Print Page | Close Window

Special Category for 2010

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: DISCUSSIONS & POLLS on 2010 RELEASES
Forum Name: POLL: SPECIAL CATEGORIES for 2010 / 31st RAZZIES
Forum Discription: Should We Mourn the Death of the ROM/COM? Slam the Assembly-Line Nature of HORROR MOVIES? Separate Out PREQUEL/SEQUEL from REMAKE/RIP-OFF? Here's Yer Chance to Put Yer 22-Cents In!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4210
Printed Date: November 25 2014 at 5:53pm


Topic: Special Category for 2010
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Special Category for 2010
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 8:08am
It may seem a bit early to be prepping for our 31st Annual Awards, in Spring 2011, but we thought it'd be interesting to seek your feedback regarding Special Categories for our 2010 Nominating Ballot. 

Please look over the FIVE choices above, then vote for the ONE you'd most like to see listed... 

ENJOY!


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



Replies:
Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 10:02am
Nice to see this ... but I'd still like a Worst Ensemble Cast category, for a certain Stallone and Company movie coming out this year...  

-------------
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: March 24 2010 at 11:48am

HeadRAZZBerry, might I suggest that you didn't have a choice for "Other - please specify" because any other categories would be too difficult to justify against these other three trends?

In this Quarter 1 of the year, it's too early to judge, but for now, I'll have to say Separate Worst PSRR (Prequel, Sequel, Remake, and Ripoff) into Remake/Ripoff and Prequel/Sequel. That's how it should've been for the Worst of 2008 and 2009, if only to reflect how many such "non first installments stunk in those years. This is subject to change, however, in later quarters when I determine which of those three trends is the worst news.

Also, I looked at the "Just do the normal categories for once", and instantly knew that already happened in 2000 and 2001. A bad move, if you ask me, because it didn't reflect the worst particular trends of the year.


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


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 2:34pm

I'm gonna take Worst Excuse for a Romantic Comedy.  We've already had quite a few bad ones this year and the next one doesn't look any better.



Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 4:11pm
Here's my take: How about, instead of having special categories for genres,you simply separate "Worst Picture" into "Worst Picture-Drama" and "Worst Picture-Comedy Or Musical"?

You could also delete "Worst Remake Or Rip-Off,"keep "Worst Sequel Or Prequel"and separate "Worst Screenplay" into "Original" and "Adapted."  


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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 6:05pm
So you want it more like the "Best of the Year" awards and less focused on secondary installments. I don't expect that to happen.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 24 2010 at 6:18pm
Well, the Razzies should "honor" the worst of the worst, and right now, the worst are remakes/sequels and pointless use of 3-D. Hell, they are even planning re-releases of older movies in 3-D. Now that's what I call milking it for all it's worth!

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 25 2010 at 5:54am
Hollywood is obviously grasping at straws in their attempts to get fannies into the seats, when the answer is painfully obvious: Instead of remakes, sequels, rehashes and dredged up "new" versions of tired, decades-old TV shows...why not show us something new??  

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 25 2010 at 8:21am
Originally posted by GTAHater767

So you want it more like the "Best of the Year" awards and less focused on secondary installments. I don't expect that to happen.
Well,it's true that I got those terms from the Oscars and Golden Globes,but that way is better.More movies have the chance to be nominated.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 25 2010 at 10:37am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Hollywood is obviously grasping at straws in their attempts to get fannies into the seats, when the answer is painfully obvious: Instead of remakes, sequels, rehashes and dredged up "new" versions of tired, decades-old TV shows...why not show us something new??  
But saturnwatcher, that would take effort, and they would need people who are creative, and they would have to rely on normal priced tickets instead of jacked up ones! You can't make half a billion dollars with that sort of thinking!

-------------
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: March 25 2010 at 3:38pm
And what's wrong with making half a Gigadollar off of original material? If Hollywood ever found out, they wouldn't take notice, but the people, tired of rehashes, just thought they'd ask. Too bad they have no sense of accomplishment.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 25 2010 at 4:09pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

And what's wrong with making half a Gigadollar off of original material? If Hollywood ever found out, they wouldn't take notice, but the people, tired of rehashes, just thought they'd ask. Too bad they have no sense of accomplishment.

There's nothing wrong about it, it's just that Hollywood lacks the balls to do it.


-------------
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: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 7:22am
I'd actually like all of the first four. All fine ideas.
But if there's one thing I've just recently noticed, it's that Rom-Coms are getting lower, and lower, and lower ratings. The Bounty Hunter at 9%? It just seems like each one is worse than the last. You might actually say that Rom-Coms are getting as bad as horror movies, in terms of a consistent low scores, with a few outliers every now and then.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 3:10pm
Wow, Worst Rom-Com is blowing everything else away!

-------------
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: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 5:36pm
Posters in the Repo Man thread are supporting a Reverse Lifetime Achievement award, also known as the Worst Post Oscar Winning Career Award, or the Ben Kingsley award.

Hopefully, Cuba Gooding Jr. can "win" something from the Razzies after just being only nominated for it.


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

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 6:48pm
Since we've touched on this topic a bit here, I want to toss out an observation about Hollywood's trend toward sequels and remakes, something I think we all despise. But I think there is something deeper here that has to be at least considered, which is that Hollywood is also kind of thumbing it's nose at its own history and heritage.
 
This all occurs to me as AMC is doing a series of Harry Harryhausen movies tonight, including the original Clash of the Titans. The "new" version is out this week, and a whole generation of movie goers who have never seen the original will probably marvel at the CGI effects. I'm not going to try to tell anyone that Harryhausen's work was in any way superior, BUT, it was a unique artform in its own right and probably deserves to be protected and appreciated by future generations as part of the evolution of film history. Instead, the original version of this film, which wasn't a classic by any means, will probably be lost in the glitz of the newer version. I think that is very unfortunate.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: March 26 2010 at 7:55pm
I'm voting for the worst eye-abusing use of 3-D because I STILL have nightmares of going to see Tony Anthony in Comin' At Ya' back in 1981. It surely was the cinematic equivalent of Velveeta. So cheap that the entire last reel re-ran all the cheesy 3-d effects that were in the movie. Still remember the awful migraine I had when the movie ended and I took the "Magicvision" glasses off. Thumbs Down


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 31 2010 at 7:41am
Well, you know the whole 3-D gimmick thing is getting out of hand when even Oscar bait dramas are in 3-D!

-------------
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: April 08 2010 at 8:50pm
Yet another horrifying attempt to jump on the cash cow. I can only stand for it if they truly put forth the effort to make it 3D-compliant. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 09 2010 at 11:59am
Not just that -- it doesn't even add anything to the movie, beside cheap tricks that they have been doing in 3-D movies since the gimmick was invented -- ie. actors pointing at the screen, or playing with yo-yos or paddle-balls!  

Originally posted by GTAHater767

Yet another horrifying attempt to jump on the cash cow. I can only stand for it if they truly put forth the effort to make it 3D-compliant. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.


-------------
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: gloriashern2
Date Posted: April 21 2010 at 4:11am
Great Post.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 23 2010 at 3:37pm
Anyone in for "Worst Foreign Film"?  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The concept of a Worst Foreign Film RAZZIE® has arisen repeatedly over the three decades we've done our awards. The problem is that, if it truly sucks, a foreign film is unlikely to ever achieve even limited theatrical release in the US, let alone a release wide enough for a substantial number of our Voting Members to ever see it. Thus the idea of including such a category is inherently a waste of time... 


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 23 2010 at 5:31pm
If they are only released in their native countries, it's going to be hard for Americans, and people outside of those countries to see and vote for them.  

-------------
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: -1
Date Posted: June 29 2010 at 5:34am
I gotta go with Rom-Com. They are getting worse and worse, to the point where it is very rare to see one without a sub-20% RT score. 
 
Meanwhile, I don't wanna get my hopes up, but horror movies seem to be in a minor bounceback, with Daybreakers, The Crazies, and Shutter Island all being respectable films. But Paranormal 2, Saw VII (in 3D!), and Piranha 3D are still to come, so Winter '10 must have been an isolated incident. 
 
3D on the other hand, while annoying, has little to do with the quality of one's filmmaking, and is more of an excuse for the lack there-of (barring the occaisons when the movie is actually enjoyable, such as MBV and Avatar).
 
Also, I don't really see the need to separate the Remake/Rip-Off/Sequel/Prequel into two categories as a special occasion. 


-------------
One push is all you need.....


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 29 2010 at 1:49pm
Well, as much I would like the winner to be 3-D abusing, since all it does is "help" the box office grossing by doubling the ticket price so that bad movies do well, it seems voters here hate rom-coms even more.

-------------
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: June 29 2010 at 3:01pm
For every genre there's at least one good movie each year. That has always been the case for rom-com and horror. Well,maybe 2005 is the exception for the latter. Anyway those shouldn't be categories. Among the "Worst Picture" nominees there will definately be a rom-com. So the winner for "Worst Rom-Com" will be obvious. Although that happens with pretty much every award.

"Worst 3D Movie" shouldn't be either. When one decides the best and worst movies they can be divided by genre. But 3D is a technique that doesn't have to do with filmmaking itself. It's true that some movies are made with being in 3D in their minds and that makes them film the movie a different way the wanted. Still.

The reason to separate "Worst Remake Or Rip-Off" and "Worst Sequel Or Prequel" is because they're similar but not the same. Besides,that gives us the chance to nominate more movies. The problem is that the winners tend to be obvious. However,now that most movies enter in those categories and they tend to be bad it could be like last year in which 3 of the nominees were also up for "Worst Picture".


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 29 2010 at 5:39pm
Responding to Vits' points above:  

1. We still have yet to have a good rom-com this year. Not one so far.

2. 3-D is nothing but an excuse to jack ticket prices up and it does nothing to enhance the movie. Anyone who saw "Clash of the Titans" will tell you that. And we have two guys here who will be more than happy to tell you 3-D didn't help matters for "Alice In Wonderland" either.


-------------
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: rburton
Date Posted: June 29 2010 at 7:24pm
You can say that again! 

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

2. 3-D is nothing but an excuse to jack ticket prices up and it does nothing to enhance the movie. Anyone who saw "Clash of the Titans" will tell you that. And we have two guys here who will be more than happy to tell you 3-D didn't help matters for "Alice In Wonderland" either.


-------------
For Your Consideration

Dev Patel for WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR in The Last Fartbender


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 5:07pm
What's the point of having "Worst Cast" if a lot times "Worst Couple" nominates the lead and anyone else.There's also times when they nominate any pair of characters.

I liked http://www.razzies.com/forum/ive-got-an-idea_topic4389.html - .After,several awards have done it.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 5:24pm
That's why I argue that "Worst Couple" is a cop-out. It's almost all ways "lead star and everyone he/she shares screen-time with." Or when you have the entire male cast for Worst Actor or the entire female cast for Worst Actress, it just doesn't make sense. Worst Ensemble Cast would save up a lot of space on the ballots in the solo performance catagories and would still mock a bunch of people without have to take short cuts like those a mentioned above. And considering the large amount of movies featuring "all-star" casts that have been released this year (apparently the newest marketing gimmick in Hollywood, along with overdosing on 3-D), it's not like there's a shortage of ensemble casts to vote for...  

-------------
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: JoeBoyden
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 10:01pm

Burn, I see what you mean. But, personally I'm not a big fan of a "Worst Cast" category. You can have a bad or mediocre movie, with several bad or wooden performances, which nevertheless has a good (sometimes great) performance that saves it or at least makes it watchable: Vittorio de Sica in A Farewell to Arms, Joan Plowright in The Scarlet Letter, J.K. Simmons in New in Town, Billy Burke in Twilight, Marion Cotillard in A Good Year, just to name a few.

This year, Hector Elizondo proved once again what a good, reliable actor he is by giving a good performance in Valentine’s Day -- in spite of the terrible lines he was given. So it would be kind of unfair to include him in a potential Worst Cast category together with the Kutcher/Alba/Lopez/Swift/Lautner combo.



-------------
My Picks... so far:
Worst Picture BUCKY LARSON
Worst Actor Shia LaBeouf
Worst Actress Martin Lawrence
Worst Sup Actor John Turturro
Worst Sup Actress Vanessa Hudgens
Worst Director Michael Bay


Posted By: Julianstark
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 11:12pm
You could argue the same (well, opposite technically) for the Ensemble category at the Screen Actors Guild Awards.

-------------
For Your 2010 Razzie Consideration: The Bounty Hunter and Leap Year --
Check out my blog! http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com - Movies and Other Things


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 10:40am
In the SAG Awards, there are nominees for Best Ensemble/Cast. Here, I sense you'd nominate bad movies even if there's one or two good performances. You have already awarded well-reviewed movies with bad acting awards. Who says movies like INCEPTION, THE OTHER GUYS or SCOTT PILGRIM can't be nominated in acting categories, including "Worst Ensemble"?  


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 11:41am
Why not mock the SAG awards, too? I mean if you're going to use Worst Couple as an excuse to say EVERYONE on-screen sucked, you might as well make Worst Cast an official catagory, since Worst Couple seems more like an MTV Movie Award catagory (Best Duo Or Team) than an Oscar catagory...
 
Who says movies like INCEPTION, THE OTHER GUYS or SCOTT PILGRIM can't be nominated in acting categories,including "Worst Ensemble"? 
 

Because those movies (well, "Other Guys" might be an exception) didn't have bad performances from the entire casts. No one in "Inception" stunk up the screen and "Scott Pilgrim" just suffers from being on a caffine high.


-------------
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: August 16 2010 at 2:14pm
Those were just examples.And I said those could be nominated in individual acting categories.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 3:11pm
Yeah, but giving 5 actors or 5 actresses a collective nod as Worst Actor or Actress makes even less sense than calling an entire cast the Worst Couple...  



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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 3:49pm
Joint nominations for two similar movies is where I draw the line. I've asked plenty of times how they came up with the penalty for Worst Screen Couple, and asked if it had something to do with bad items showing up in pairs on screen back in the former half of 199X... and I never got an answer.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I assume your reference to "joint nominations for two similar movies" is regarding the MEET THE SPARTANS / EPIC MOVIE combo from our 29th year?? If you saw both movies (and I had the misfortune of doing so) you'd understand the argument that they were two very similar versions of the same, lame concept. And jointly nominating them seemed a way to immediately point at their they were...turds of a feather. 

As for the "inspiration" for Worst Screen Couple, it was taken in part from similar categories in the MTV Movie Awards and the fact that, in 1994, there were a plethora of really awful "screen couples" to choose from. 

FYI: For this year's 31st Annual RAZZIES, I am seriously considering replacing Worst Screen Couple with Worst Screen Ensemble / Worst Cast...  



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 4:26pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

FYI: For this year's 31st Annual RAZZIES, I am seriously considering replacing Worst Screen Couple with Worst Screen Ensemble / Worst Cast...  
Woo-hoo! Clap


-------------
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: August 16 2010 at 4:48pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I assume your reference to "joint nominations for two similar movies" is regarding the MEET THE SPARTANS / EPIC MOVIE combo from our 29th year??
You mean http://www.razzies.com/forum/disaster-movie_forum270.html - ?


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 1:17pm
I just notice there's a movie called THE CITY OF YOUR FINAL DESTINATION starring Laura Linney and Anthony Hopkins.I know it can't get a forum because it didn't hit theaters,but it gave an idea:What if actors get nominated for one movie?If they get nominated for more,it shouldn't be conjoined.All of this is more Oscar-y.Then,you creat another category that awards actors that made bad choices by being in 2 or more bad movies each year.An example would be Mr. Hopkins for that movie and the-wolfman_forum414.html - THE WOLFMAN .

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 23 2010 at 9:01pm
Originally posted by Vits

I just notice there's a movie called THE CITY OF YOUR FINAL DESTINATION starring Laura Linney and Anthony Hopkins.I know it can't get a forum because it didn't hit theaters,but it gave an idea:What if actors get nominated for one movie?If they get nominated for more,it shouldn't be conjoined.All of this is more Oscar-y.Then,you creat another category that awards actors that made bad choices by being in 2 or more bad movies each year.An example would be Mr. Hopkins for that movie and the-wolfman_forum414.html - THE WOLFMAN .
Well, there was the entire year of 2003, in which Ben Affeck became incapable of appearing in a good movie, so he win Worst Actor not just for "Gigli", but every other movie he was in that year ("Paycheck", "Daredevil", etc.). In that case, yes, the actor should get nods for his entire body of work for that year. But again, if it's not in theaters, it's not going to be on Razzie ballot, hence why Hopkins would only get a nod for "Wolfman" and not this other movie you're sugguesting.

-------------
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 08 2010 at 5:01pm
I've thought about it, and I don't there should be "Worst Excuse for a Rom/Com" category. 5 movies will be nominated,right? Usually people complain when one they wanted didn't make the final cut. This time, when HeadRAZZ has to explain why one didn't make it, he won't be able to do so. Since all rom-coms are hated for the exact same reasons, there would be no way to choose, since they're all equally bad.

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 08 2010 at 6:53pm
The thing is, if we give rom-coms their own Razzie category, we might as well just call it "Worst Katherine Heigl Movie," since she stars in practically every one of them!

-------------
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 09 2010 at 5:20pm
Then perhaps I should've voted for "Worst Eye-Gouging Use of 3D".


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 09 2010 at 6:58pm
I'm serious, man. At least with past categories like "Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie" or "Worst Excuse for a Family Movie," you could tell the nominees apart.


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 09 2010 at 8:23pm
Can anyone seriously claim to tell one horror movie from another these days? They are all the same. Take a group of good-looking teenagers, add one serial killer in a mask and a weapon of choice,...killer then offs the teens one-by-one, until the last one or two teens stops him,...and end with a cliffhanger where the killer may or may not come back to life...repeat in sequel. 

Same formula Hollywood has used for the past 40 years!  


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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 10 2010 at 12:55pm
You're describing slasher films. Horror movies can be different. Romantic comedies may change their plots, but the formula is always the same...  



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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 10 2010 at 1:21pm

Yeah, but sadly, most horror movies these days use the "slasher formula," and the"rom/com formula" needs to change, too,  because it has gotten equally stale.

-------------
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: Vheid
Date Posted: December 10 2010 at 12:29pm
Hi, new here and kind of saying hello.

I was wondering if you ever thought of starting a Worst Movie Not Showing in a Theatre Near You-category. This category would "honour" the worst films released through another medium than the cinema (tv films, straight-to-dvd/blu-ray films and films released directly on the interenet)? Please respond to this question (and give me feedback on the idea if you don't like it)

I was also wondering if i could register as a voter if i am not a U.S.-resident (or if it is U.S. only)?  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: First off, a Berry Warm WELCOME to our Forum. 

The idea of a "Not Showing" RAZZIE category is an interesting one, but among the problems would be keeping track of all the dreck that appears on Direct-to-Video, as well as ensuring that the titles were readily available to our Voting Members. 

On the question of whether non-US residents can be Voting Members, the answer is an emphatic YES -- We currently have Voting Members in nearly two dozen foreign territories -- many of whom cast their ballots via the Net. Here's the http://razzies.com/join.asp -





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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 10 2010 at 8:32pm
Well, Worst Direct To DVD Movie would be a good category, considering the large amount of straight to DVD sequels that are being made these days. Only problem is that voters would have to go and rent or stream these movies as well in order to know about them better.

-------------
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: Vheid
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 8:44am
Too bad. I was kind of fond of that idea.  

Just signed in for full membership, PayPal said that the transaction will be completed within 4-6 workdays.  

So if I become a member next week, am I in time to recieve this years nomination ballot? Or are those already sent out?  

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


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: December 12 2010 at 10:36am
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: You have http://razzies.com/join.asp - in plenty of time to receive a Nominating Ballot for this year's 31st Annual RAZZIES® -- They don't go in the mail until Dec. 29.  

FYI: Here's a http://www.razzies.com/forum/sked-for-31st-razzies-83rd-oscars_topic876.html - to see the entire 2011 sked for both Our Awards and Those Other Ones (aka The Giving Out of the Little Gold Naked Men®)...  




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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 12 2010 at 12:29pm
Welcome,Vheid.

I'm confused.Most votes have gone to "Worst Romantic Comedy".Yet,in most of the other poll forums it has been sort of established that "Worst 3D Movie" and "Worst Ensemble" are a sure thing.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Scroll up and check the current results -- Worst Eye-Gouging Mis-Use of 3-D has now pulled ahead of the Worst Excuse for a Rom/Com -- and Worst Screen Ensemble was never on any of our Forum polls, though it may end up being combined with Screen Couple into a single more-than-one-obnoxious-performer category...  




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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 12 2010 at 7:23pm
While 2010 was full of bad rom-coms, it was also THE year that Hollywood was banking almost entirely on making money through gimmicks like adding 3-D surcharges or having a cast of 10 to 20 known celebrities. And the Razzies love sticking it to Hollywood for their cheap attempts to make money while trying to fix an open wound with a tiny band-aid.  




-------------
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: Vheid
Date Posted: December 13 2010 at 5:47am
Thank you for the hospitality, Vits.   

Originally posted by Vits

Welcome,Vheid.





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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 13 2010 at 8:52am
Oh! Didn't notice...  

Is there still a chance of separating "Remake","Sequel" and "Rip-Off" into 3?Because I can tell "Horror Movie" won't happen with so many good horror movies this year.
Wink


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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 16 2010 at 9:35pm
Really no point, there have been so many this year, all three categories would be bloated. Shrinking the category down to five choices as it is is a hard enough task. 

Originally posted by Vits

Is there still a chance of separating "Remake","Sequel" and "Rip-Off" into 3?


-------------
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: December 17 2010 at 7:47am
So? That would mean more sequels, remakes and rip-offs would get nominated. Maybe that will teach Hollywood.  

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


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 17 2010 at 8:05am
I highly doubt it. The Razzies have been around for 3 decades now, but based on the amount of sequels and remakes this year, Hollywood hasn't learned a damn thing from our awards. They would rather just stick their heads in the sand and pretend we're not here.  

Originally posted by Vits

So? That would mean more sequels,remakes and rip-offs will get nominated. Maybe that will teach Hollywood.


-------------
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: Vheid
Date Posted: December 17 2010 at 10:34am
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I highly doubt it. The Razzies have been around for 3 decades now, but based on the amount of sequels and remakes this year, Hollywood hasn't learned a damn thing from our awards. They would rather just stick their heads in the sand and pretend we're not here. 


Probably because the main prize (Worst Picture) rarely goes to a remake or sequels.

In it's entire 30-year run it just went to 4 sequels (Rambo 2, Star Trek 5, Basic Instinct 2, Transformers 2), 1 remake (Wild Wild West) and 1 spin-off (Catwoman). Correct me if i am wrong but it seems that original screenplays and book adaptations have a better track record there.


Not judging the Razzies, I love these awards (that's the reason i signed in). I mean, why reward a sequel when you can reward a film that is craptastic at it's first try.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 17 2010 at 11:20am
You know what?Your're right.They shouldn't be separated,because then voters will say "I'm voting for that original movie for "Worst Picture" because even though I hated that remake/sequel the most it will be awarded anyway

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


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: December 17 2010 at 11:34am
Vits, I think that there is a big chance that both honours will go to "Airbender" this year.
I will probably be voting for Vampires Suck because i consider it the worst picture made this year. That and The Last Airbender has become some sort of guilty pleasure-movie of mine (don't judge me)



Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 17 2010 at 11:39am
Originally posted by Vheid


Not judging the Razzies, I love these awards (that's the reason i signed in). I mean, why reward a sequel when you can reward a film that is craptastic at it's first try.
Because we bash sequels for #1. Being nothing more than a cash grab, which is all sequels really are. The first movie was successful, so let's milk it for all it's worth. #2. Being inferior to the original movie. A rule with sequels, they should at least try to top the original, ie. "Godfather Part 2", "Aliens", "X-Men 2", "Dark Knight", 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: Vheid
Date Posted: December 18 2010 at 3:44am
Right but they are rarely memorably bad, often just mediocre. There just one of many that gets lost in the crowd, and will be forgotten by the end of the year. These films are released but not remembered by the general public (if you were to ask them about this movie 5 years from now). Most of them have no stayingpower. Why'll films with an awfull reputation like Bolero, Showgirls, Leonard part 6, Howard The Duck and Battlefield Earth wil be remembered as examples of the worst films ever made. I believe a Razzie-winner shouldn't be a film that is forgotten because it lives in the shadow of it's much better predecessor.

I hope that my message came across well. I know that the above text is kind of messy. English isn't my native language (as you may have guessed).

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Because we bash sequels for #1. Being nothing more than a cash grab, which is all sequels really are. The first movie was successful, so let's milk it for all it's worth. #2. Being inferior to the original movie. A rule with sequels, they should at least try to top the original, ie. "Godfather Part 2", "Aliens", "X-Men 2", "Dark Knight", etc.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 18 2010 at 4:20am
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by Vheid


Not judging the Razzies, I love these awards (that's the reason i signed in). I mean, why reward a sequel when you can reward a film that is craptastic at it's first try.
Because we bash sequels for #1. Being nothing more than a cash grab, which is all sequels really are. The first movie was successful, so let's milk it for all it's worth. #2. Being inferior to the original movie. A rule with sequels, they should at least try to top the original, ie. "Godfather Part 2", "Aliens", "X-Men 2", "Dark Knight", etc.
 
Or The Bourne Ultimatum, or Toy Story 3, or Freddy vs. Jason. . . . Big smile
 
Well, okay, not that last one. . . . Clown
 


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 18 2010 at 8:00am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

 
Or The Bourne Ultimatum, or Toy Story 3, or Freddy vs. Jason. . . . Big smile
 
Well, okay, not that last one. . . . Clown
Yeah, that last one shouldn't even count as a horror movie, just a comedy that featured horror movie icons for some reason. Talk about phoning it in!


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



Print Page | Close Window