TLK lands 9 Razzie nominations

[BigTransformerTrev]

I saw about 5 movies last year, most of those nominated I didn't see. Looking through the list it feels like there was a shortlist of movies selected and then the people filling the roles of the selected movies were automatically selected to fill each nomination.

Yeah I totally agree. A very small range of movies there so it was probably ‘Well, we’ve decided TF5 was one of the worst, what categories can we fill from it? We’ve already used Baywatch to fill most of the slots’

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

How do they think that the worst actor can be the same actor from two different movies?

I suspect they are unlikely to be THAT bad in two movies.

That list is awful

[BigTransformerTrev]

How do they think that the worst actor can be the same actor from two different movies?

I suspect they are unlikely to be THAT bad in two movies.

That list is awful

Yeah well, when your whole point is to tear down others work rather than create something yourself or look for the good in things, you don’t need to put a lot of effort in.

Welcome to the friggin internet eh - supreme home of the Negative Nancy’s

[Ralph Wiggum]

It’s a bit of fun, lighten up

[BigTransformerTrev]

Just pointing out, the Razzies have been around since before the public spread of internet. (1981)

Well there ya go, didn’t know that. I’d read them for a few years but always online.

And there's nothing wrong with negative criticism as long as it's reasonably justified and ultimately constructive. e.g. George Lucas was given constructive criticism about regarding Jar Jar Binks in the Star Wars Prequels, and to Lucas' credit he did take this on board. Jar Jar has limited and far more useful appearances in Attack of the Clones, and he only made a single silent cameo in Revenge of the Sith. And I think that the Razzies are kinda like a parody of the Oscars and all the other award ceremonies and festivals for good films. I doubt that Michael Bay is going to lose any sleep over this.

I think a more damning thing was Nostalgia Critic's Non-Review of The Last Knight. This is a "non" review that he made before the movie was released. Watching it with the hindsight of having seen TLK, it's scary to see how many of his predictions came true. Not all, but a fair number. He came pretty darn close to the mark! And Nostalgia Critic put this video out there effectively as a dare to Michael Bay to prove him wrong. And that's the best thing you can do to silence your critics -- by making a good movie!

gesta non verba ("Deeds not words")

Errrr.... no one said anything about not giving negative feedback to movies or constructive criticism. The most said was by me which was it’s easier to rubbish a flick online than try and make something yourself which is pretty true.

What we were saying was it seems to be a very lazy list this year as with thousands of movies from 2017 to choose from and reference they just seemed to select a few big name ones and then use them over and over and over again. That was the point in discussion.

It’s a bit of fun, lighten up

Really? Mr ‘The government will take your toys! The government will take you toys! Get forms! Get gun safes! The sky is falling!’ is telling others to lighten up? Hah - that’s just funny!

Edit: just playing mate - everyone appreciated all the research you put in regarding MP Megs

[DELTAprime]

Yeah well, when your whole point is to tear down others work rather than create something yourself or look for the good in things, you don’t need to put a lot of effort in.

Welcome to the friggin internet eh - supreme home of the Negative Nancy’s

Just pointing out, the Razzies have been around since before the public spread of internet. (1981)

[GoktimusPrime]

Also, there are plenty of film festivals and award ceremonies that celebrate movies that are regarded as good, such as the Academy Awards (Oscars), BAFTA, Cannes (etc.) just to name a few. There are even festivals that focus on celebrating short indie films like Tropfest, Sundance and so on. The Razzies are the only festival that gives awards for bad films. I don't imagine that there would be too many others.

And there's nothing wrong with negative criticism as long as it's reasonably justified and ultimately constructive. e.g. George Lucas was given constructive criticism about regarding Jar Jar Binks in the Star Wars Prequels, and to Lucas' credit he did take this on board. Jar Jar has limited and far more useful appearances in Attack of the Clones, and he only made a single silent cameo in Revenge of the Sith. And I think that the Razzies are kinda like a parody of the Oscars and all the other award ceremonies and festivals for good films. I doubt that Michael Bay is going to lose any sleep over this.

I think a more damning thing was Nostalgia Critic's Non-Review of The Last Knight. This is a "non" review that he made before the movie was released. Watching it with the hindsight of having seen TLK, it's scary to see how many of his predictions came true. Not all, but a fair number. He came pretty darn close to the mark! And Nostalgia Critic put this video out there effectively as a dare to Michael Bay to prove him wrong. And that's the best thing you can do to silence your critics -- by making a good movie!

gesta non verba ("Deeds not words")

[Magnus]

And that's the best thing you can do to silence your critics -- by making a good movie!

I'll have to take exception to this sentiment. When people say 'they should just make better movies', it implies two things:

1. That there is some simplicity to making good movies that people in the industry with their years of experience somehow miss. If it's really so simple, why don't these armchair critics make movies themselves? Trev nailed it - it's far easier to criticise work than to make it yourself.

2. That people who are making movies are not trying to make them good or aren't putting in effort. With multimilliondollar budgets at stake, Paramount would be trying to make the movie as good as they could. Cast and crew on Michael Bay's movies have consistently described him as hard-working.

The impression I get of Michael Bay is that he doesn't care about critical acclaim. He doesn't make Oscar bait. As far as he's concerned, moviegoing audiences are his critics. For some reason or other, it's popular to hate on his work, which is why he keeps getting Razzie nominations.

Edit: sorry if the post came across as harsh, but I find that "they should make better movies" statement irksome.

[GoktimusPrime]

Example: When Beast Wars first came out there was widespread negativity from the fandom. TRUKK NOT MUNKEE! RUINED FOREVER! KILLED MY CHILDHOOD! etc. etc.
Online arguments raged※! But BW soon silenced its critics with its quality toys and TV series etc.

Yes, you're right in that it is easier to criticise, but that alone doesn't make the criticisms necessarily invalid. After all, most of the population are unfit to govern but does that make us unfit to criticise our politicians? Criticism is fine as long as it's constructive and not unproductive criticism. Saying that Bayformers needs to have better stories that focuses more on the Transformers and treats them as characters instead of set pieces is not an invalid or unproductive criticism. I think it's perfectly reasonable. Saying, "Because it's different from G1" is not what I consider a valid form of criticism. After all, Ghost in the Shell was visually extremely accurate to its source material and that still managed to be a widely panned film. And in all honesty, a live action movie that's too G1 accurate wouldn't be very good. The robots would visually look like TV Power Rangers Zords and a disabled dude ripping up a floppy disk with his bare hands? Really?

I think that criticism is fine as long as it's fair and reasonable criticism. But the same goes with praise and accolade. Praising stuff without validity is just as meaningless. This is why I don't watch video toy reviews -- a lot of them lavish praise on the toys without proper justification. e.g. "POTP Optimus Prime is AWESOME!" and spends the rest of video showing off that toy but without once telling the audience why s/he thinks that the toy is awesome. That's not a review, that's a showcase! I think that POTP OP is a great toy, but I also tell people why I think it's good, and I do also address the weaknesses on that toy too (but I think that there are no unjustifiable weaknesses on the toy which is what overall makes it great). Or conversely, I found POTP Grimlock to be a rather disappointing toy, and I'll explain why (I think it's a toy that's very much compromised by having to be a gestalt torso, but admittedly the gestalt robot has zero appeal to me).

It's just like what I teach my senior students - you can agree or disagree with the statement in a question. When I mark their responses I gauge it according to how they've justified their response and not if I happen to agree with it or not. Many times I award higher marks to students whose opinion I personally disagree with, but they presented a better argument than other students who I personally agree with. The marking criteria never says, "Candidate agrees with the marker."

---------------------------------------------------
※Maybe these arguments haven't stuck in your mind as much as mid-90s internet discussions were generally more civilised. Aaah, remember what the internet was like before AOL?