spazz Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I dont get these Razzies awards,do people take it seriously? whats the point of making negative awards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolidayGuy Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 On the whole, I have no issue with those comments. But, I maintain that she does alright in certain supporting roles (i.e. Dick Tracy, A League of Their Own). Did you mention those to him, johnno? Especially as she was not nominated for either of them. The TOD "acting" nomination was rubbish, especially in that the film was pretty well received, critically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acko Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 You can't lay into the critic for his comments. Don't be so defensive. In Bed With Madonn does have some contrived, creaky moments. On the whole, she sucks as an actress. She's pulled in a couple of good performances and got an award for an extended pop video. And she and Prince both deservedly won their Razzies although I do agree that Prince is pretty bad in PR from what I remember and seemed to only get worse. If only M had appeared in 'Under The Cherry Moon'! It would have been destined to become a camp classic worthy of the Bad Film Club. [cue avatar of Prince being shot] M was supposed 2 b in Graffiti Bridge The part was written 4 her..& she actually flew 2 Minnesota 2 discuss the role but in the end she had 2 tell Prince it was rubbish Um, I don't think anyone is upset by the razzies...just pointing out the cuntiness. I'll have u remember they even mentioned her performance in Evita at the time, saying it was not quite 'laughable' enough 2 b nominated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnox Posted November 23, 2010 Author Share Posted November 23, 2010 Maybe interview somebody worthwhile next time Jonnox? ANy film fan knows about the Razzies, they get world wide publicity the day before the Oscars. From tabloids to broad sheets, they all mention the Razzies world-wide. Its been going for 31 years. How can you say he's not a worthwhile interview? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnox Posted November 23, 2010 Author Share Posted November 23, 2010 But, I maintain that she does alright in certain supporting roles (i.e. Dick Tracy, A League of Their Own). Did you mention those to him, johnno? Especially as she was not nominated for either of them. No, I didn't mention that because the interview was not about Madonna. She represented about two percent of the entire interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnox Posted November 23, 2010 Author Share Posted November 23, 2010 I dont get these Razzies awards,do people take it seriously? whats the point of making negative awards? Equally, you could ask what is the point of positive awards? Lauding the rich and famous with awards to tell them how good they are? Pointless, no? Everything needs an opposite - for every Vanity Bonet there's a normal human being. No, the only people who take it seriously are the actors, directors who are nominated. Everyone else takes it as a bit of cheeky fun. John WIlson's justification of it is "We are not cruel, we're the naughty schoolboys playing pranks during back-slapping award season. We're like a fart in a church." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Evil M Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Equally, you could ask what is the point of positive awards? Lauding the rich and famous with awards to tell them how good they are? Pointless, no? Everything needs an opposite - for every Vanity Bonet there's a normal human being. No, the only people who take it seriously are the actors, directors who are nominated. Everyone else takes it as a bit of cheeky fun. John WIlson's justification of it is "We are not cruel, we're the naughty schoolboys playing pranks during back-slapping award season. We're like a fart in a church." Where is Vanity?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnox Posted November 23, 2010 Author Share Posted November 23, 2010 Tripped over the curb of sanity and fell fake tit first straight into the nuthouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider of the lost Ark Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 ANy film fan knows about the Razzies, they get world wide publicity the day before the Oscars. From tabloids to broad sheets, they all mention the Razzies world-wide. Its been going for 31 years. Unfortunately so. I think these awards get way too much credibilty by the fact that all kind of media outlets mention those awards during award season. The film fan might know what kind of organization the Razzies actually is. An organization that everyone who has a credit card can be part of. A membership and therefore the right to vote can be bought. No knowledge needed and I heavily doubt that the vast majority of the members actually have an idea about the movie industry or the art of film making, although they will claim they have. I think most of them are a bunch of losers and desperate people who happily spent some dollars a year to trash other peoples "achievements" to feel important or powerful so they can pretend they are protecting an artform. This is not meant to say their choices are always wrong (I fully support their decision to give a lifetime "achievement" award to Uwe Boll) but it 's sad that many of their dubious choices get a bad press they don't deserve. And I would like to add many of Madonnas nominations to those choices. It's true she is not a good actress, but the worst ever? Hardly. Fact is, for the Razzies she is the easiest target. Over the years she has "earned" such a bad reputation, her "bad" acting has become common knowledge and therefore noone would ever question if a nomination or win is justified even if she pulls a Meryl Streep performance. And of course nominating Madonna gets you way more publicity than any C-List actor or actress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnox Posted November 23, 2010 Author Share Posted November 23, 2010 You are presuming a lot, Raider. For starters, many of its members (approx 60 per cent) are part of the film industry, people behind the camera in all walks of the movie industry life. Plus there are several well known actors and two directors with a lot of kudos who are members that I'm not allowed to name. Yes, anyone can join, but there's little difference between them and their opinions and the millions of people who leave anonymous posts and reviews on places like amazon and imdb. If you're going to slam the Razzies, then surely you should be slamming every single review or criticism anyone has to offer? Why can't there be an anti-awards ceremony? Considering how many different ceremonies there are to praise movies, surely one that does the opposite is not such a bad thing? You are missing the whole point of the razzies - it's one big joke and doesn't take itself seriously, which by the sounds of it, is a lesson you could learn. Easy to presume, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnox Posted November 23, 2010 Author Share Posted November 23, 2010 A membership and therefore the right to vote can be bought. And votes can't be bought for Oscar nominations and wins? There are people employed year round who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to 'buy' nominations for their films or talent. They are paid to promote the talent, to campaign and persuade people to vote or nominate a film, all in the name of bagging an award and raising the price of an actor and the admission/ sales of a film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider of the lost Ark Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 And votes can't be bought for Oscar nominations and wins? There are people employed year round who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to 'buy' nominations for their films or talent. They are paid to promote the talent, to campaign and persuade people to vote or nominate a film, all in the name of bagging an award and raising the price of an actor and the admission/ sales of a film. C'mon, you know what I'm talking about. As far as I remember you cannot buy a membership at AMPAS, ATAS or NARAS. And of course people should take all nominations and wins with a grain of salt. I'm very much aware of lobbying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnox Posted November 23, 2010 Author Share Posted November 23, 2010 What does it matter if you can't buy membership but you can buy the results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider of the lost Ark Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 You are presuming a lot, Raider. For starters, many of its members (approx 60 per cent) are part of the film industry, people behind the camera in all walks of the movie industry life. Plus there are several well known actors and two directors with a lot of kudos who are members that I'm not allowed to name. Yes, anyone can join, but there's little difference between them and their opinions and the millions of people who leave anonymous posts and reviews on places like amazon and imdb. If you're going to slam the Razzies, then surely you should be slamming every single review or criticism anyone has to offer? Why can't there be an anti-awards ceremony? Considering how many different ceremonies there are to praise movies, surely one that does the opposite is not such a bad thing? You are missing the whole point of the razzies - it's one big joke and doesn't take itself seriously, which by the sounds of it, is a lesson you could learn. Easy to presume, isn't it? Maybe I am. But I beg to differ between an review at amazon and an award ceremony that gets publicity all over the world. It is not me who is taking this kind of award seriously since I know how it works. But what about the average Joes? They get their information from the mass media who usually present the Razzies as a serious event. Because of the lack of information and/or interest people take the results seriously. And if the Razzies think of themselves as a big joke then they should change the way they present themselves in the media. Giving press conferences and interviews? They could learn something from Harvard students and their Hasty Pudding award, which gets publicity around the world as well (because of the celebrity who gets the award), but where everyone really knows it's just for fun. I believe many years ago the Razzies were indeed some kind of anti-awards show but as the mass media has changed over the years and especially the internet the whole concept of the Razzies has changed. Nowadays it seems more about bashing people. And I can only assume why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider of the lost Ark Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 What does it matter if you can't buy membership but you can buy the results? It doesn't matter at all to those who doesn't take awards seriously. At least those awards which are based on opinions. It's too difficult to measure quality when it comes to the arts. BUT the Oscars are decided by a group of actors, producers, executives, sound technicians (412), writers, directors, art directors, public relation specialists, animation artists, visual effects artists, members at large, musicians, editors, cinematographers, documentarians and makeup artists. But who is actually determing the Razzies? This is the huge difference I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyHigh76 Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 As an actress,Madonna does better when she is playing a supporting role.Examples: 'Dick Tracy','A League Of Their Own'.She got great reviews in those films.She should have accepted more roles like these,instead of always trying to "carry" a film.Whenever she stars in a film,the movie is already considered a flop before it's even released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Yes, anyone can join, but there's little difference between them and their opinions and the millions of people who leave anonymous posts and reviews on places like amazon and imdb. If you're going to slam the Razzies, then surely you should be slamming every single review or criticism anyone has to offer? I love film and I take it seriously. I feel that the difference between somebody offering a critical opinion and the razzies is that one is not necessarily pre meditated. A critical reception from a watcher can be spontaneous and happen after watching a film. Just like I love Angelina Jolies early films but find her later acting career (anything post TR) just dire. However, the razzies are designed in order to make money/press from lambasting people with negativity. You can't seriously suggest that it is simply a critical reception of film making. Let's face it, there are SO many films out there worse than Madonnas. Why is she always given the award? Because it's a commercially viable complaint to make. It gives the razzies a shit load of attention. That's what it is. Attention seeking. Hence it being done the night before the Oscars. It doesn't have anything critically constructive to offer the film industry. Then, on top of all that you get annoying actors going to collect their awards in an attempt to appear 'Ironic' and 'Down to Earth'. That's why I don't think it was a worthy person to interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnox Posted November 23, 2010 Author Share Posted November 23, 2010 While I respect your opinion on many of the things you have said above, I do not respect that you do not think him worthy to interview. If you were to buy the mag I have written it for and decided not to read the piece, that's fair enough. But please dont tell me an interviewee is not worthy. Thats not your call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2010 Share Posted November 24, 2010 While I respect your opinion on many of the things you have said above, I do not respect that you do not think him worthy to interview. If you were to buy the mag I have written it for and decided not to read the piece, that's fair enough. But please dont tell me an interviewee is not worthy. Thats not your call. Why not? We can criticise your choice/decision to interview this person, we can't decide things for you but we certainly can have opinions about your decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnox Posted November 24, 2010 Author Share Posted November 24, 2010 Its like me telling you I dont like the way you have decorated your house, or the shoes you have bought. Its none of my business. You haven't asked my opinion on your house or shoes, yet I criticise them. I haven't asked for anyones opinion on whether I should interview this guy. Criticise him and his views all you want, but not my decision to interview him as I'm not interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannylex Posted November 24, 2010 Share Posted November 24, 2010 Its like me telling you I dont like the way you have decorated your house, or the shoes you have bought. Its none of my business. You haven't asked my opinion on your house or shoes, yet I criticise them. I haven't asked for anyones opinion on whether I should interview this guy. Criticise him and his views all you want, but not my decision to interview him as I'm not interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted November 24, 2010 Share Posted November 24, 2010 Its like me telling you I dont like the way you have decorated your house, or the shoes you have bought. Its none of my business. You haven't asked my opinion on your house or shoes, yet I criticise them. I haven't asked for anyones opinion on whether I should interview this guy. Criticise him and his views all you want, but not my decision to interview him as I'm not interested. WELL SAID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akurren Posted November 24, 2010 Share Posted November 24, 2010 I think Evita was just a long music video and Madonna knows how to act in those DSS was really good and she was very good in it Who's that girl was a bad movie but she plays her cartoonish part like she's asked Dangerous Game was a crappy movie in which she does pretty well Shanghai Surprise, Swept Away and The Next Best Thing were pure crap IMO I think that Madonna could have been a good actress but the press strongly pushed her insecurity button, blaming her for everything that was going wrong in every movie she ever did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2010 Share Posted November 24, 2010 While I respect your opinion on many of the things you have said above, I do not respect that you do not think him worthy to interview. If you were to buy the mag I have written it for and decided not to read the piece, that's fair enough. But please dont tell me an interviewee is not worthy. Thats not your call. If having an opinion and giving it without it being asked for was a crime, we would all be locked up and the key would be thrown away. I'm not telling you how to do your job, I just don't think that he's a credible person to interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted November 24, 2010 Share Posted November 24, 2010 about the only Madonna films I really can't stomach are TNBT and Swept Away I think she's really funny in comedic roles like WTG and I wish she would maybe do that more often Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2010 Share Posted November 24, 2010 I think she would be agreat in a film which required lots of physical acting. Her spoken voice is gorgeous on record. I think that oddly enough, if she does continue acting she would do 'better' if she takes on some really grimey roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnox Posted November 25, 2010 Author Share Posted November 25, 2010 I just don't think that he's a credible person to interview. So you keep saying, and I'm still not caring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horn Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 about the only Madonna films I really can't stomach are TNBT and Swept Away I think she's really funny in comedic roles like WTG and I wish she would maybe do that more often Isn't Swept Away a comedy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Isn't Swept Away a comedy? only if you're drunk while watching it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 So you keep saying, and I'm still not caring. Which magazine is it? Private me the answer if you don't wish to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts