SOME BAD CHOICES

I don't think that DeForrest Kelly should have gotten a 1989 Razzie nod for STAR TREK V.

Sienna Miller didn't even deserve to be nominated for G.I. JOE: RISE OF COBRA.

I have to say that I am amazed that "Sheena, Queen of the Jungle" didn't have any wins in 1984.  As a stupid kid hitting puberty at the time, I loved the film and saw it many times over.  But as an adult who is well past the period in which a Charlie's Angel can so completely dominate my faculties and slant my judgment, the film has to be one of the worst movies of all time, and both the leads have to be among the worst actors and actresses of the decade!  

But thats not the point. The point im making is that Americans love to hate. So haters of Star Wars would be just as vocal as lovers of Star Wars. But yet here we are, with less complaints of star wars, way way less, than the praise of star wars. As for Shatner and Stallone, I garuntee most people would consider them artists. Your giving them so little credit its bordering on insanity. Even if you think them not artists, their seems to be little credit on their skills as entertainers as well. That's just wrong in general. Weres the respect? The admiration? I could show you again and again youtube clips or videos that show the true talent of these actors. Talent and artistic credibility you refuse to acknowledge.

I think people love to make fun of things they hate. The Bush administration, twilight, The Kardashians, etc. The list goes on and on. People make carreers out of hating crap (hint hint, whoever made this website), and in a world full of injustice and unoriginality, there is certainly a lot more to dislike than like. Books are made attacking filmakers, authors, leaders, and their works. So why not Star Wars. Face it, people love to hate. It's the sad truth. In fact, thats why many people see remakes. Most people dont take remakes of classic horror films seriously now, but go to them anways, to laugh at the incompetent work of the filmakers who created them, and the actors. Also, the reason remakes and sequels are constantly made, is because people like familiarity, even crappy familiarity. For instance, not every James Bond film is perfect, but its become something of an American tradition to see one everytime one comes out. Even though James Bond went through something of a dark period from the late eighties through the ninties and early 2000's. America has something of a bizzare love affair with the mediocre. Crappy food, poppy music, remakes....the list goes on. The only way to survive being laughing and ridicule of said crap (hence the razzies).

I know many people remake films because the first ones made money. I'm saying that the people who see the remakes often don't end up even liking them. So the film may make money, but the people who saw the remake probably left feeling their money was wasted. Its almost like someone taking a horrible, body-abusing drug over and over, hoping the next trip will be as good as the first lol. Like thats gonna happen :P 

The people versus george lucas tackled the prequel trilogy and the speacial editions more than the original films themselves. Also, it was Jaws that started the summer blockbuster trend, two years before star wars. And although no study is taken, you can see that the hordes of fans, the articles and books praising the series, and the overall reception greatly outnumbers the haters of the first three films at least. If you dont belive me go on google and see how many articles you can find that trash the original trilogy, then see how many praise it. The proof is in the numbers! Also, Disney popularity is different than critical popularity, as disney popularity is commercial popularity. For instance, a lot of people saw the friday the 13th remake, making it lots of cash. But even though lots of people saw it, they ended up not liking what they saw, hence its low CRITCIAL RATING on rotten tomatoes. Popularity in films arent measured by cash, but by critical value. If love towards a film was measured in mollah, then people would be going around dressed as Jason Statham in Death Race (perish the thought).

They are not just opinions, but informed opinions. Most big volumed books on television history contain a passage on TJ and Dukes somewere (though im not calling them masterpeices, just entertainment). I know, Ive read two such books. Secondly, considering star wars is the most influential film of the last 30 years or so (im too lazy to do the math since 77), I would say the world would be quite different without it. And at a loss too. Those films are loved way more than hated, thats for sure....WAY, WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY more. But anyways, ur missing the point. Im not here to talk about all the star wars films, nor hooker. Im here to adress Trek 5 (over 50% on RT, and therefore above average, since it includes public opinion), Indy four (76%), and the star wars prequels (all above 50%). Blair witch too (85%).  Why nominate films that more people like or feel so so about, when you could be nominating truely crappy films? That is the question i bring up. Shatner wasnt perfect in trek 5, but he wasnt bad either. He was typical shatner, which most people tend to enjoy. And surely it didnt deserve a nominee as worst film of the 80's! There was so many films that sucked way more than that movie.