Who to Kick in the Ca-REAR?!?!?!

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAA  NELLIE!!!!!!!

Originally posted by thomsonmg2000 Let's see here: At least Stallone appeared in and directed some critically acclaimed movies like the Rocky series

The first Rocky film was well received by critics and won Best Picture honors, almost certainly as the result of a couple better films splitting the vote. It remains one of the half dozen worst films ever to take home the Oscar, without much real argument. Not that it was a particularly bad film, but a decidedly undeserving Best Picture selection.

The second Rocky film was less enthusiastically received by critics, although it still managed to satisfy a fairly large audience.  Most of us regarded it as a typical, inferior sequel. The rest of the Rocky series was crap. That represents the best of Stallone's work.

That said, at least Stallone has built a legacy of sorts that is genuinely worthy of our recognition. As long as there is Spike TV and time slots to fill on the Turner Networks at 3 AM, on nights when Ron Popeil doesn't have any junk to peddle, Stallone's films will get airtime. I believe, and predict, that 10 years from now, it'll take hours of intense research to find out anything about Boll or his films. If we are going to bestow career honors on anyone, I think we should be looking in the direction of someone who is building a legitimate legacy of memorable bad movies, not a flash in the pan. Bad as Boll's movies may be, the only people who actually care spend upwards of 14 hours a day with video game controllers locked in their hands.

I think perhaps a Razzie rule of thumb might be worthy of consideration here...and just to satisfy my ego, I think we should call it,  THE SATURNWATCHER RULE OF THUMB: Any filmmaker who makes movies that primarily appeal to audiences in which only about 1% show up with, or will ever get a date (that doesn't have to be inflated) is probably not really worthy of our attention.

I've never particularly hidden the fact that I am probably among the more senior members here age wise...The Mr. Green Jeans reference alone should have once again reinforced that.

BUT

Let's review some box-office numbers here...Boll's  highest grossing film to date was his 2003 release of House of the Dead which pulled in $10 million and change. Alone in the Dark dropped to about $5.1 million, Blood Rayne pulled in a dismal $2.4 million and In the Name of the King is going to fall short of $5 million. Dividing those numbers by the average ticket prices leaves only Alone in the Dark above a million ticket sales, the rest a paltry few hundred thousand. That is scarcely everyone born since 1980. It isn't even a signficant percentage of them, and yes, I'd dismiss a few hundred thousand people in a population of 300 million. But it does support my earlier contention that by now, just about everyone who has seen a Boll film has probably signed the petition, which is why the number of signees  isn't considerably higher.

I remember Mr. Green Jeans.  I was raised on Captain Kangaroo.  I miss Bunny Rabbit and the ping pong balls. . . .

You could say the same for Ed Wood.  In fact, even fewer people have seen Ed Wood than Uwe Boll, that is, until after Wood died and Michael Medved declared him to be the world's worst director.  Take the DVD rentals of BloodRayne, for example.  It pulled in $5.26 million in U.S. rentals through 02 Jul 2006, more than double its box office.  If we're to take $3 as the charge for a rental, that means almost 2 million innocent people unsuspectedly subjected themselves to that celluloid dreck (except for the one scene with Meat Loaf, which, as wonderful as it was, must have been an accident).  This doesn't take into account the number of times Sci Fi has shown Boll's films (Sci Fi is showing its edited version of BloodRayne again this Saturday, 26 Apr 2008, as a matter of fact). 

I doubt there were 2 million people who ever watched any single Ed Wood movie before 1980.

No, I disagree.  Millions of people know who Uwe Boll is, and have seen at least one of his movies.

I also feel, just like with Wood, after Boll dies, there will arise a group of ardent Boll fans who will talk about all things Boll and even bicker with the Wood fans over who is better. 

If that does occur, though, I sincerely doubt Boll will ever have a church constructed around his scripts and writings like there has been for Wood.

 

I actually like the Rambo films, but that's because I put my mind on autopilot and just soak up the violence. Certainly it's a case of beating that dead horse into dogfood . . . . but there's a lot of other movies much more deserving of Razzies than Sly's efforts. They're just formulaic pap, that's all, the celluloid equivalent of junk food.

Given that Uwe's career seems to be over (or the damage he can do reduced in scope) he'd have my vote for 2008's Worst Career award. I'm sure Sly can continue to dribble out cinematic dreck in the years to come.

I'm going to go with Uwe on this one. Stallone may have made some really bad movies, such as Judge Dredd and Demolition Man, most of his sequels, and that adult movie he was in. But in thirty years will we see 2 monuments to Uwe Boll as a director? No we will not. Go to Zitiste, Serbia and there you will find a replica of the statue of that sits outside the Philadelphia Museum of Art, That of Mr. Balboa.To have one of his movies be reenacted almost every day by tourists, citizens and public officals is the kind of impact Uwe will never have. Mr. Boll is a self important a%$hat who rips other directors and needs to be put in his place.

Because it is relevant to the current discussion, may I draw your attention to the fact that In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, which hilariously went to DVD a mere 3 months after it bombed at the box office (although ITNOTK took in almost double of what BloodRayne did), hauled in $5.5 million in DVD rentals its first week on the market.  That's more money and far, far more viewers than ITNOTK garnered at the box office.

I'm sure it didn't hurt that Jason Statham appeared in it.

 

Originally posted by PopcornAvenger I agree if you consider the time and body of work Stallone is more deserving.

That is the point of the award. If the best available argument for Boll is that we might not get another chance for whatever reason, it just isn't a strong enough justification. By my thinking, Boll is in the process of building an impressive resume for our future consideration, but to date his career body of work is small, largely unknown by most moviegoers and of nearly zero consequence against the backdrop of cinematic history.

I agree with you cvc that Uwe Boll is known widely by millions of people ranging from the average Joe that was duped into watching his "Films", to gamers (And gamers can be quiet a powerful voice, don't believe me, ask Cooper Lawrence... that bitch). However I still do think Stallone deserves the lifetime nod this time. And this is coming from a guy who liked Rocky Balboa and Rambo (What can i say, it was kinda fun). But one good movie, and one okay movie doesn't make up for decades worth of crap.

I will say this though, Uwe Boll better win just about every other Razzie award (Worst picture, worst director, etc), He's releasing multiple sh*tty movies this year and has been all over the internet making an ass out of himself. If there is any God out there, this years Razzies will be the Year of the Boll, and what better way to compliment that than to also give Stallone his overdue Lifetime nod.