Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

by **Fenrir Prime** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:57 pm

Dagon wrote:
Fenrir Prime wrote:
Dagon wrote:So, it didn't win any Oscars, so that just means that the Oscar doesn't mean anything anymore.
But, it could win some of these awards, but people don't like those awards, so then Razzies don;t mean anything.
AND, the opinions and criticisms of people who don't like the movies don't matter, because they didn't like the movies, but the opinions of people who don't acknowledge the Razzie as a legit award because they don't like the Razzies or the choice of films that win Razzies, those people are perfectly correct for dismissing a legit award?

"What you don't like doesn't matter because it doesn't satisfy my need for an explaination but I don't have to like anything I don't like and that's perfectly acceptable!" Lol seibertron.com, Lol.

While I can understand where you are coming from I don't think I could call the Razzies a legitimate award show since it just seems more like trolling on a grand scale. Some nominations are written in to look like jokes, like putting Nick Cage and who ever he is on screen with in his 3 2011 movies as a worst couple nomination. And like Bouncy X said they are lots of movies that came out that were way worse than any of the ones listed. I have to agree they just go after the bad movies that did well.

Ok, but I don't like baseball, but I recognize the Baseball Hall of Fame as a legit honor. Just because something I like doesn't win a prestigeous award does not devalue the award, and vice versa. "Oh, HUGO won the Oscar because of Scorsesi, that's the only reason.....Oscars don;t mean anything anyway..." A person not finding value in the award doesn't devalue the award.
Know how people have said for five years that Hasbro/Bay/All'a them don't care if fans don't like the movies because the movies aren't made for the fans?I suppose the Oscars/Razzies/Baseball HoF are organized on the same principle. Winning an Oscar means something to movie industry people. They don't NOT vote on HoF inductees because I don't care about baseball.
Just like Michael Bay doesn't care that someone didn't like his movie, I'm sure the Academy doesn't care that this website is amazed DOTM didn't win an Oscar. I just find it super cute that we can't not like the movies without being given a stern talking to, but it's fine to just write off an element that didn't like the movies becuase lol they don't know anything they're just old people who pander to the industry lol.

I never said a thing about the oscars. All I said was that I don't consider the Razzies a legitimate award show, it's more of a joke and that's what I think the makers of it intended it to be. I never said DOTM deserved an oscar at any point. I realize it is a "bad" movie to critics but that doesn't bug me. I think it's just a bit much to consider the Razzies legit awards. They are funny and just there as a much needed foil to the Oscar's.

News Credits: 5 · by **5150 Cruiser** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:14 pm

Vicalliose wrote:maybe the only way to get people to hate these films is to hammer it into their skulls repeatedly.

They've been trying that since 07' and you know what? Each movie does better and than the previous.

Haters just can't accept that people really do like these movies. And no amount of "razzies" is going to change that. :APPLAUSE:

by **Capt.Failure** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:29 pm

5150 Cruiser wrote:
Vicalliose wrote:maybe the only way to get people to hate these films is to hammer it into their skulls repeatedly.

They've been trying that since 07' and you know what? Each movie does better and than the previous.

Haters just can't accept that people really do like these movies. And no amount of "razzies" is going to change that.

The general anger about the films can be easily boiled down into a few factors:

1. Transformers fans who didn't like them. This is par the course for fanbases with any kind of movie adaptation.

2. Critics who weren't listened to. Check each film's user score on Rotten Tomatoes.

3. Film buffs who don't like "illegitimate" films being successful, the film equivalent of the "casuals vs. hardcore" debate with video games.

Each of these groups has a bog standard response with their anger:

1. "You're clearly not a TRUE FAN if you liked these films!"

2. "I believe those who consider Transformers a good film to be insufficiently evolved."

3. "No one actually liked those movies, they just think they did since they can't accept having payed to see it!" (actual quote from Reddit)

And we who liked them and the rational minded members of the three groups above, like them or not, just watch the anger and laugh. :roll:

Anyway, more to the point the Razzies are at most a troll award taken seriously only when people want to say "SEE! THE MOVIE YOU LIKED DID SUCK!" And I agree the Oscars are just as bad but for different reasons.

News Credits: 114 · by **Burn** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:10 am

Rest easy fanboys, or grab your pitchforks if you're in the Bayhater camp, whatever works for you.

Adam Sandler cleans house.

No awards for Transformers in the Razzies. Move on.

News Credits: 37 · by **SlyTF1** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:56 pm

Burn wrote:Rest easy fanboys, or grab your pitchforks if you're in the Bayhater camp, whatever works for you.

Adam Sandler cleans house.

No awards for Transformers in the Razzies. Move on.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! >:oP

by **Capt.Failure** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:02 am

Burn wrote:Rest easy fanboys, or grab your pitchforks if you're in the Bayhater camp, whatever works for you.

Adam Sandler cleans house.

No awards for Transformers in the Razzies. Move on.

Remember when he had a career? :-?

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:06 pm

Burn wrote:Rest easy fanboys, or grab your pitchforks if you're in the Bayhater camp, whatever works for you.

Adam Sandler cleans house.

No awards for Transformers in the Razzies. Move on.

Jack and JIll is a rip off of Glen or Glenda in the same way Dark of the Moon is a ripoff of Bullit. They have something in common (A man in drag for the former, car chases for the latter) but that's where the similarities end.

by **Capt.Failure** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:17 pm

Shadowman wrote:
Burn wrote:Rest easy fanboys, or grab your pitchforks if you're in the Bayhater camp, whatever works for you.

Adam Sandler cleans house.

No awards for Transformers in the Razzies. Move on.

Jack and JIll is a rip off of Glen or Glenda in the same way Dark of the Moon is a ripoff of Bullit. They have something in common (A man in drag for the former, car chases for the latter) but that's where the similarities end.

Why did you have to bring up Ed Wood? Now I have to watch Plan 9 from Outer Space again. Damn you, Shadowman. :BANG_HEAD:

On the bright side it's at least an unintentionally funny film.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:22 pm

Capt.Failure wrote:
Shadowman wrote:
Burn wrote:Rest easy fanboys, or grab your pitchforks if you're in the Bayhater camp, whatever works for you.

Adam Sandler cleans house.

No awards for Transformers in the Razzies. Move on.

Jack and JIll is a rip off of Glen or Glenda in the same way Dark of the Moon is a ripoff of Bullit. They have something in common (A man in drag for the former, car chases for the latter) but that's where the similarities end.

Why did you have to bring up Ed Wood? Now I have to watch Plan 9 from Outer Space again. Damn you, Shadowman.

On the bright side it's at least an unintentionally funny film.

I didn't bring up Ed Wood, they did.

It's like, I'm sure it's a bad movie deserving each and every one of those "awards," but if they're going to call it a ripoff of something, they should probably do it in a way that makes it look like they actually knew what either movie was about.

by **Capt.Failure** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:00 pm

Shadowman wrote:
Capt.Failure wrote:
Shadowman wrote:
Burn wrote:Rest easy fanboys, or grab your pitchforks if you're in the Bayhater camp, whatever works for you.

Adam Sandler cleans house.

No awards for Transformers in the Razzies. Move on.

Jack and JIll is a rip off of Glen or Glenda in the same way Dark of the Moon is a ripoff of Bullit. They have something in common (A man in drag for the former, car chases for the latter) but that's where the similarities end.

Why did you have to bring up Ed Wood? Now I have to watch Plan 9 from Outer Space again. Damn you, Shadowman.

On the bright side it's at least an unintentionally funny film.

I didn't bring up Ed Wood, they did.

It's like, I'm sure it's a bad movie deserving each and every one of those "awards," but if they're going to call it a ripoff of something, they should probably do it in a way that makes it look like they actually knew what either movie was about.

You're trusting modern critics to know anything about film. That's your problem.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:16 pm

Capt.Failure wrote:You're trusting modern critics to know anything about film. That's your problem.

I trust professional critics to know anything about film. I may not always agree with them but they do know what they're talking about.

The guys who run the razzies, though...

News Credits: 114 · by **Burn** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:28 am

Shadowman wrote:The guys who run the razzies, though...

... do it for the lulz.

by **Capt.Failure** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:32 pm

Shadowman wrote:
Capt.Failure wrote:You're trusting modern critics to know anything about film. That's your problem.

I trust professional critics to know anything about film. I may not always agree with them but they do know what they're talking about.

The guys who run the razzies, though...

Professional means trained to do their job. Being good at it is another thing. One does not imply the other. From what I've seen, few professional critics are good at their job. Rotten Tomatoes has seen to that with it's willful suppression of individual opinion among critics combined with the lack of respect they have for their readers.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:36 pm

Capt.Failure wrote:
Shadowman wrote:
Capt.Failure wrote:You're trusting modern critics to know anything about film. That's your problem.

I trust professional critics to know anything about film. I may not always agree with them but they do know what they're talking about.

The guys who run the razzies, though...

Professional means trained to do their job. Being good at it is another thing. One does not imply the other.

Uh, actually it does. Amateur means you're untrained and unskilled. Professional means you've had training, which develops and teaches skill, and you're good enough to be paid to do it.

Capt.Failure wrote:From what I've seen, few professional critics are good at their job.

Such as? Also, do you even know the skills required to be a good critic?

Capt.Failure wrote:Rotten Tomatoes has seen to that with it's willful suppression of individual opinion among critics combined with the lack of respect they have for their readers.

Rotten Tomatoes isn't a review site, it is a review aggregate site. They collect individual reviews and display them all, and give a work a rating based on how positive and negative the reviews are.

by **Capt.Failure** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:17 am

Uh, actually it does. Amateur means you're untrained and unskilled. Professional means you've had training, which develops and teaches skill, and you're good enough to be paid to do it.

Training means nothing when you don't use it properly. Fact.

Such as? Also, do you even know the skills required to be a good critic?

Take your pick from the ones who breach their so called professionalism to insult people for their tastes. Or maybe the ones who believe that an opinion can transcend it's subjective nature due to a college degree. Ebert's lashing out at Armond White over difference of opinion is a good example of both in one instance. I understand the requirements to become a professional critic, but being one means you need to keep yourself grounded on two simple rules:

1) Remain professional in practice, not just in designation.

2) Realize that your opinion is no more right than any other.

Rotten Tomatoes isn't a review site, it is a review aggregate site. They collect individual reviews and display them all, and give a work a rating based on how positive and negative the reviews are.

I'm aware of what Rotten Tomatoes is. What you fail to grasp is that aggregate review sites encourage critics to judge along the same lines to avoid criticism from their peers. Critics have been removed from RT because they went against the norm. That is not criticism, it's a popularity contest.

News Credits: 2 · by **Banjo-Tron** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:59 am

For what it's worth, I've gone from vehemently despising the live action trilogy to just disliking it. I can't deny that there are some good parts about the films. The effects are amazing. They are pretty good fun, for what they are - big, dumb, blockbusters. There's nothing wrong with that per se. The Razzies are just good fun too - so they kind of go hand in hand. Neither should be taken too seriously. Michael Bay may be a tool (IMO) but those movies keep Transformers relevant, and profitable. There's a lot to say for that in these austere times.