back to article 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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Silverburn
    Thumb Up

    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.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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?

        1. JDX Gold badge

          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.

          1. Graham Marsden
            WTF?

            @JDX 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"

            If that was the case, then Eastenders and Coronation Street should be winning BAFTAs...

          2. Annihilator
            Coat

            Re: probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene

            " 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."

            Much like the Reg forums :-)

        2. Jolyon Smith
          Pint

          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.

          1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

            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.

      2. Annihilator
        Boffin

        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.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        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.

      4. sisk Silver badge

        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.

        1. Sporkinum

          Re: probably closer to the actual public's view of the commercial film scene

          I've watched all but the last as Riff Trax. Looking forward to a proper skewering of the final one.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        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.

    2. 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."

      1. AidanCheddar
        Paris Hilton

        If it sucks, then why would it be wroth watching? The only way I survived Twilight after the first movie was through Rifftrax.

    3. MrXavia
      Thumb Up

      I have no idea how twilight was so popular, but then again I have checked its ratings on IMDB, and I am glad to see most are below 5... rotten tomatoes was not so kind...

      I have no idea how anyone could sit through all of them, I did the first & second, the rest i've only seen glimpses of...

      1. sisk Silver badge

        I have no idea how anyone could sit through all of them

        When I sat through them I just kept reminding myself that the next time my wife tries to veto a movie I want to see I can just look at her and say 'Twilight' and end the argument in my favor.

        1. Euripides Pants Silver badge

          The only way a man can win an argument with his wife is to have an aneurysm and die.

  2. Irongut

    Django Unchained ... Original Screenplay Oscar

    Isn't that film a remake? Like everything Tarantino does, very little of it is original. I think the Academy need to buy themselves a dictionary so they can look up the meaning of the word.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Django Unchained ... Original Screenplay Oscar

      I likes Djesus Uncrossed. It was pretty good.

    2. Tom Servo
      FAIL

      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.

      1. Solly
        Holmes

        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...

        1. Tom 38 Silver badge

          Re: Django Unchained ... Original Screenplay Oscar

          Imagine how much better Sliding Doors would have been with Nazis.

    3. Tom 38 Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Django Unchained ... Original Screenplay Oscar

      Django Unchained

  3. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Razzies are gr8

      Here's a first - I actually agree with a part of an Eadon post (the bit about razzies being more entertaining).

      I would, however, suggest that the first line be changed to..

      "...as nauseating as an Eadon anti-MS rant."

      :-)

    2. RyokuMas Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Razzies are gr8

      And the award for "most gratuitous insertion of own prejudices into a comment on an unrelated forum" goes to...

      Eadon!

      WIth extra credit for the childish use of "txtspeak" (or does your Linux install not support a proper keyboard driver?)

      To put it in his own terms: "EPIC RELEVANCE FAIL!"

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Razzies are gr8

      I just HAVE to down-vote Eadon.

      It's the right thing to do.

      1. James Hughes 1

        Re: Razzies are gr8

        Indeed. I was impressed by the ability to get an anti MS comment in to a thread about the Oscars. Well done Sir Eadon. Have a down vote from me (an Ubuntu user, and Unity is great BTW). And I'm sure we should put those catapults on the aircraft carriers, and not buy the VTOL F35.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Razzies are gr8

        I want to up-vote and down-vote Eadon at the same time... is this Schrodinger's vote?

        1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Razzies are gr8

      What I need is an "ignore user" option that also removes all the sub comments on a top post so I don't get curious why the subs exist..

      Or grow less curious, but that's not going to happen..

    5. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

      Re: Razzies are gr8

      Eadon, I can't tell whether you are self-parodying, or whether you have a serious monomaniac disorder with obsessive compulsive traits. Whichever, it isn't funny any longer - please get a grip.

  4. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Love the razzies

    They prevent me from accidentally going to films which are as much fun as attaching your hand to the wall with a staple gun ...

    repeatedly.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Love the razzies

      Don't know about staple-guns but I do know that Twilight BD pt 2 was a 'nailed-on' certainty for the razzies this year.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I may be in a minority of 1 here but taken outside of the twiglet films, Kristen Stewart is actually quite pretty I think.

    Anon for obvious reasons!

    1. FreeTard

      If she wasn't so fat you mean.

  6. ratfox Silver badge
    Happy

    Interestingly, Robert Pattinson was spared

    I suspect he has many fans from Harry Potter.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Interestingly, Robert Pattinson was spared

      Or just that he was up against Adam Sandler.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Interestingly, Robert Pattinson was spared

      I liked Jack Whitehalls roasting of RP (in the DVD "We shall not talk of this again"). He reads from a biography of RP, and comes to a section "RPs phobias" which Whitehall speculates should include "acting".

  7. Anonymous Coward
    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.

    1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

        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 :).

    3. Vic

      Re: Why revel in things someone else has decided are waste of time?

      > I think the Razzies are somewhat pointless

      Hi Kristen. Didn't know you frequent these fora...

      Vic.

  8. Pet Peeve
    Gimp

    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.

    1. Smallbrainfield

      Re: Meh

      I watched this film the other night. It was a big daft film which went well with beer. Rihanna was alright in it, I thought.

  9. 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.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      "I do not care about things I do not care about."

      FTFY. HTH. HAND.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Battleship / Rhianna

    What the eyes have seen, may never be unseen.

  11. sisk Silver badge

    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.

    1. 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

      1. sisk Silver badge

        Re: Lautner?

        There are four books and the last one was split into 2 movies. I was dragged to all of them against my will even after telling my wife that the books were so bad that I wanted to burn them. And yes, I did try to give them a fair chance. They truly are as bad as you've heard.

  12. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Happy

    Adam Sandler was robbed

    I thought "That's my boy" looked a perfect opportunity to showcase his skills (for picking and/or funding really s**t movies).

    He should have gotten so many more.

    <sigh>

    1. Tom 38 Silver badge

      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.

      1. Vic

        Re: Adam Sandler was robbed

        > Adam Sandler films make a fuckload of money though.

        I betcha they make a loss...

        Vic.

        1. Tom 38 Silver badge

          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.

          1. Vic

            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

            Well, Tom, you could have read up on "Hollywood Accounting", whereby *every* film makes a loss...

            Vic.

    2. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

      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?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019