pm
Time to review Friday The 13th. I have to say, out of all of the Platinum Dunes movies, this is, arguably, the most watchable. Not the best PD movie (that's still the Texas Chainsaw remake) but still.
 
The good:
 
It has no inhibitions: It doesn't mistake it self for high art like the all of the other Platinum Dunes movies. It knows that its sole purpose is to have a high body count and supply boobies.
 
The crossover: The actor of the d-bag of the film, Trent, was, also, in the first Transformers movie. This wouldn't mean much, except he played a Trent in that too. And this movie was produced by Michael Bay. So Jason and Transformers take place in the same universe. And I just got a good storyline for Transformers 4!
 
A legitimate twist: Towards the end, something actually surprising happens: Danielle Panabaker dies. Usually in these movies, she and Supernatural guy would survive and they'd get together at the end. Instead she bites it.
 
The bad:
 
The acting: Big suprise, the acting in this sucks.
 
The script: Big suprise, the writing in this sucks.
 
Marcus Nispel: Big suprise, he stil can't direct.
 
The ugly:
 
The TV version: Whenever this airs on TV, it's completely gutted of anything interesting. I can understand not showing gore on MTV, but the SyFy version really bugs me. They show the Saw movies all the time, almost always intact. The Chiller version is super-bewildering: it's a pay-channel like HBO and IFC, yet it still censors things. Is there some behind the scenes thing that I don't know about?
 
Apparantly, Michael Bay walked out of the premiere for this. The reason? There was too much sex. The only people allowed to have sex in Michael Bay movies are the prom queens. Grade: B-
 
Next-up: A Nightmare On Elm Street!


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



Print Page | Close Window