2010 Razzies

[SofaMan]

I think for a film to fall into the 'worst' category, there needs to be a significant disjoint between the reasonable expectation a film creates and what it actually delivers. Disappointment seems to be a huge factor when voting in the Razzies.

RotF was a mess even by Bay's very ordinary standards. The difference between what should have been produced with that level of talent and resourcing and what actually ended up on the screen was vast.

[SofaMan]

It seems Bay is not altogether without a sense of humour though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiHsxQJ9ZOo

[Sky Shadow]

The other thing is that I - for example - am someone for whom the Transformers franchise has produced some of my favourite media ever . People who love what they do, with limited budgets have produced amazing comic books (Marvel UK), CGI television (Beast Wars), more traditional cartoons (Animated) etc. that literally shaped my life. And yet, with $200,000,000 they somehow managed to make this film, complete with gaping plotholes, visually painful designs and potty humour. It was a film not created with love, but by a director who hates the "lame" G1 cartoon, hates the first ten minutes of the original 1986 movie (all that he's seen) hates Transformers in general (and thus focuses instead on humans and the military) and a lead actress who hates... well, everything, including the "#@$*ing pyramids". It's quite clearly not a work of passion and that message shines through the half-arsed celluloid.

My point is, that if I - someone who's actually spent months of his life watching and enjoying countless media about giant transforming robots - think this movie was awful, how might 700 film buff Razzie voters who don't necessarily have my predilection for Transformers feel about it and having to sit through it for two and a half hours.

[Gutsman Heavy]

I liked BD:E more than ROTF, its was slightly better than my horribly low expectations, ROTF was a massive turd compared to the first.

[Bartrim]

Not wanting to restart old unresolvable debates, but I think that a film like RotF, taking into account its budget and the hundreds of thousands of work hours that went into its production, had at least had a basic obligation to be coherently plotted, acceptably paced and have characters of more than 1.5 dimensions. Given how poor it was on these counts relative to the first one, I think it has thoroughly earned its Razzies.

So by that rationale shouldn't the Razzie go to Avatar considering all the time and money that wwent into that and it's nothing but a glitzed up version of Pocahontas?

[5FDP]

I think it was said best on one of the international forums - the Razzie awards are not going to change anyones opinion... you either love it or hate it.

So by that rationale shouldn't the Razzie go to Avatar considering all the time and money that wwent into that and it's nothing but a glitzed up version of Pocahontas?

Agreed

[Robzy]

The other thing is that I - for example - am someone for whom the Transformers franchise has produced some of my favourite media ever . People who love what they do, with limited budgets have produced amazing comic books (Marvel UK), CGI television (Beast Wars), more traditional cartoons (Animated) etc. that literally shaped my life. And yet, with $200,000,000 they somehow managed to make this film, complete with gaping plotholes, visually painful designs and potty humour. It was a film not created with love, but by a director who hates the "lame" G1 cartoon, hates the first ten minutes of the original 1986 movie (all that he's seen) hates Transformers in general (and thus focuses instead on humans and the military) and a lead actress who hates... well, everything, including the "#@$*ing pyramids". It's quite clearly not a work of passion and that message shines through the half-arsed celluloid.

My point is, that if I - someone who's actually spent months of his life watching and enjoying countless media about giant transforming robots - think this movie was awful, how might 700 film buff Razzie voters who don't necessarily have my predilection for Transformers feel about it and having to sit through it for two and a half hours.

QFT!! Perfect!!

So by that rationale shouldn't the Razzie go to Avatar considering all the time and money that wwent into that and it's nothing but a glitzed up version of Pocahontas?

Avatar was excellent! At least it had a coherent plot and characters that were interesting. Plus its visuals were astonishing! On top of that, it was made by a fastidious director who is passionate about the material. ROTF was slapped together (proudly) by its pre-set release date, even though it was well documented that the Writers were on strike! As Sky Shadow wrote (above), it was evident watching the movie that there was no passion whatsoever!

[Bartrim]

Avatar was excellent! At least it had a coherent plot and characters that were interesting. Plus its visuals were astonishing! !

In your opinion Robzy (which you are entitled too and I respect it)

In my opinion Avatar was visually excellent but it was a very basic plot filled with a whole lot of character stereotypes. I prefer ROTF as atleast I didn't know what was going to happen. I had Avatar worked out in about 20 minutes and I don't wish to insult anyone by assuming but if anyone couldn't tell what was going to happen then I seriously question that persons intelligence. My wife is dying to watch it and I'm actually shuddering at the thought of losing another 3 hrs of my life.

Please noone use the excuse that Avatar was super successful because ROTF was too.

Again just my opinion.

[Gutsman Heavy]

Unoriginal =/= Bad.

[GoktimusPrime]

yeah, almost every thing is ripped off or inspired by something else. i believe there's a chinese proverb that says, "there has been no new thought for the last 100 years."

the 1st star wars movie was a blend of flash gordon + kurosawa jp period epic + mythology + etc. yet it is awesome.
jedi = samurai in space w/ laser swords
sith = ninja in space w/ laser swords

i like avatar even if it's scifi pocahontas