Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General MOVIE & DVD Discussions > Disagree w/Any Past RAZZIES®??
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Why Question Razzie Decisions
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Why Question Razzie Decisions

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
General Turgidson View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: August 11 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Post Options Post Options   Quote General Turgidson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why Question Razzie Decisions
    Posted: August 11 2010 at 1:04am
Why bother trying to view the Razzies in hindsight? Movies are more than the content of the film in the time and year they are released. On average, studio publicity matches a films budget in terms of how much is spent publicizing a film. From bus rockers to tv ads to goofy staged celeb happenings, we are inundated with the notion that film x is awesome and stars asshole z.

Why is this significant in relation to past Razzie winners? This is relevant because the studio publicity machine, as mostly effective as it is, can make a lot of us annoyed by the presence of film without regard for the content. I would not see Fight Club when it came out. I was still in high school and the movie was publicized as two half naked guys wrestling around with one another. I saw it years later out of context of the publicity and loved it. The duty of studio publicists is to shape our opinion of a film before we see it. This has the adverse effect of cynics and movie geeks arbitrarily hating something we have not seen just because we are being hit in the face with it.

I'm sure How to Train Your Dragon will get nominated for some sort of Razzie. Paramount did their best to shove that down our throats. In reality, it's probably the best thing Dreamworks Animation has ever done. Roger f**king Deakins was the lead Visual Consultant. It was goddamn good looking and the 3D was natural. But, I can't say I would be shocked or upset if it were nominated, because it got shoved down our throats.

Sure annoyingly publicized films can have some credence years later, but who cares? It's not like the mainstream isn't just as slow to realize what the geeks are saying is good. It took years for Night of the Living Dead to become a mainstream staple, but it happened. Mainstream films with an aggressive marketing push sometimes have to wait to gain acceptance from hardcore film fans/geeks.

I have always looked at the Razzies, cinephile web boards and pretentious (but necessary) art house film conversations as more of a rebuke to publicity and advertising than bad cinema itself. Bad films come and go and if you're pissed something you liked got a Razzie you have it all wrong. The Razzie canonizes terrible films. Any time the famed Halley Berry Catwoman film is mentioned it is mentioned along side the Razzie. People on this board are talking about Star Trek 5! George Takei would give you a blow job if you told him people were talking about Star Trek 5. I think there is a lot to enjoy in the sporadic and off the wall presentation of Freddy Got Fingered. I wouldn't watch that one either in 2001, because I hated Tom Green's media presence. I'm still glad it got 8 Razzie nominations and got nominated for Worst of the Decade. It keeps people talking about Freddy Got Fingered. Maybe people revisited it to see it out of the MTV Tom Green context it had in 2001. Maybe those same people are still annoyed by his balls song.

Ultimately, there is something to celebrate and lash out against when it comes to really bad movies of which millions of dollars were spent to make and publicize. Every movie like The Last Song had incredibly talented people on set at one point and the smartest people Ivy League education has to offer at the studio pushing it through. Agents that would cut your mother open in front of your eyes to watch you cry while they stole your wallet helped make that film. Yet it was an atrocity that makes our culture dumber and deserves several Razzies. When circumstances as I described can sh*t out The Last Song, what is there to do other than lash out and laugh? f**k rethinking past Razzie decisions. These votes were cast against these films in the context of the time and that is exactly how they should be remembered. 
And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority.
Back to Top
Mraspiringactor View Drop Down
Berry Best Friend
Berry Best Friend


Joined: July 11 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 30
Post Options Post Options   Quote Mraspiringactor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 11 2010 at 4:57am
So are you saying it's OK to nominate films we haven't seen when there are films much more deserving of a razzie?
Kevin Higgins.
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: August 11 2010 at 8:58am
Yes, thank you for this question. As we're currently debating past Razzie winners and using the lame arguement "well, it's not bad by today's standards". Sorry, but who votes for ANYTHING while thinking "Well, it's the right movie for now, but will it still suck by the standards of movie making in the upcoming 15+ years?". NO! It doesn't work that way. We live in the now, we vote for what is the worst NOW. The same can be said about Oscar winners. We may look back and think "why did that win Best Picture?", but at the time, that movie being questioned was considered the best movie of THAT time. So yes, I agree that complaining about past movies is quite pointless and people need to just cope with the fact that whatever movie or actor they are a FAN of, is not loved by everyone.
 
PS: No, "How To Train Your Dragon" will not get any Razzie nods, not one. It didn't get below 20% at RT and it doesn't really star anyone with a Razzie nod/winning past. The only time we might razz something for being overhyped is because it was a bad movie to being with or it was over hyped, but then tanked at the box office.
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
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 11 2010 at 11:36am
Movies should always be looked at with the passing of time. The point of this section of the forum was to argue against decisions made in the past by saying that certain films werent bad enough to deserve nominations and that some were even quite good (the hunchback of notre dame was nominated, though everyone but the voters seemed to enjoy it a hell of a lot). Seeing how many of the films i mentioned in another topic recived mostly good, great, or mixed reviews, and not terrible and trashing ones, i say they didnt deserve to be nominated. And if everyone looked at the films the same way they looked at them several years ago, than everyone would still be disliking blade runner or citizen kane (both which recieved negative reviews upon there release). But go ahead and say time dosn't play a factor when arguing against past choices, or that films can't be reevalutated because of what a small group of voters decided years ago, but it sounds dumb of you to think that if you ask me. Laslty, dont accuse eveyrone of being giddy fan boys who would die for Stallone, Shatner, or Schwarzenager. Most fans of them (myself included) realize when they make a bad movie, but to nominate stallone as one of the worst actors of the mellenium is dumb. By thinking only about an actors bad work, your ignoring his/her body of good work that places them among the cinematic elite. The bad films they make deserve to be nominated, but awards such as worst actor ever, or of the decade, shouldnt have been made in the first place. For Stallone we have Rocky (a masterpeice), and by seeing the fourth terminator, it was made clear that Scharzenager made the series interesting (him and james cameron). Nominate them for Judge Dred and End of Days, but for GAWDZ SAKE, not worst actor period or whatever else special awards are made by razzie voters
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
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: August 11 2010 at 8:14pm
I've already touched on the fanboy aspect in another post, so I'd like to point out another aspect. I find it funny how new comers here (who always seem to be between the ages of 17 and 21 and have little to no respect for the Golden Age of Hollywood) act as if getting a nod for or winning a Golden Razzie is like this ugly stain on their favorite actor's soul that can never be washed off. Take it easy, folks, it's only an award show parody. We're not to be taken any more seriously as the People's/Kids'/Teens'/MTV Movie Choice Awards, or any other public vote awards. These award shows do nothing for the winners' careers, all they do is point out who the flavor of the month is among the movie going or TV watching public. They're not some high honor that proves you are a master of your craft like the Oscars, Emmys, or Tonys do. Our awards don't end careers, they merely voice the opinions of 670+ movie goers who are sick and tired of the s*** that is passed off as movies these past 30 years. If you can't take the joke, then don't bother listening to 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
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 11 2010 at 10:24pm
I'm well aware that its a joke, and i know Stallones career is not blighted, etc. I'm merely here to disagree with past choices. Why nominate sub par or good reviewd films (like the hunchback of notre dame), when there is true crap out there that needs razzies? Lastly, how dare you accuse newcomers and young teens of ignoring the films of the golden age of hollywood! You come off as a snob and an elitist. I'm well aware of the films made in that time period (The Adventures of Robin Hood is a personal favorite, and I also love The African Queen), and my taste varies from Speilberg to Bergman (I love the seventh seal). The point of this forum section was to argue against choices, if you think it shouldnt have been made in the first place, stop posting comments and acting holier than thou.
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
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: August 12 2010 at 8:59pm
Well then, if it's a debate that you want, then I suggest you make a list of movies that you think were much worse than the movies that were razzed instead during said years. Perhaps then we could have a real discussion about why certain movies were razzed while other went scott-free.
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
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 10:11pm
I thought the fact that many of the films razzed recieved good to mixed reviews was enough evidence too prove that true crap was excluded. But very well...heres a list (if any films mentioned were actually included, please inform me):
 
1999: Pokemon, Entrapment, Virus, Wing Commander, and the horrendous the generals daughter.
 
2008:Untraceble, Speed Racer, Jumper, Street Kings, Death Race, What happens in vegas.
 
1989: Pet Semetary (song nomination aside), Halloween 5, The Experts, Police acadamy 6, Jason takes manhattan.
 
I wish to mark that all these films have less than 50 percent on tomatoes and metacritic, unlike the many nominations i have deffended.
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
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: August 13 2010 at 6:22pm
1989: I'll agree with "Halloween 5", "Police Acadamy 6", and "Jason Takes Manhattan" for Worse Picture nods. However, "Star Trek 5" will forever be universally seen as the worst of the series. The movie series mentioned above were never held in high regards, so no one's standards for them were all that high. That is why "ST 5" got the nod and the win, because it was the biggest fall from grace as the series was getting as stale as three month old bread.
1999: "Pokemon", as bad as it was, animated movies are never really up for any serious contendership with the Razzies. Everyone forgot about "Wing Commander", so no one cared, same with "General's Daughter". "Entrapment" and "Virus" are pretty bad, but no where as bad as the movies that did get nods and wins. 1999's Worst Picture nods/wins were 100% correct.
2008: "Street Kings", other than the poor choice of Keanu "Whoa" Reeves as the lead, is not really that bad. Everything else ont he list was pretty bad. However, the movies that did get nods/wins that year were creamy, tar-like s*** by comparison, so that year was also 100% correct.
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
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 13 2010 at 8:17pm
Granted 5 is the worst film in the series. But even though its a fall from grace, I wouldnt call it true crap compared to other films of that year. A bad trek film, certainly. A bad film overall, im not so sure.
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
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: August 14 2010 at 11:04am
But you see, as a "Star Trek" film, it has a large fan base and high expectations. Because the movie fell flat on its face and angered its fans, it is worthy of the title of worst of the year when compared to the other movies in the Worst Picture catagory at that time. I'm sure if it weren't for "The Postman" sucking as badly as it did, "Batman & Robin" would have swept the Razzies back in 1997, because it has that same large fanbase and high expectations that "ST" does.
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
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2010 at 5:21pm
But I'd say that although the film is a bad trek film, I'd rather see it when up against other crap. It is still more thought provoking a loveable than any of the other crap that year. Even though it wasnt good compared to the other films, it was still made with love and the actors clearly seemed to be having a fun time and did their best. A sequel shouldnt be judged on the work that preceded it, as most people are always let down if they do. Rather, it should be judged on its own merits. Is the film a good film? That should be the question. It shouldnt be: is the film a good star trek film? Because if you judge it like that, then its very easy to be dissapointed, particularly since so many liked the wrath of kahn, the search for spock, and the voyage home (a personal favorite of mine) As for Batman and Robin, that failed on both levels. It wasnt a good batman film or a good film period. Wereas Star Trek 5 wasnt a good trek film, it was nevertheless and alright film. Not good, but not crap either. The Razzies should be given to absolute crap, not just crap compared too three highly enjoyable films.
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
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: August 14 2010 at 5:52pm
Sorry, but just because the actors were "trying their best", or if they are "having fun" while shooting the movie, that doesn't mean the movie should get a pass when it turns out to be a piece of s***. Kim Kardashian said filmming "Disaster Movie" was fun, but that doesn't make the movie any less painful for the people who actually watched it. And no, "ST 5" failed on both levels, same as "Batman & Robin". Even Gene Roiddenberry washed his hands of the movie. Need any more proof, how about these reviews:
 
Roger Ebert: "There is no clear line from the beginning of the movie to the end, not much danger, no characters to really care about, little suspense, uninteresting or incomprehensible villains, and a great deal of small talk and pointless dead ends."
 
Peter Travers: "Star Trek V: Shatner's Folly (the subtitle is mine) handily takes the hollow crown as worst in the series. It's bloated, bombastic and maddeningly pretentious."
 
Rita Kempley: "Star Trek V is a shambles, a space plodessy, a snoozola of astronomic proportions."  (The Enterprise attempts) "To pass through an impenetrable (Ha!) swirl of what appears to be cosmic Windex, beyond which is the planet Shockara, home of God, or perhaps California shot through a purple filter."
 
Jame Berardinelli: "The special effects are at an all-time low for the movie series, with the passage through the "Great Barrier" looking especially cheesy."
 
You still want to defend this movie?
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
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 16 2010 at 8:58am

But though you're holding these critics in high esteem, you seem to ignore the movies rated above 50% on Rotten tomatoes. As much as I like Roger Ebert, the fact that more than 50% of the critics who saw the movie liked it (according to RT) should still mean the movie wasn't bad enough to "win" a Razzie. I'm not deffending this movie in the sense that it was good, but rather it wasn't bad enough to "win" the Razzies it did. I'll admit the film wasn't very good, but I don't think it was a total peice of crap, either. Most of the reviews that speak negativley of it, were actually slightly mixed as well. And they say the same thing I do (most of the time): It wasnt good, but it wasn't absolute sh*t, either. Of all the crap that came out that year, you truly think it was the worst fillm? I bet almost everyone would disagree with you on that level. Look up films that came out in 1989 at RT, and more than half (and many of them well known for their dumb-assedness) got way less of a percentile than Trek 5 did. If more than half of the moviegoing public likes a movie, as was Trek's case, then that only makes it "half bad" -- Like a bad cake with good frosting. I want absolute crap, not two Stars or two and a half stars (btw, two stars was what Ebert gave to Trek 5). If a film gets a Razzie, then it should be because most of the world hated it, not most of the world feels so-so about it, or one half likes it and the other half of the world enjoyed it.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am not aware, as founder/creator of the RAZZIES, that we have ever claimed to speak for "most of the world" with our awards. As with any voting body, we are representing our opinions as our own opinions, and not those of anyone else. To claim otherwise would be the height of egotism -- and would leave us open to accusations of being just as pompous as the movie-makers (and other award shows) we exist to poke fun at... 


FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
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: August 16 2010 at 12:18pm
Keep in mind that the ratings at Rotten Tomatoes aren't THE standard by which a movie is declared Razzie worthy. It's a factor in the selection, but not THE deciding factor. Let's not forget a very important detail: there was no Internet back in 1989! So RT had no influence on voting back then because it didn't exist!  
 
And for someone who says Shatner should be looked upon as an artist, "Star Trek 5" proves beyond a shadow of any doubt that he shouldn't, due to his makes both on and off screen. I think the Razzie voters of '89 made the right choice by saying that Shatner, though an important part of "ST", isn't the driving force of it, either, and the bad outcome of that movie is proof of that.
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: 1451
Post Options Post Options   Quote GTAHater767 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 18 2010 at 8:46pm
Another point of 1991 was Cool As Ice coming second to Hudson Hawk for the #1 worst film. Back then, the RAZZIES thought Hudson Hawk was just barely worse than Cool As Ice, but they couldn't have predicted that Hudson Hawk would grow on people. What's your take on this suggestion?  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: On exactly whom has HUDSON HAWK supposedly grown?? It still has a below-average member rating at IMDb (LINK) and an 80% negative rating at RT (LINK). While COOL AS ICE may be even less well-regarded than HAWK, ICE at least cost/lost a boatload less than the Bruce Willis vanity vehicle did (LINK / LINK)...  


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down