Print Page | Close Window

DISCUSSION of 2008 RAZZIEŽ "WINNERS"

Printed From: Official RAZZIEŽ Forum
Category: RAZZIEŽ Basics
Forum Name: Entire RAZZIEŽ History, Year-by-Year: 1980-2013
Forum Discription: Every Golden Raspberry Nominee & Every Winner...EVER!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3551
Printed Date: October 24 2014 at 5:31am


Topic: DISCUSSION of 2008 RAZZIEŽ "WINNERS"
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: DISCUSSION of 2008 RAZZIEŽ "WINNERS"
Date Posted: March 26 2009 at 5:33am

HERE'S WHERE to JOIN the LIVELY DISCUSSION of OUR 2008 "WINNERS"...

...and HERE's the http://www.razzies.com/history/08winners.asp - to SEE WHAT "WON" for 2008...  





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



Replies:
Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 11:29am
I guess it's too late to continue bashing you for awarding INDIANA JONES 4 a Razzie. Anyway, here are my ratings(0-10)for the INDY saga: 

1)6 for RAIDERS.
2)5 for TEMPLE OF DOOM.
3)4 for LAST CRUSADE.
4)8 for CRYSTAL SKULL.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: While we did get some angry feedback for our choice of INDY 4 as 2008's Worst Prequel, Sequel, Remake or Rip-Off, I've never heard of anyone but you claiming it was the best -- nor even one of the better -- titles in the series... 



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 4:50pm
Originally posted by Vits

I guess it's too late to continue bashing you for awarding INDIANA JONES 4 a Razzie. Anyway, here are my ratings(0-10)for the INDY saga: 

1)6 for RAIDERS.
2)5 for TEMPLE OF DOOM.
3)4 for LAST CRUSADE.
4)8 for CRYSTAL SKULL.  
Okay, you REALLY need to switch your ratings around, because "Raiders" OWNED all the other movies and "Crystal Skull" doesn't even come close. Yeah, "Skull" might be the most fresh in your mind nad has the most current sfx, but "Raiders" tears it apart when it comes to story, dialog, characters, etc.

-------------
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: October 12 2010 at 5:49pm
I mispoke.Whenever I bash you for awarding INDY 4 it's not just me talking.It's also audiences and critics.As for the ratings...yeah,I have a history like that.I also think BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II is the best of the 3!

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 6:08pm
Originally posted by Vits

I mispoke.Whenever I bash you for awarding INDY 4 it's not just me talking.It's also audiences and critics.As for the ratings...yeah,I have a history like that.
Critics and audiences only liked "Indy 4" because it was a throw back to their childhoods, but once the childhood memories pass, you realize the movies sucks compared to the original 3. I don't care if people don't like that choice, but it was the right choice because the movie was a big let down. Take a note from How It Should Have Ended:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs8D6zwQhxs - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs8D6zwQhxs


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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 7:08pm

That's right! Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was the worst sequel of 2008, because although it isn't near the level of Uwe Boll and Seltzerberg, it was the biggest disappointment in terms of lofty duties to fulfill of its predecessors. Is that how the Worst Prequel, Sequel, Remake, or Rip-off is usually judged? All in relation to a film's predecessors and not quite as much the movie itself?



Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 7:14pm
It is a tradition with sequels that they pay homage to the original movies, but should also top them in their quality and grand scale. "Indy 4" did pay homages here and there, but in terms of quality, it was nowhere as good as the past 3 movies and was just bloated with bad adventure movie cliches. But that's how I judge sequels, I guess others just like that they have childhood memories come washing over them from watching the movie (although, if that is the case, then why not just watch the original movie on DVD?).

-------------
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: October 13 2010 at 5:33am
What makes you so sure critics didn't judge INDY 4 on it's own?They did. You know how I know? Of course it would've gotten bad reviews compared to the original. 90% of sequels are inferior. If that's really how you decide how you award "Worst Sequel," you may wanna re-think it.  



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 3:30pm
The joke was that "Indy 4" was like a bad dream -- but wasn't! And Lucas didn't seem to care, so long as he has money. 

Not only was "Indy 4" inferior, it just plain sucked: The logic was flawed, the dialogue was stupid, the characters were 1-D, and some scenes were just totally unbelievable. Plus, as you just said, if 90% of sequels are inferior, why do we need to re-think the category?  


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 6:16pm
Not re-think the category.Re-think how to choose the nominees.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 7:02pm
Then what do you think should have won? I can't think a sequel that has come along since  that was as disappointing as "Indy 4" (not counting "Transformers 2", because it I knew it was going to suck from day one).

-------------
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: October 15 2010 at 2:58pm
Any of the other nominees.Is unlikely for a sequel or remake to be better than the original one,but the others were bad on their own,while INDY 4 was good standing alone.Once again,that's not me talking,it's the world,based on reviews and box office.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 15 2010 at 4:21pm
Originally posted by Vits

Any of the other nominees.Is unlikely for a sequel or remake to be better than the original one,but the others were bad on their own,while INDY 4 was good standing alone.Once again,that's not me talking,it's the world,based on reviews and box office.
"Indy 4" is not a good stand-alone movie, in fact, fi you haven't seen the past three movies, you are not going to have a clue what's going on (who Marion is, Indy's fear of snakes, etc.). As I said before, Indiana Jones is a beloved character whom many people consider to be a role model and hero from their childhood. After nearly 20 years, those same fans would go running into the theaters to see any movie with Indy's name attached to it, even if the movie was 2 hours of Indy drinking soda and belching the alphabet. Sure enough, that's exactly what happened. They made a crappy movie and everyone run to it, only to realize late that it was crap, much like what happened to the "Star Wars" prequels. Once the fond childhood memories go away after the first 20 minutes, you realize, this movie sucks.

-------------
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: October 15 2010 at 5:42pm
No offense,but like I said my comments are also the ones from critics and audiences.You're the only I hear saying those things about the movie.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 15 2010 at 6:27pm
Originally posted by Vits

No offense,but like I said my comments are also the ones from critics and audiences.You're the only I hear saying those things about the movie.
Well, you can like it all you want. The votes were casted and counting and in the end, the paying members voiced their opinions. It's in the past and can't be undone.

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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: October 16 2010 at 11:47am

Mr. Burn, I don't know if Kingdom of the Crystal Skull still has between 60 and 80% at Rotten Tomatoes, but with how bad you think it is, are you implying that those critics were patently lying?



Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 16 2010 at 4:02pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

Mr. Burn, I don't know if Kingdom of the Crystal Skull still has between 60 and 80% at Rotten Tomatoes, but with how bad you think it is, are you implying that those critics were patently lying?
All I'm saying is that unlike the critics and other movie goers, the Razzie voters were not so easily sold to.

-------------
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: October 16 2010 at 4:13pm
"Easily sold"?Is it that hard for you to even consider maybe INDY 4 was a good movie?Not excellent,and far from as good as the other ones,but good?I'm asking because you keep coming up with reasons that start to sound to me more like excuses.I mean isn't what the majority thinks what matters?
Good reviews+good box office=good movie

I know the movie was already awarded,but what do you think this forums of past years are for?


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 16 2010 at 4:33pm
Originally posted by Vits

Is it that hard for you to even consider maybe INDY 4 was a good movie?Not excellent,and far from as good as the other ones,but good.
A fun movie? Sure. An entertaining movie? Yeah. A good movie? No. In the end, the only majority that mattered was the votes of the Razzie members.

-------------
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: October 17 2010 at 8:59am
With "Majority" I meant the whole world.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 17 2010 at 10:27am
Originally posted by Vits

With "Majority" I meant the whole world.
I know, but the whole didn't vote for the Razzies, only the 700 members who hated 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: Vits
Date Posted: October 17 2010 at 2:35pm
That doesn't sound very fair.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 17 2010 at 5:49pm
Originally posted by Vits

That doesn't sound very fair.
Well, as I said before, if people don't like the choices the Razzies make, they should shell out $20 and become voting memebers so that the "right" movies (or at least the right ones in their minds) get razzed.

-------------
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: Jennifar
Date Posted: December 25 2010 at 4:35am
Yes every body knows about the award of that film.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 3:39pm
I don't think Uwe Boll should've won. His directing was bad, but it was the smallest problem in  http://www.razzies.com/forum/in-the-name-of-the-king-a-dungeon-siege-tale_forum246.html - . Besides, against Selzerberg...

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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 3:58pm
Seltzerberg wouldn't have been a better choice, if you ask me. Their intent is to create the worst movie possible by ripping off everything from pop culture. Besides, Uwe Boll wasn't quite as obscure, and his video game adaptation movies had more bad substance to them, than the spoof movies.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 4:00pm
No, EVERYTHING about Boll's movie was a problem. Most of the cast (not all, but most) have proven they could do better in the past, but with Boll at the helm, well, everyone went down with the ship! 

Originally posted by Vits

 I don't think Uwe Boll should've won. His directing was bad, but it was the smallest problem in  http://www.razzies.com/forum/in-the-name-of-the-king-a-dungeon-siege-tale_forum246.html - - IN THE NAME OF THE KING . Besides, against Selzerberg...


-------------
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: oiram
Date Posted: January 06 2011 at 5:36am
While Crystal Skull was a big disappointment, I think the Worst Remake/Sequel award should have gone to The Day the Earth Stood Still '08. Now THAT was terrible!

-------------
Elizabeth Hartman and Judith Barsi are more talented and beautiful than Scarlett Johansson and Chloe Grace Moretz. Fact.

Worst Supporting Actor: Brendan Fraser/Gimme Shelter and The Nut Job




Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 06 2011 at 6:32am
True! Not only it was bad, it ruined the original.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: January 06 2011 at 7:49pm
Ah, yes, the "Let's All Speak in Montone Like Keanu Does" movie. 

Yeah, it was bad, but I guess Indiana Jones fans outnumber the "TDTESS" fans.   

Originally posted by oiram

I think the award should have gone to The Day the Earth Stood Still 08. Now THAT was terrible!


-------------
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: Jennifar
Date Posted: January 10 2011 at 9:45am
you realize the movies sucks compared to the original 3. I don't care if people don't like that choice, but it was the right choice because the movie was a big let down.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: January 10 2011 at 1:37pm
Originally posted by Jennifar

you realize the movies sucks compared to the original 3. I don't care if people don't like that choice, but it was the right choice because the movie was a big let down.
THANK YOU! That's the point we've been trying to make about "Indy Jones 4"!

-------------
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: razelfragel
Date Posted: November 21 2011 at 10:07pm
Vits, me and the rest of the world would really appreciate it if you stopped speaking for us. Don't be so egotistical to think you can assume what EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE thought of Indy 4. Personally I have yet to meet a single person who liked that movie, and it's received plenty of negative criticism from movie critics (the ones who weren't paid off by Lucas I bet). George Lucas originally wanted the movie to be called "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men" for god's sake, just to give you an idea of the staggering level of incompetence put into this film. For true fans of the original Indiana Jones movies it was the biggest disappointment of the year and I believe it truly deserved its razzie.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 22 2011 at 5:58am
I'm guided by R.T., Metacritic, etc. So I'm not simply assuming.  

Originally posted by razelfragel

Vits, me and the rest of the world would really appreciate it if you stopped speaking for us. Don't be so egotistical to think you can assume what EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE thought of Indy 4.


Now you are assuming the number of critics paid off... and assuming they were paid off at all.

Originally posted by razelfragel

Personally I have yet to meet a single person who liked that movie, and it's received plenty of negative criticism from movie critics (the ones who weren't paid off by Lucas I bet).


Originally posted by razelfragel

George Lucas originally wanted the movie to be called "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men" for god's sake, just to give you an idea of the staggering level of incompetence put into this film.

I'm not a fan of his. I actually think he takes the artistic value away every time he so-called "fixes" a movie. 

Originally posted by razelfragel

For true fans of the original Indiana Jones movies it was the biggest disappointment of the year and I believe it truly deserved its razzie.


I would agree with you if there was a concensus on whether the Worst Remake/Sequel category is for movies that could have been good, but still disappointed compared to the original. But a lot of people vote based on simply bad movies that just happened to have adapted scripts. 


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


Posted By: moonlina
Date Posted: December 27 2011 at 5:38pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by Vits

I mispoke.Whenever I bash you for awarding INDY 4 it's not just me talking.It's also audiences and critics.As for the ratings...yeah,I have a history like that.
Critics and audiences only liked "Indy 4" because it was a throw back to their childhoods, but once the childhood memories pass, you realize the movies sucks compared to the original 3. I don't care if people don't like that choice, but it was the right choice because the movie was a big let down. Take a note from How It Should Have Ended:
 

http://www.lalinguaarabapertutti.com



very nice thanks alot
-


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: October 07 2012 at 2:25am

2008. The only 00-Agent to act consecutively with James Bond instead of concurrently was Agent 008. Starting in Goldfinger, if Bond weren't to report into MI6, Agent 008 would replace him. Here's my take on the Year of the Successor to Bond:

Films that should've been RAZZed, but didn't: 4
Strange Wilderness
Superhero Movie
Babylon AD
Bangkok Dangerous
 
Films that got RAZZed, but shouldn't have: 3
The Wackness
Mamma Mia!
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull //I call it the "Predecessor's Shadow Parameter". If a film has decent reviews and would block out far worse films from getting RAZZed, it can still get nominated for Worst PSRR just for being in the shadow of its predecessor.
 
Films that got RAZZed to the wrong degree: 0
 
Worst Trends/Events of 2008:
V. Long-dormant franchises revived into empty shells of sequels (Ex. Crystal Skull, Rambo IV. Not that they should've been nominated or, in the case of Crystal Skull, deserved to be, but it's been happening a lot since 2008. They haven't had a new installment since the 80's or thereabout, and over 2 decades later, they get some of the most un-asked-for sequels ever!)
IV. Pierce and Paris pierce our ears with their singing (Repo! The Genetic Opera and Mamma Mia!)
III. Bollywood comes to America, and Mike Myers ruins it all (The Love Guru was FAR more offensive to India than Slumdog Millionaire, and that's saying a lot, because Slumdog made India look like a total ****hole!)
II. Seltzer and Friedberg, we've had enough of your F****** B*******!!! (The only year so far in which Seltzerberg struck twice, and even we were complaining!)
I. A German Ed Wood leads the spike in video game films (In the Name of the King, Postal, 1968 Tunnel Rats, Max Payne. More video game movies than any other year, and it'll be pretty tough to exceed, even with how bad Hollywood's gotten this millennium.)


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


Posted By: moviecritic1994
Date Posted: May 12 2013 at 9:31pm
Surprisingly, I will not talk about Indy and the crystal skull. But I will give my overall thought about the 29th Annual Razzie Awards.

At first, I was kind of surprised (but not really) that "The Love Guru" won Worst Picture and Worst Screenplay. I actually thought "The Hottie and The Nottie" was far worse. But then I really started to think about it. "The Hottie and the Nottie" really didn't affect Paris Hilton's career at all. She is still an heiress that is selfish, egotistical and mostly we haven't really seen her in awhile in film or on the tabloids as of late. But "The Love Guru" was different in two ways. First a lot more people saw this film than "The Hottie and the Nottie". So a lot more people knew how bad it really was. Also, I hate to say it but "The Love Guru" was the film that pretty much killed Mike Myer's career. Besides that film and the final Shrek installment, we haven't seen him in film. There are rumors he might be in a possible 4th Austin Powers film, but again those are just rumors. So yeah, I fully agree with "The Love Guru" winning the 3 Razzie Awards it got.

-------------
If you care to find me, Look to the Western Sky :)


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 4:00am
Originally posted by moviecritic1994

Besides that film and the final Shrek installment, we haven't seen him in film.


You forgot Inglourious Basterds.

-------------
Elizabeth Hartman and Judith Barsi are more talented and beautiful than Scarlett Johansson and Chloe Grace Moretz. Fact.

Worst Supporting Actor: Brendan Fraser/Gimme Shelter and The Nut Job




Posted By: moviecritic1994
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 4:07am
Okay, sorry -- I've never seen that film. Thanks for reminding me.

-------------
If you care to find me, Look to the Western Sky :)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 4:22pm
Originally posted by moviecritic1994

"The Hottie and the Nottie" really didn't affect Paris Hilton's career at all. She is still an heiress that is selfish, egotistical and mostly we haven't really seen her in awhile in film or on the tabloids as of late.
Are you sure? I mean, around 2003 and 2004, she started to appear in a movie per year. THE HOTTIE & THE NOTTIE and REPO! were her last theatrical releases. Since then, she's been producing a bunch of reality shows. But my point is that she was kind of "big" at one time.
Originally posted by moviecritic1994

I hate to say it but "The Love Guru" was the film that pretty much killed Mike Myer's career.
You're right. When it came out, it became official than him, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz needed the SHREK franchise, because their live-action movies weren't very good.
Originally posted by oiram

You forgot Inglourious Basterds.
Even though he was included in the Best Ensemble awards the film won, it was an extended cameo that doesn't proof he can have his career back.


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


Posted By: moviecritic1994
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 9:50pm
I still don't really understand why Adam Sandler even has a career after two horribly made films. Granted, I thought Just Go With It was okay, I didn't like it or love it but it was okay. However, the additions of "Jack and Jill" "Bucky Larson, Born to be a Star" and "That's my Boy" seemed like nails to his career coffin. However, he's going to be in "Grown ups 2" and possibly a Candy land film.

-------------
If you care to find me, Look to the Western Sky :)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 8:52am
You're saying that like those 3 movies were the first bad movies he ever made.

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


Posted By: moviecritic1994
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 9:05am
Well what I meant is those three titles were the worst of the worst of Adam Sandler's work. That's all.

-------------
If you care to find me, Look to the Western Sky :)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 9:49am
He doesn't see the difference between them. When JACK & JILL and THAT'S MY BOY underperformed at the box office, I was like "Great! Now he'll understand!". But he still won some public voting awards for them. He still thinks his movies are what the people wants.

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


Posted By: moviecritic1994
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 10:25am
While "Grown ups" only got nominated for Worst Supporting Actor (Rob Schinder) the sequel looks worse than the first. Comedy that is over the top like in Grown Ups or Jack and Jill is really idiotic and stupid. I don't even want to imagine what "Candyland" will be like .

-------------
If you care to find me, Look to the Western Sky :)



Print Page | Close Window