Razzies...the only awards worth watching, and probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene. The Oscars are just a total love-in.
Razzie voters drive stake through Twilight
The 33rd Razzie Awards honoured Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 over the weekend with no less than seven statuettes for outrages against the cinematic art, with the final installment of the teen vampire franchise picking up Worst Picture, Worst Actress (Kristen Stewart) Worst Supporting Actor (Taylor Lautner), Worst Screen Couple …
-
-
Monday 25th February 2013 12:32 GMT JDX
probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene
No, closer to geeks' and insufferable windbags' view of the scene and/or the public's view of the scene.
The actual public's views are measured by bums in seats and pounds in tills. Therefore in the public's view, those twilight films are worth watching even if we think they suck.
Assuming you are a typical person who speaks for the people is tremendously naive and/or arrogant.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 12:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene
@JDX
See what you mean, but I have to disagree.At least one of the categories was a vote by RottenTomatoes.com, and the rest are by votes from a large community - so is more likely to be 'public' perception than en elite oscar committee ( plus the average age of the oscar committee is over 60), and just because people go to see a film (bums on seats) does not mean that they enjoyed it or liked it. How many people saw Twilight BD pt 2 just because they had seen the rest and wanted to know the end?
Surely the best way to find out how good a film is, is to ask the people who have seen it - e.g. IMDB or RT. Their views are surely better than just 'bums on seats', as this is just the number of people prepared to sit through the film.
Therefore things like the razzies (which use the community) are, if anything, MORE representative than the oscars.
Don't confuse 'commercial success' with 'being a good film'. (by commercial success I mean box-office and not obviously the profits - which of course no film ever makes). Does 'What car?' give awards simply for the model that sells the most (bums on seats), or does it ask owners what they think?
-
Monday 25th February 2013 14:15 GMT JDX
Re: probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene
>>Don't confuse 'commercial success' with 'being a good film
OK then base it on DVD sales, which will typically be much more biased to people who saw the film and still wanted to buy it :)
IMDB is probably the best bet - the Razzies are deliberately set up to mock and criticise and as such will get a very non-typical demographic... cynical sarcastic fault-picking types.
-
Tuesday 26th February 2013 00:56 GMT Jolyon Smith
Re: probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene
More to the point, with no "Money back satisfaction guarantee", bums on seats is just a measure of the number of people willing to part with their money and is in NO WAY a measure of what they thought of the film having done so.
To use an example from many years ago, I paid to see THE PHANTOM MENACE - TWICE. Not because I liked it, but because after the shocking disappointment of the first time I couldn't be sure that my misgivings were simply the result of my own inflated expectations, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt and watched it again, this time knowing exactly what to expect.
2 tickets sold but no reflection at all of the fact that I (still) thought the movie sucked.
In more recent years I can rattle off a whole littany of movies that - had I known what I was in for - would not have sucked the money from my pocket. Alice in Wonderland, Battleship, A Good Day to Die Hard, The Risible Planet of the Apes - are just 4 that leap to mind.
-
Tuesday 26th February 2013 12:17 GMT Intractable Potsherd
Re: probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene @Jolyon Ralph
I was just going to make a similar observation - I have seen every Star Wars film at the cinema, despite knowing that there was only one good one made ("The Empire Strikes Back"), but I just keep hoping that there will be another good one. I just *know* I'll go to see the last three as well, despite the fact they will almost certainly be equally dire and I'll have contributed to the "bums on seats" profits and also to the low rating on IMDB.
-
-
-
Monday 25th February 2013 12:58 GMT Annihilator
Re: probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene
"The actual public's views are measured by bums in seats and pounds in tills. Therefore in the public's view, those twilight films are worth watching even if we think they suck."
I take issue with that assumption - you pay your money before seeing the film to judge it well. Bums-in-seats is a measure of the hype assigned to a film.
As for the "public" decreeing the Twilight films worth watching, it's fair to say that they could just put a One Direction music vid on loop and show it at the local Odeon and achieve similar ratings. It's just swoon-worthy tosh.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 13:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene
A classic line sums it up:
" And the public wants what the public gets"
Sums up 90% of the TV channels as as well.You all want to watch games shows with morons clapping and screaming on a Saturday night don't you?
You all want big CGI remakes of perfectly good old films don't you?
Well you having them anyway.Enjoy.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 14:43 GMT sisk
Re: probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene
The actual public's views are measured by bums in seats and pounds in tills. Therefore in the public's view, those twilight films are worth watching even if we think they suck.
In most cases I'd say you were right, but Twilight tends to have a love or hate effect on people. In other words, most of the people who didn't see it probably didn't because they hated it. With any other movie the majority of people who didn't go to the theater either didn't care, were waiting for the DVD, or, often, hadn't even heard of it.
And, given the nature of the movie, a fair chunk of the audience were husbands and boyfriends dragged to it against their will under the direst of threats. Even the number of bums in seats for the Twilight movies is a skewed figure.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 14:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene
"The actual public's views are measured by bums in seats and pounds in tills. Therefore in the public's view, those twilight films are worth watching even if we think they suck."
Not necessarily, consider the inflated numbers of seats sold for films like Twilight when pre-pubescents are taken to the cinema by dad/mom.
-
-
Monday 25th February 2013 12:43 GMT IronSteve
I agree with Ethan Hawke:
"People want to turn everything in this country into a competition... It's clear who the winner is and who the loser is. It's why they like to announce the grosses of movies, because it's a way of saying, 'This one is No. 1.' It's so asinine...
"If you look at how many forgettable, stupid movies have won Oscars and how many mediocre performers have Oscars above their fireplace. Making a priority of chasing these fake carrots and money and dubious accolades, I think it's really destructive."
-
-
-
-
Monday 25th February 2013 12:55 GMT Tom Servo
Re: Django Unchained ... Original Screenplay Oscar
well it's a remake insofar that it shares a title with the Corbucci film but as with Inglorious Basterds, he took a title and everything in the film is completely original with no overlap at all - but don't let research or facts affect your opinion though or your intention to air it.
And Tarantino won a best original screenplay Oscar for Pulp fiction so should read he is now the owner of ANOTHER best screenplay Oscar.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 17:28 GMT Solly
Re: Django Unchained ... Original Screenplay Oscar
Actually, Inglorious Bastards does share the same back story as the original and then diverges from the original when a critical scene in the original film goes one way and the Tarantino version goes another (and creates an alternate history in the process...) - kinda like the film sliding doors - but with nazi's...
-
-
-
-
Monday 25th February 2013 13:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
Why revel in things someone else has decided are waste of time?
'Worst of' lists are easily to put together for the following reasons:
1) It's always been trendier to slate films, than to stand up for one you like but no-one else does. Some try to negate this by calling a film 'a guilty pleasure' - which is tantamount to saying 'I liked this, but I'll pretend I'm above it because it's not OK in public to admit I liked this'. Like the queen stopping off at a burger van.
2) Most people have no (actual) idea how a film is put together - lining up writers, directors, art dept heads etc for punishment is utterly pointless. You weren't there, and have no idea of the likely influence and pressures placed on filmakers by the business side of things.
3) It's interesting that most of the internet armchair critics are more adept at putting together trite lists of things they hate, than they are at composing lists of *anything* they like in life. Those are harder to defend to and would take a more considered perspective. Don't like a film? Don't watch it again.
For that reason, I think the Razzies are somewhat pointless and have veered far from their original intention - to deflate the love-in and hot air ego blimps of the Oscars. Seems more tied to groupthink negativity now.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 14:17 GMT Francis Boyle
Re: Why revel in things someone else has decided are waste of time?
Because from a third person point we learn much more from failures than successes. Sure if you want to make an Oscar-winner by all means study Oscar-winners. But if you're not in the business you watch good movies and discuss bad ones.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 15:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Why revel in things someone else has decided are waste of time?
1. Maybe - but people do stand up for films (or else no film would have a rating above 5 on IMDB). As for guilty pleasures, I'm not convinced. Toy Story 3 is in the top 1% of movies on IMDB, so people do admit to liking films that 'maybe they shouldn't'. In fact the pseudo-anonymity of sites like IMDB/RT means that people are more likely to 'fess-up over guilty pleasures that when talking to their mates in the pub.
2. Irrelevant. If I watch a film to be entertained and the movie fails big time to do that, I don't care about how difficult it was behind the scenes, or how stressed a writer was at the time. I'm not interested in excuses. In the same way as I don't know how difficult it is to release an operating system to the world (getting the developers, suppliers, funding, etc all lined-up), but that doesn't mean I can't slate the product if it is crap (or praise it if it is good).
3. Not true. IMDB has far more 'top xx', 'best xxx', 'favourite xxx' lists than 'worst xxx' ones.
The razzies are very useful. Apart from being a bit a laugh ('cos we all like laughing at FAILs - TV and news reflect this), they also provide feedback to producers, etc as what NOT to do. In order to improve you need both positive (oscars) and negative (razzie) feedback.
As for moaning about 'negativity' - perhaps you should reread your own post and lighten up a bit.
-
Tuesday 26th February 2013 08:23 GMT Fred Flintstone
Re: Why revel in things someone else has decided are waste of time?
Personally, I'm more interested in the reaction of the recipients, that is, provided the Razzies are actually reasonably honest and don't descend into a hate fest. Although we may differ in taste, I think we can all spot wooden acting or someone being cast in a role that probably wasn't to the best of their abilities - there IS a lot that can go wrong with a movie and series because making screenplay is simply a complex business with lots of variables.
The people that collect their award in person such as Paul Verhoeven, Tom Greene, Halle Berry and Sandra Bullock only end up looking better for it as it shows a strength of character and a sense of humour which elevates them above the "look at me" Hollywood stereotype. Getting the award does not need to be a negative event - how you handle it determines that. In that context, thumbs up for David Eigenberg too :).
-
-
-
Monday 25th February 2013 13:14 GMT Pet Peeve
Meh
What was that wrong with Rhianna in Battleship? I mean, the movie is colossally dumb in a lot of places - it comes off as USS Missouri fanfiction, but is set in a universe where Big Mo wasn't in service less than two decades ago, and is equipped with a shitton of 90's era equipment and arms, but 10 year old me, that built a model of the Missouri, got a kick out of it anyway. But in terms of the dumb stuff, Rhianna as weapons officer doesn't even make the list.
By all means, razzie the movie, but do it on its own terms.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 13:42 GMT Ben Rosenthal
Not my sort of film (as I'm not an earlyteen girl), but surely all that's important is whether the fans enjoyed it?
I care about as much for the Razzies as I do about any other daft made up award. I'm sure they would have slated the films I loved as a kid if they were around then.
It's all bollocks really.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 14:54 GMT sisk
Lautner?
I actually thought he did rather well considering the crappy script he was handed. There's only so much you can do as an actor with a character as static and clichéd as Jacob. He was certainly better than some of the other supporting actors in those movies. The dude who played Jasper, for instance, managed to go through all five movies without ever changing his bewildered expression.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 15:34 GMT James 36
Re: Lautner?
there are 5 twilight movies ...?
I thought there were only 3 but then again i sat through the first one and f**king hated it so my mind may just be wiping stuff due to the trauma of the first one.
One of the worst movies I have ever seen just about everything was awful, but then again I am not a hormonally challenged female )ie between 10 and 15) so therefore not target audience
-
-
-
Monday 25th February 2013 18:24 GMT Tom 38
Re: Adam Sandler was robbed
Adam Sandler films make a fuckload of money though. "Jack and Jill" made $150m at the Box Office (budget of $65m). That's $15m per Razzie.
I expect "That's My Boy" to do similar business once the worldwide figures are in.
It's (sort of) like Tyler Perry, who makes astonishingly successful film projects again and again and again without any real recognition. I say 'sort of', because they make wildly different kinds of films - almost diametric opposites! - but they are both highly targeted at a particular segment of society, and are commercially successful and produced for (reasonably) small budgets.
-
-
Wednesday 27th February 2013 19:20 GMT Tom 38
Re: Adam Sandler was robbed
Well Vic, you could have read my post, which should indicate to you that they don't make a loss, they make, as I said, a fuckload of money. At least $150m in the case of "Jack & Jill". Also:
He is one of Hollywood's most bankable stars which allows him to command $20 million per movie along with very impressive percentages of a films GROSS profits. That's gross profits not net profits. FYI that is a gross amount of money when you consider some of those films earned over $150 million at the US box office alone. For the movie Anger Management Sandler earned $25 million plus 25% of the gross which was roughly $150 million.
(source)
So take that into account when checking the budget of a film. "Jack & Jill" had a budget of ~$80m, at least $20m of that was for Sandler himself, who also took 25% of gross - another $15m or so.
You don't keep on making shit film after shit film with you as the lead if they don't make any money. Just ask
Eddie MurphyDonkey.
-
-
-
Tuesday 26th February 2013 12:30 GMT Intractable Potsherd
Re: Adam Sandler was robbed
Adam Sandler is one of those phenomena I just do not understand. He seems to make popular films, but I have never seen one that is actually *alright*, let alone good. He isn't funny, has no comedy timing, tends towards the mawkish - nothing good at all.
I've come to the conclusion he has bribery material on key players in Hollywood, and then people go to see his movies because "he's made a lot of them - he must be good".
However, I don't think Ben Affleck or Matt Damon are close to good either, so who am I to judge?
-