Why I hate the Razzies

[Boz824]

The Razzies has become too mainstream. Instead of digging deep for the real, staight-to-video, absolutely unwatchable schlock, the makers of the Razzies chose "Battlefield Earth," "The Flinstones," "Little Nicky," "The Next Best Thing," and "Blair Witch 2" as the contenders for what they call the "worst picture of the year." I think the Razzies awards is a disgrace to people who appreciate the real stinkers and b-movies. They realize that if they went for the kinds of stinkers that bona fide bad movie fans went for, then their audience would be limited to bad movie fans, so, in an attempt to reach out the the public, they simply settle for movies that got a nation-wide theatrical release so that they can relate to the common man who dished out $8.50 for an acceptably mediocre movie. The problem with this is that they pretend to be awarding the true worst movies of the year, when they are only awarding the worst movies that were good enough to get released in the theaters. They've sold out.

[Chris K.]

Well, I really can't say much about this. BATTLEFIELD EARTH, BLAIR WITCH 2, or LITTLE NICKY are really bad films in their own small ways. But LITTLE NICKY was pretty good, but no way better than HAPPY GILMORE.

[Lartrak]

Battlefield Earth IS an acceptable nomination.  It is Plan 9 in quality, with a much bigger budget evidently spent entirely on FX.Boz824 wrote:
>
> The Razzies has become too mainstream. Instead of
> digging deep for the real, staight-to-video, absolutely
> unwatchable schlock, the makers of the Razzies chose
> "Battlefield Earth," "The Flinstones," "Little Nicky," "The
> Next Best Thing," and "Blair Witch 2" as the contenders for
> what they call the "worst picture of the year." I think the
> Razzies awards is a disgrace to people who appreciate the
> real stinkers and b-movies. They realize that if they went
> for the kinds of stinkers that bona fide bad movie fans went
> for, then their audience would be limited to bad movie fans,
> so, in an attempt to reach out the the public, they simply
> settle for movies that got a nation-wide theatrical release
> so that they can relate to the common man who dished out
> $8.50 for an acceptably mediocre movie. The problem with this
> is that they pretend to be awarding the true worst movies of
> the year, when they are only awarding the worst movies that
> were good enough to get released in the theaters. They've
> sold out.

[Scott Davis]

But yeah, it was a huge stinker. But imagine it without the big special effects, and the no-name actors; would it have been better?

[Apostic]

Since the Razzie Award was meant to be a parody of "that other award," it follows that high profile movies would get the nominations.  If they miss low profile mediocre movies, then they're doing their job.  In other words, "worst" in the Razzie context should be considered as scientifically acurate as "best" in an Oscar conrtext.

And if one feels that a particular nominee shouldn't get the Razzie, then he or she can always plunk down the bucks for a membership and vote for a different nominee.  (Crock, er, rock the vote, etc...)

As for the lower profile stuff, well, that's what some of us do on the web; therefore, such movies get plenty o' coverage, regardless of directors, producers, and actors liking such attention....

regards,

Apostic

[Mofo Rising]

I'll agree with Apostic, in that the Razzie Awards do well for what they are, a raspberry in the face of major studios.

But I'd also second a dislike for the award.  The mainstream already gets enough coverage, and I've heard enough people bad mouth BATTLEFIELD EARTH as the worst movie of the year at the same time they admit they would never actually watch it to find out.  The voters seem to follow the "me too" attitude instead of really digging deep within their heart of hearts and finding out which movie actually repulsed them the most.

Take their nomination of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT last year.  BLAIR WITCH was by no means a great movie, it's actually flawed in several profound ways.  But if there had been no backlash from the ridiculously huge hype for the film, then the movie wouldn't have been nominated.  It would have been dismissed as an interesting but marginal film, which are my thoughts on the movie.

But my usual distrust of mainstream media thinking aside, the real reason I don't like the Razzies is it appeals to the "let's put something down" in people.  There's no love, no joie de vivre, behind it.  It's the difference between "insulting" something and "making fun" of something.

Or something like that.

-Mofo Rising, who was looking for an excuse to use the phrase "joie de vivre"

[Matt]

I just watched Battlefield Earth for the first time last week, and I thought that it wasn't as bad as everyone claimed it to be. Usually, I go see a film in the theater with lots of great press or excitment - Hannibal, Charlies Angles, Dracula 2000 and Lost Souls - all these movies sucked. Now with Battlefield Earth, I knew it would suck - but as I watched, I realized that it wasn't that bad. It had problems, but it was watchable.

As for the Razzies, If they were doing underground films, you wouldn't hear anything about the event. Face facts, the Razzies get the "last-30 seconds-of the-local-news-program-before-dave letterman", unless they have video of a hamster waterskiing - that would probly win out.

[Abby]

All of those awards suck. And as one who read the original Golden Turkey books well after the fact, they eventually sucked, too. They were great in the beginning ... when they initially nominated Ed Wood AND William Girdler numerous times. (Girdler was nominated many times, but never got one). But they got trite and tunnel-visioned as time when on.

If I had to accept an awards program, it would be Joe Bob Brigg's Drive-in Academy Awards nominations. He's usually more accurate than Razzies, Golden Rasps, Stinkers, etc.

One of those programs involves paying to vote. Which kinda tells you who's making the selections.

[[atticus]]

I agree with some of the above messages about the Razzies being designed as a response to the major studios. I also agree with those that dislike the awards. It's entirely too negative to vote a picture as the Worst Of The Year. Perhaps if the Razzies were designed to celebrate bad movies, nominating four direct-to-video or independent movies along with a major studio release in a Best of the Rest category, in contrast to the Academy's pattern or nominating four major studio releases and one independent for Best Picture.  I think they should turn the Razzies into something that people would want to watch. Acceptance speeches would be light-hearted and some might even contain an apology for the poor quality of a film. I'd rather watch that than see someone get up there and thank God and their publicist.

[uno]

I do not see why these are needed, they are disrespectful, and there is nothing good about them.  I do not want to know what movies people think of as the worst movies. Yet, they are advertised all over the place and I am not able to avoid them.  I wish they did not exist.  I think people should keep their opinions to themselves.

[indianasmith]

I do not see why these are needed, they are disrespectful, and there is nothing good about them.  I do not want to know what movies people think of as the worst movies. Yet, they are advertised all over the place and I am not able to avoid them.  I wish they did not exist.  I think people should keep their opinions to themselves.

You picked the entirely wrong forum to share that opinion . . . .

[bob]

I don't like that they usually always find some excuse to nominate Sly Stallone and usually only give awards to main stream films.

That said I think the Razzies would be epic if it were be be on television, specifically on Comedy Central. It's a perfect fit.

[The Burgomaster]

I can accept a bad movie with an extremely low budget and unkown, untalented cast.  It's the more widely released, bigger-budget bad movies with established casts and crews that ought to be ashamed of themselves.  Those are the ones that really deserve to be razzed.  Give the struggling "little guys" a break!   

[Flick James]

I can accept a bad movie with an extremely low budget and unkown, untalented cast.  It's the more widely released, bigger-budget bad movies with established casts and crews that ought to be ashamed of themselves.  Those are the ones that really deserve to be razzed.  Give the struggling "little guys" a break!   

 

[JayJayM12]

I can accept a bad movie with an extremely low budget and unkown, untalented cast.  It's the more widely released, bigger-budget bad movies with established casts and crews that ought to be ashamed of themselves.  Those are the ones that really deserve to be razzed.  Give the struggling "little guys" a break!   

Couldn't agree more!  A lot of the lower budget 'bad' movies out there still have a lot of redeeming qualities (charm, unintentional humor, quirkiness, etc...), so they end up (in my opinion) to be 'better' movies than a lot of the more mainstream movies.  Case in point - no one would argue that, from a technical standpoint, 'The Room' is a 'better' movie than the Transformers.  BUT, I would watch 'The Room' a hundred times in a row before I would sit through the Transformers again because I find The Room to be hilarious, which elevates it (in my book) to be a better movie.  Hope that makes sense.

Since it's all subjective anyway, then I think a movie that you find enjoyable (for whatever reason) becomes a 'good' movie for your purposes...