Do you think the amount of Razzie nominations
-
deadpixel128 — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 08:51 AM)
For me, it's more about the quantity of accolades and praise rather than one specific accolade. For example, Citizen Kane has been widely regarded as one o the greatest films of all time, yet has never won an Oscar. So its lack of an Oscar does not mean it is a bad film, since it has been widely praised elsewhere.
The highest award BvS has gotten has been one nomination at the Critics Choice Awards, and the other awards it's been nominated for have either been meaningless (Teens and People Choice) or straight-up insults (Razzies). It's the combination of a lack of accolades, as well as the poor public and critical response, that leads to the conclusion that BvS is a bad movie. It's not just any specific award, but all of them.
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions. -
CichlidAsh — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 09:24 AM)
Oh I don't think that a lack of an Oscar is an indication of a bad film Deadpixel for me that would be the Razzie nominations that would be a indication of that. The lack of Oscar nominations was more of an indication that BvS may not be quite the masterpiece that some of the fans of the film where making it out to be. Even winning an Oscar is not always an indication that the movie it self is quality like if SS wins best hairstyle then it wont indicate its a good film but simply that it had good hairstyling. I also personally don't even like a few of the movies that have won best picture Oscars in the past but maybe it still indicates that maybe on some level this film has some level of quality to it even if I personally don't like it. I am also not trying to indicate that the Oscars or Razzies should be the only indication of quality but simply that they add more validation to peoples claims. We all know that the critics already panned the movie and a lot of people were very disappointed in it.
To make a great film you need three things - the script, the script and the script -Alfred Hitchcock -
deadpixel128 — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 01:35 PM)
I think we're on the same page as far as the principles go, but for me, just pointing to one specific award is kinda foolish. The Oscars, at the end of the day, aren't really any more important than any other awards show. Saying a movie is good only because it won an Oscar isn't a very strong argument. Same goes with saying a movie is bad simply because it won a Razzie. But if a movie has won a large number of awards and has seen widespread acclaim from critics, then it would be safe to say that the film is good. Likewise, if a film has been lambasted by critics in addition to Razzie wins, then it would be safe to assume the film is bad.
I just don't view any given award as more important than any other award.
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions. -
Fluffis — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 01:44 AM)
Citizen Kane never won an Oscar, and Kubrick got nominated for a Razzie for The Shining, somehow.
Those were misunderstood great movies. Citizen Kane was also surrounded by politics - both studio and actual - which affected it adversely. BvS is a well-understood bad movie.
Back then it took longer for people to start analysing movies that were considered bad, than it does now - the logistics were completely different, with writing and dispersion of ideas taking much longer. The focus was on analysing the great ones. Nowadays, it's a quicker process and the critics and audience can get around to analysing the movies that are considered "bad" faster -
much
faster. Meaning it's a quicker process to find the hidden gems among the dross, and to confirm the "bad" to actually be bad.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.