Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

'Alexander,' 'Catwoman' Lead Bad Pix Nominations

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 11:06 AM
Original message
'Alexander,' 'Catwoman' Lead Bad Pix Nominations
http://reuters.iwon.com/article/20050125/2005-01-25T131105Z_01_N24371113_RTRIDST_0_ODD-LEISURE-RAZZIES-DC.html

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - This could be the year in which Alexander the Great conquers Catwoman and President Bush wins a prize as worst actor.

Nominations for the 25th annual Razzies, which honor the worst films of the year, were announced on Monday with "Catwoman," the Halle Berry box office bomb, besting "Alexander," Oliver Stone's much maligned tale of the bleached blond conqueror, by seven nominations to six.

In addition, the president made the list for worst actor for his film clip appearances in "Fahrenheit 9/11," a movie he might well consider the worst of the year. Also nominated for their appearances in the politically-charged film about the Iraq war were Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The Razzies are a traditional spoof award made at Oscar time by the non-profit Golden Raspberry Award Foundation. The group's prizes are given out on Feb. 26, the day before the Oscars. Never has one of its films gone on to win an Oscar.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
PaganPreacher Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. So, it looks like....
zero Oscar nominations for F911, but 3 Razzie nominations.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I' m making it my sworn duty to stop this misinformation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaganPreacher Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Not "misinformation," CatWoman. Just information.
In moviemaking, the director is responsible for every frame of film, and every image on each frame.

The "performances" of Bush, Rice, and everyone else were selected, edited, and arranged in the film by Moore. He chose what words, facial expressions, and actions to include in his film.

If Moore had never made F911, the Razzies would not have nominated Moore's "actors" for their awards. Ergo, the 3 Razzie nominations are nominations of F911, and Michael Moore.


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. that logic/generalization/representation/mode of thinking
is so twisted, it rivals Bush's pretzels.

I don't turn the other cheek either.

I confront lunacy head on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaganPreacher Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. As Inigo Montoya once said....
"I don't think that word means what you think it means."



A simple, straightforward statement that disagrees with your position, devoid of fantasy or dangerous pathology, does not constitute "lunacy," nor is it "twisted." It is part of living in the reality based world.

Have you ever seen "Nominated for 13 Academy Awards" on a marquee, Catwoman? The sum total of all Oscar nominations for the actors, crew, technical areas, and the film itself are totaled, and that total is claimed as "belonging" to the film.

If F911 had been nominated for any of the technical Oscars, Moore could rightly claim that the Oscar was "his", even if an employee actually did the work. If one of his "actors" was nominated for a "best supporting actor" Oscar, Moore would have a claim to glory from that nomination.

Same principle applies to the Razzies. Without any convolutions, it is accurate to claim that F911 was "nominated for 5 Razzies."

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Here is the precise text from the Razzie press release
Edited on Tue Jan-25-05 12:46 PM by w4rma
President George W. Bush as himself in FAHRENHEIT 9/11, for which performance he is also nominating as Worst Screen Couple paired with either Condoleeza Rice and/or His Pet Goat. For their appearances in FAHRENHEIT, both Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld got Supporting nominations. And California’s current governor Ah-Nuld Schwarzenegger is also nominated as Worst Supporting Actor for his cameo as “Prince Hapi” in Worst Remake contender AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS. “The Uber-Nator” is also one of the contenders for a Special Commemorative RAZZIE as one of five Worst RAZZIE “Losers” of The First 25 Years – eligibility for which was determined by having amassed the most nominations over the years without ever actually “winning” a statuette. There are also categories dis-honoring The Worst Comedy, Drama and Musical of the First 25 Years. A complete list of nominations is included in this press release.
http://www.razzies.com/asp/directory/25thNoms.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaganPreacher Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Thanks for providing proof of my position, w4rma!
Since the first two sentences specifically state that the "performances" in F911 are the reasons for the nomination, your primary source supports my essential thesis.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tigereye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. not sure what point you are arguing
sounds like CW was saying that the rumor machine is working full throttle. What I read was that Moore deliberately declined an Oscar nomination for 9-11 to give other documentaries a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. That person is so wrapped up in warped logic
it boggles the mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaganPreacher Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. My point:
1. Zero Oscar nominations arising from F911, in any category.
2. Three (also noted as "five" on this page) Razzie nominations arising from F911.

Nothing more than that.

F911 did not receive a single nomination in any category.

Did Michael Moore actually remove F911 from the Oscar process? If so, then he screwed these people: http://imdb.com/title/tt0361596/fullcredits

If Moore truly removed his film from all consideration in the Oscars, then he cheated all of the people who worked for him out of their legitimate share of consideration for an award that is very important in the industry, and may affect their future employment in Hollywood.

He also screwed the studio and distributer out of their fair share of Oscar glory, which translates into dollars for them during home video/DVD distribution. Bad boy, Michael!

Wow, lots of hardworking film industry people who need to take Michael Moore's you-know-what out of their ass.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. ENTERTAINMENT: Michael Moore Will Not Seek a Best Documentary Oscar
Film maker and satirist Michael Moore has decided to pull Fahrenheit 9/11 from being in contention for Oscar glory and instead opted for the small hope that his film will will be shown on TV before the elections, reaching as many people as possible. Oscar rules state that if submitting a documentary it cannot be shown on TV within 9 months of the Oscar ceremony.
http://www.atsnn.com/story/78708.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaganPreacher Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. So, why didn't he submit it as "Best Picture?"
That would have allowed him to make the money he wanted to make on a pre-election TV sale, and still had the potential to make money on an Oscar nomination (putting money in his studio's pocket, too). "Best Picture" and "Best Director" do not have the same constraints as "Best Doc."

Read on, w4rma: "Even if you get a nomination for best picture but have no chance in hell of winning you can reap incredible profits at the box office," said Gitesh Pandya, an analyst with BoxOfficeGuru.com." (source: http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/21/news/fortune500/oscars_payoff/?cnn=yes)

So, where is that "Best Picture" nomination for F911? If Moore really is the best director since Orson Wells, and F911 really is the best film since "Ben Hur," why are there no nominations in "Best Director" and "Best Film" categories?

Where are all of the other nominations, for crew and production? Or are the "little people" who made his film merely specks on his eyeglasses?


Those are speckles, dahling, not liver spots!

The Pagan Preacher
i don't turn the other cheek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. No, FIVE Razzies.
Bush, Bush & Condi, Condi again, Britney, and Rummy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kweerwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. Razzies and Oscar ignored Gibson's "Passion"
Gee, I wonder how that will play out in Red-Land?

No doubt the fundies will claim that "Passion of the Christ" was ignored by the Oscars because Hollywood is a cesspool of Jews, homosexuals and Jewish homosexuals who hate Jesus even more than they hate America.

(There! That saves O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, ad nauseum, from having to say it ... though they probably will anyway.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. Hey I liked Alexander
It was good cheesy fun. Too bad Oliver Stone toned down the gayness. :(

Chimp Co. being nominated? Priceless. Too bad they can't all win for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. To be fair...
...it would have taken some monumental effort to exceed the acting nastiness of George, Condi, and Rummy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. I hated Alexander.
Did anyone else get the impression that the lines were speeches, not really dialogue? Awful writing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fertilizeonarbusto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. writing stank n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Alexander was so awful it was funny...which makes it a lock for
the rassies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. Is White Chicks nominated?
I'd have to say that should rank up there with CW and Alex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC