SOME BAD CHOICES

Once again you have failed to come to grips with the point of this forum section, which was made by the website to argue over wether past decisions were wrongly made. I'm well aware of what they thought at the time, but the point of the forum is to argue against what the voters decided. The 5th film wasnt even below 50 % on RT, meaning that more than half the film going population enjoyed it, surely meaning it isnt bad enough to deserve a razzie. Yes, it was nominated for a razzie, no sh*t. Thats not the point. The forum pointed out that the goal of this section was to disagree with past razzie choices. You can deffend their choices, but you can't say im being pointless when im simply doing what the forum asked: to argue against the nominations of the past. Im stating my argument quite clearly. The films i mentioned that were nominated have recieved either fresh ratings (past reviews included, as well as public opinion), or  are somewere in the 50% range, which is far from crappy. Yet they got nominated for a razzie. Also, tell me this: if a film that got nominated for a razzie in, lets say, 1989, is now regarded as a masterpeice, would you still deffend the razzie voters choices (i'm being theoretical to point out an obvious statment here, star trek aside)? I don't care what they thought at the time, this forum was made so i can DISAGREE. DO U NOT UNDERSTAND?! DO you not comprehend that? I understand some people disagree with me, but im saying that more peope agree than disagree with me on the voters past choices (statistically of course, but that is the most acurate way after all). What if they nominated citizen kane for a razzie (ignore the point that there were no razzies then), would you still say that they thought it sucked at the time and thats all that matters, even though time has given us the true answer that most people like the films I have mentioned (love it even)? When the razzie nominates a film, they shouldnt pick films that got good, great, or even mixed reviews, but films that recived universal trashing! Lastly, to say that im judging star trek from a fans point of veiw is a correct statment, I am a fan, but then again, the films were made for fans, not casual watchers (such as, Im guessing, the razzie voters). The reason people enjoy the films is because you've grown with the cast and crew over the years and learned to love them like a family. Im guessing the voters of that year didnt watch star trek regularly, and are therefore biased in their own right (one could compare them to  little girls from down the lane who get in over their heads when they walk into an S&M bar never or rarely frenquented by all save the hardcore perverts).

First, I really don't think it is necessary for me to provide yet another list of why episodes "1-3" of the Star Wars saga were lousy. A hundred professional critics have already done so. If you want my opinion as a sci-fi fan and someone in the scientific field, I'll offer that I've never been much of a fan of the entire series.

The best thing about the prequel to the Star Trek series was that it didn't involve Shatner. But they took so many continuity liberties with the time lines and overall structure developed by the TV series and various novels that they could have renamed all the characters and divorced it somewhat from the original series and I suspect it would have been just as well received.

Oh.

There were large number of people who liked Star Wars very much and large numbers that didn't. I really don't think the world would have suffered immeasurable trauma if they hadn't bee made.  I'll permit your remarks about TJ Hooker and The Dukes of Hazzard to stand without remark. I think your opinions stand as a measure of the credibility of the overall argument.

Many seriously question if the influence made by "Star Wars" was a good or bad one. Many debate that it is the movie that helped ruin filmmaking, and started the Hollywood craze of making a blockbuster first and caring about the art of filmmaking second. Like saturnwatcher, I also question if the public would have been better off if the movie was never made. I'm sure the world of movie making would be very different if those movies didn't exist. And sorry, there is no proof that the movies are loved more than hated. A documentart entitled "The People Vs. Geoge Lucas" explores this by showing equal sides of the argument about if Lucas and his films had either negative or positive effect on people's childhoods and lives.

Actually, "The Godfather" was the original blockbuster, followed by "Jaws". Then "Star Wars" came around and by that time it was like "Okay, f*** art, let's make a s***load of money using formulas!", thus "Star Wars" is considered the final push in which Hollywood changed it's game plans. Also, the hordes of fans prove nothing. I'm sure just as many haters of "Star Wars" exist, it's just that they don't waste their time and money gathering together at sci-fi cons to declare their hatred or writing entire essays about how much the movies suck. And as for critical vs. cash value, sorry, that's wishful thinking. The reasons why all these remakes/reboots/sequels are being made is because the original movies made money, even if they were panned by critics.

On the subject of remakes, sadly, when you're a die-hard fan of something, you're going to see each any every remake/sequel of your favorite movie series, no matter how bad the last one is, in hopes that the newest movie will make up for the last one ... kinda like a certain fan we have here at the forum who is having wet dreams about seeing the 5th "Final Destination" movie. As for "Star Wars" haters, come on, if people really hate something, are they really going to waste every waking moment of their time bitching and moaning out loud about how much they hate it for everyone in public to see? Nah. Granted, people on Fox Noise Channel do that, but at least they are paid for it. Chances are they are just doing to keep quiet about it and pretend like the thing they hate doesn't exist in their minds.