Razzie Awards

Razzie Founder: 'Nobody attacks the Academy for nominating Meryl Streep'

Just not getting it...

Defamer.com had a chat with Razzies founder John Wilson and, if you will remember, yesterday I posted what I understood to be the list of 2009 Razzie nominees. As it turns out that was "a list of suggested nominees" as sent out by the Razzies to whoever does their voting. It's not even a short list, just a starter to steer the voters in a certain direction and create a little order. Okay, I understand that and now that it is cleared up we can move on to another piece of the story in which Wilson actually addresses something I wrote in that post.

In the process of mocking their "suggestions" I added, "Oh, and the inclusion of Uwe Boll in the nominations is a stroke of genius, because that doesn't make these nominations any less redundant or meaningless." The following came out of the Defamer interview:

So what criteria do you consider for Worst Picture?

We look at box office—and big box office doesn't protect you from being Razzie-nominated—we look at the Tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes, we pay attention to what's being said on the forum of our website. We look at the track record of the people involved. Like Uwe Boll—the guy over at Rope of Silicon was saying "duh." Well yeah, "duh"—it's the same thing as Meryl Streep getting an Oscar nomination! Uwe Boll is just as shitty a director as Meryl Streep is a terrific actress. They're kind of mirrors of one another, and nobody attacks the Academy for nominating Meryl Streep. Uwe's Boll's Postal...if you've seen it, you have my sympathies. I actually have, and it's right up there with Freddy Got Fingered as just an inexcusable, tasteless, unfunny, "why did anyone give this person money" movie. And Freddy Got Fingered is the only Worst Picture winner that I've actually hated.

Sorry John, comparing the Razzie Awards to the Academy Awards is incredibly out of sorts. The Razzies are just another way to gossip and the proof is in a statement such as when he refers to Tom Cruise's performance in Valkyrie saying, "And with Tom Cruise, the advance buzz was really awful. Although apparently the movie isn't that bad, so it'll be interesting to see if he does or does not get a nomination."

The "buzz" he is referring to came from an anonymous tip sent to a Courtney Hazlett at MSNBC's gossip blog The Scoop. Hmmmm, now how does this compare to the Academy Awards again John? Is Meryl Streep gaining buzz for Doubt thanks to KlingonWiper895 over at PerezHilton.com?

I would also like to know who is determining the Razzie awards. The Oscars are decided by a group of actors (1,243), producers (454), executives (440), sound technicians (412), writers (396), directors (374), art directors (373), public relation specialists (369), animation artists (330), visual effects artists (264), members at large (254), musicians (235), editors (223), cinematographers (195), documentarians (141) and makeup artists (116)... Doesn't it cost $20 to become a voting member for the Razzies?

I would also love to hear what percentage of the films the voters actually saw. I mentioned this in the previous post, but if these people are actually lining up to see films such as Disaster Movie, Meet the Spartans, The Hottie and The Nottie and Postal what does that really say about their taste in movies? Based on the suggestions made I can only assume John has not seen those films - although he does admit to seeing Postal - and it is the reason for the inclusion of such films as Rambo and The Happening. These are films I could understand someone going and seeing and ultimately not liking, but going into Disaster Movie and coming out saying, "That movie was terrible," is like hitting yourself in the face with a hammer and saying, "Ouch," afterward. It's a natural reaction.

This, of course, is my personal opinion, but it all seems so meaningless to me. However, after reading the Defamer interview it's hard to tell if Wilson takes it all seriously or as a goof, which is what it really should be.

You can read the complete interview here. Thanks to 'Patricia' for pointing out the article.

P.S. I will give John one thing, Meryl Streep is not always a good actress and it should never be a given, which is why I don't expect her to get a nomination for Mamma Mia! However, after watching the Disaster Movie Unrated DVD he may want to check out Doubt and see just why she will be nominated - and perhaps win - again this year.

Thanks for Reading! Join the Community!
Support the Site! Make it Faster! No Ads!

Your support goes a long way in ensuring RopeofSilicon.com stays stable. For less than the price of one small popcorn, you can can help support RopeofSilicon and, in turn, visit the site every day without ads! Including this one!

Subscribe Now!

  • Steve

    I don't understand the hatred of the Razzle's. It's a fun list.

  • Sam

    The Razzies were fun, long long time ago when they didn't take themselves too serious.Not anymore. Now they even hold press conferences and are doing interviews about the pseudo award list slip. A bunch of old geeks who spend time bashing people on the web, only what they are. The guy said they included Tom Cruise on the list because of "bad buzz", they didn't even see the performance, they are bashing Cruise' persona, not the actor. And every time Stallone has a movie out he is "nominated", even when he clearly doesn't deserve, as this year. They name Keanu Reeves for worst careerwith peeps as Uwe Boll and Madonna, I am sure the guy who has some of the finest action/sci-fi movies ever as Speed, The Matrix and A Scanner Darkly under his belt deserves to be there, right, sure! They do that just for the sake of having press and putting people down. Razzies became a joke in itself. BTW, Stanley Kubrick was nominated for The Shining. Nuff said.

  • izzy

    The Razzies may be horse shit that caters in part to the tabloid-hungry crowd, but I can't shake that same sentiment in regards to the Academy Awards. Of course I wouldn't say they are on the same cultural level but the Academy Awards were basically created by a self-congradulating industry as a promotional gimmick. And I mean, c'mon, Chicago for best picture over Gangs of New York?! 2002 was a weak year but come the fuck on, Academy!

    The Oscars do have a certain prestige that has been awarded to it by our society but I wonder what criteria voting members use and if they do actually view and consider every single nominated film and the craft that's being judged (such as art and set design, adapted and orignal writing etc.)

  • izzy

    hmm i guess art design would cover the set.... but you know what i'm saying!

  • Sam

    @izzy: Oscars are now are pure "ass kissing". Stars have to "work the critics circle" to have a chance.

  • Chris

    Why would you waste your time writing about the Razzies? No one pays attention to this stuff. Who cares.

  • Patricia

    Why post about the Razzies?!? Because it's the only "award" that is honest about its agenda. Pure camp. And for your futher amusement, watch this "promo" for The Spirit.

    http://defamer.com/5122580/for-your-razzie-consideration-the-spirit