Corporate H
Grimlock
He Buries Them Alive
Posts: 13,829
|
Post by Corporate H on Jan 10, 2013 6:38:47 GMT -5
I'm surprised Silver Linings Playbook wasn't nominated for something, I hated that movie and everyone else seemed to love it.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,573
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Jan 10, 2013 11:13:00 GMT -5
I've been annoyed with Katherine Heigl since she trashed Knocked Up after the fact. I love that 'Knocked Up' was sexist, but her doing a string of cliched romantic comedies was perfectly fine and not sexist at all |
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Jan 10, 2013 14:22:23 GMT -5
You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. You're boring, Razzies. Just plain lazy and boring. Trying to stay 'hip and cool.' "Hey guys, those Twilight movies sure suck, huh? Right? We're cool, though! Hey, how about that Adam Sandler. Sure was good in Happy Gilmore...but not now, Haha, Right? RIGHT? Man, we're awesome" It's just a show to see "Look, we're cool because we hate something mainstream that everyone else hates." Ergo, it sucks. |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Jan 10, 2013 14:45:28 GMT -5
Eh, Adam Sandler does kind of suck as an actor. The problem is that some years movies just don't suck hard enough for the razzies to actually be compelling, so we just get a bunch of "safe nominations" so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jan 10, 2013 16:50:33 GMT -5
Eh, Adam Sandler does kind of suck as an actor. The problem is that some years movies just don't suck hard enough for the razzies to actually be compelling, so we just get a bunch of "safe nominations" so to speak. Or they could nominate less famous choices, but where's the publicity in that? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 10, 2013 17:00:17 GMT -5
Eh, Adam Sandler does kind of suck as an actor. The problem is that some years movies just don't suck hard enough for the razzies to actually be compelling, so we just get a bunch of "safe nominations" so to speak. Or they could nominate less famous choices, but where's the publicity in that? I dont' see what the point of it would be if they started going after the unknowns, honestly. The movies they tend to pick on tend to be those that studios threw a lot of money and advertising into, many of which frankly just didn't deserve it. Yeah, they're snarky and up their own asses most of the time, but if you start picking on the low budget and movies that got smaller releases, you just end up piling on a lot of movie that couldn't possibly have done any better. You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. You're boring, Razzies. Just plain lazy and boring. Trying to stay 'hip and cool.' "Hey guys, those Twilight movies sure suck, huh? Right? We're cool, though! Hey, how about that Adam Sandler. Sure was good in Happy Gilmore...but not now, Haha, Right? RIGHT? Man, we're awesome" As an aside, one reason I'm glad the Nolanverse Batman movies are done is that maybe people will find another line from another movie to overquote to death  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2013 19:30:34 GMT -5
This thread, man...
All I have to say is that while you don't have to like the Razzies or their nominations, accusing a parody of the Oscars (and thus, Hollywood) as being too mainstream is missing the point by a country mile. I mean, need I remind anyone about Lindsay Lohan (singular) winning Worst Couple back in '07?
Also, nominating bad lower budget movies isn't fair even if you aren't being serious. Go after guys who know how to work a camera and do a re-take but have horrible artistic vision.
|
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jan 11, 2013 2:52:17 GMT -5
Or they could nominate less famous choices, but where's the publicity in that? I dont' see what the point of it would be if they started going after the unknowns, honestly. The movies they tend to pick on tend to be those that studios threw a lot of money and advertising into, many of which frankly just didn't deserve it. Yeah, they're snarky and up their own asses most of the time, but if you start picking on the low budget and movies that got smaller releases, you just end up piling on a lot of movie that couldn't possibly have done any better. Also, nominating bad lower budget movies isn't fair even if you aren't being serious. Go after guys who know how to work a camera and do a re-take but have horrible artistic vision. Countless movies have shown that a low budget doesn't prevent from making a quality movie, and pointing out the ones that suck would at least bring publicity to the rest and as a result promote independent and low-budget cinema. I just don't see why we should be so forgiving of these movies on the ground that their budget isn't as big, it seems disrespectful of the artists to me. It feels like saying that low-budget movies always suck, because of the low budget. |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jan 11, 2013 4:22:50 GMT -5
I've been annoyed with Katherine Heigl since she trashed Knocked Up after the fact. I love that 'Knocked Up' was sexist, but her doing a string of cliched romantic comedies was perfectly fine and not sexist at all Including the overtly sexist The Ugly Truth. |
|
|
|
Post by crowwreak was WRONG on Jan 11, 2013 6:24:11 GMT -5
I really found Michael Sheen's over-hamming of Aro to be the saving grace of Breaking Dawn
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 11, 2013 9:08:46 GMT -5
I dont' see what the point of it would be if they started going after the unknowns, honestly. The movies they tend to pick on tend to be those that studios threw a lot of money and advertising into, many of which frankly just didn't deserve it. Yeah, they're snarky and up their own asses most of the time, but if you start picking on the low budget and movies that got smaller releases, you just end up piling on a lot of movie that couldn't possibly have done any better. Also, nominating bad lower budget movies isn't fair even if you aren't being serious. Go after guys who know how to work a camera and do a re-take but have horrible artistic vision. Countless movies have shown that a low budget doesn't prevent from making a quality movie, and pointing out the ones that suck would at least bring publicity to the rest and as a result promote independent and low-budget cinema. I just don't see why we should be so forgiving of these movies on the ground that their budget isn't as big, it seems disrespectful of the artists to me. It feels like saying that low-budget movies always suck, because of the low budget. Since the entire point of the Razzies is to poke fun at the bad movies, including low budget, limited-release wouldn't really promote indie movies. It'd just be saying "haha, look at these cheap movies, aren't they awful? Stupid directors with their terrible effects and poor cinematography! Am I right?" It'd be like criticizing peewee football on national sports channels just because some teams happen to play it well. It's entirely different for a indie movie with no backing to not be good, versus a major studio release with millions of dollars, star power, and professional crews to not be good. Also, the love that That's My Boy is getting is a little odd to me, considering that the basic plot hook for the movie really does warrant that it gets called out. |
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 11, 2013 9:17:15 GMT -5
None of stuff said explains why Paranormal Activity 4 appears nowhere on any of this.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jan 11, 2013 10:13:15 GMT -5
None of stuff said explains why Paranormal Activity 4 appears nowhere on any of this. Good point Not only did that movie SUCK,, But it came out after the MUCH better horror flick Sinister. |
|
