Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > DISCUSSIONS & POLLS on 2010 RELEASES > POLL: POSSIBLE WORST SUPPORTING ACTORS for 2010
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Razzies: Great Idea, terrible execution
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Razzies: Great Idea, terrible execution

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
grapesrgud View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: January 02 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Post Options Post Options   Quote grapesrgud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Razzies: Great Idea, terrible execution
    Posted: January 02 2011 at 9:46am
Look, Don't get me wrong: I think the idea of the Razzies is certainly intriguing...but it's really let down by the voters' lack of imagination. You seem to pick your "winners" based on their overexposure rather than their merit, so it's about as boring and predictable as the Oscars. 

Does no one think that if you really carefully looked at all the films of 2010, and used a bit of creativity, you could come up with a list that could be a lot more relevant and interesting?  It doesn't bode well for the film industry, but what i'm trying to say is that there are, in fact, a lot worse films 
and performances out there...  

   
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2011 at 10:34am
I know saturnwatcher actually watches every Razzie contender that he can, but, let's face it, in the end it's not totally about who the worst performer is -- it's who is the most overexposed. Yeah, it sucks, but there are just some celebrities that Razzie voters are sick of and wish would go away. 

But as I keep saying, I don't think the votes that our Forum polls are getting are all from actual Razzie members, just random people who visit the Forum. You never know, the results of the award show might be the polar opposite of the polls here!  
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2011 at 10:42am
I dare say that quite a few of the voters here watch all of the nominated films and performances, but it still needs to be pointed out that at the end of the day, the Razzies are a tongue-in-cheek parody, not necessarily an exhaustive search for the truly worst movies  or performances. There are all sorts of really crappy films released every year, most of which don't do squat at the box-office. If those kinds of films were rewarded annually, most people wouldn't pay a scrap of attention to Mr. Wilson's press releases, nor would there be much interest in eventually bringing it to the airwaves. On the other hand, if more popular performers and films deservingly get one up the backside, people will pay attention and even respond with the proper degree of amusement..yes, a few folks will inevitably take offense, but most of them need to grow a sense of humor. If I may dare to offer a justification for this organization, it isn't necessarily to reward the worst of the worst, but to give Hollywood a well deserved comeuppance once a year.
 
Incidentally, Head Razz could obviously provide much more accurate information as to the number of annual Razzie voters, but I'm sure I wouldn't be far off in noting that it is an order of magnitude (ten times) greater than the number that vote for the Golden Globes. If you want to attack anyone on relevance, I don't think it is the Razzies.
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
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2011 at 11:09am
Yeah, as saturnwatcher said, if we Razz some Z-list actress in some direct to DVD movie, no one is going to care. But if we Razz Sandra Bullock the day before she wins an Oscar, that makes the news. So in the end, you have to do what's good for a PR stunt. You have to bet Hollywood at it's own publicity game.
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.
Back to Top
GTAHater767 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: October 25 2009
Location: I shall not say
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1309
Post Options Post Options   Quote GTAHater767 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2011 at 11:27am
Even if the production quality on the wide releases isn't quite as bad as the Direct-to-DVD s(beep) or low-budget limited releases, many of these wide-releases are still unwatchable. I think it logical to aim at the wide releases because more people can relate to how bad they are. Everybody knew how bad From Justin to Kelly, The Cat in the Hat, and Gigli were back in 2003. Sure, these were unwatchable, and maybe there were some worse films that didn't get wide release, but no-one could relate to how bad those narrower-released films were.
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2011 at 11:39am
Well sometimes direct to DVD movies are funny that way. They are usually released on DVD because the studio didn't think it would do well in theaters. But then you have rare DVD movies like "Ginger Snaps" that do very well and has a cult following, all of which results in a sequel and a prequel.
 
But, the rest fo the time, it's just the usual direct to DVD sequel of a successful theater movie, in which it is just a rehashing of the original movie, except now it features a Z-list cast that is more willing to do nudity, and that's about 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.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down