Home› Movies
Click here to check out Digital Spy's Movies section for the latest news, updates, cast interviews and reviews of your favourite films.

razzies 2016

big brother 9big brother 9 Posts: 18,153
Forum Member
✭✭
in Movies #1
Here is the full list of nominations.

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/razzies-nominations-2016-see-the-complete-list-w161574

50 shades of grey have done well/bad lol.

Adam sandler is once again monopolising the awards.
«1

Comments

  • Sorcha_27Sorcha_27 Posts: 138,810
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #2
    Sylvester Stallone won a golden globe for the film he has been nominated for the razzie :D:o

    Is that the first time that's happened
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,697
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #3
    big brother 9 wrote: »
    Here is the full list of nominations.

    http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/razzies-nominations-2016-see-the-complete-list-w161574

    50 shades of grey have done well/bad lol.

    Adam sandler is once again monopolising the awards.

    Fifty Shades of grey was a divine treat and glorious at arousing erotic sexy feelings! It's to be commended for all the joy it brought!
  • dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,509
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    No Star Wars and Adam Driver :o
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,816
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #5
    sorcha_healy27 wrote: »
    Sylvester Stallone won a golden globe for the film he has been nominated for the razzie :D:o
    That's not quite the case. It's the 'Redeemer', as in reputation, award. The Razzies are acknowledging that Stallone, past stalwart of them, has actually turned it around and proved them wrong.

    Razzies once again going for the easy, popular targets that people will have heard of, rather than short-listing the films that truly were dreadful.
  • Everlong GirlEverlong Girl Posts: 1,666
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    dearmrman wrote: »
    No Star Wars and Adam Driver :o

    Wow, you really don't like that movie do you??
  • Residents FanResidents Fan Posts: 9,204
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    Hildaonpluto wrote: »
    Fifty Shades of grey was a divine treat and glorious at arousing erotic sexy feelings! It's to be commended for all the joy it brought!

    Hello, Mrs. James. Nice to see you on DS. ;-)
  • dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,509
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #8
    Everlong Girl wrote: »
    Wow, you really don't like that movie do you??

    Film for worst sequel...because it was, though it was a very good remake, but that is not what it should have been...it should have been episode VII. I don't hate it, just disappointed at what it was rather than what it should have been.

    Adam Driver because he was awful, no positives on that one.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,697
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #9
    Residents Fan wrote: »
    Hello, Mrs. James. Nice to see you on DS. ;-)

    Are you sure you don't mean Ms Christian Grey?? :confused:;-)
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 23,827
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #10
    gashead wrote: »
    That's not quite the case. It's the 'Redeemer', as in reputation, award. The Razzies are acknowledging that Stallone, past stalwart of them, has actually turned it around and proved them wrong.

    Razzies once again going for the easy, popular targets that people will have heard of, rather than short-listing the films that truly were dreadful.

    I think we've already worked out by now they don't like Adam Sandler very much.

    Bit surprised to see Shyamalan in the redeemer category, reviews for the Visit were mixed at best with plenty of critics hating it as much as most of his recent films.

    Also Elizabeth Banks, why did she need to be "redeemed" in the first place?
  • PunksNotDeadPunksNotDead Posts: 21,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #11
    sorcha_healy27 wrote: »
    Sylvester Stallone won a golden globe for the film he has been nominated for the razzie :D:o

    Is that the first time that's happened

    Sandra Bullock picked up a Razzie for worst actress in the film "All About Steve" the very next day she won the Oscar for best actress in "The Blind Side"
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,816
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #12
    dodrade wrote: »
    I think we've already worked out by now they don't like Adam Sandler very much.
    I think the Adam Sandler thing's become a running joke now, kinda 'It just wouldn't be the Razzies if we didn't nominate him for something'. Pixels isn't great, but it's not terrible IMO, and Sandler wasn't the worst thing in it. (Step forward Peter Dinklage for that honour. Maybe they thought he wasn't well known enough to be worth nominating.) I think if Sandler ever did something GG/ Oscar worthy - and don't bet against it; like Stallone, he can act, he just chooses not to, for some reason - the Razzie committee should make a special award just for him, then disband. :D

    I know what you mean about Shyamalan and Banks. They're pretty tenuous nominations, for reason or another, but I suppose they had to find four people.
    PunksNotDead wrote: »
    Sandra Bullock picked up a Razzie for worst actress in the film "All About Steve" the very next day she won the Oscar for best actress in "The Blind Side"
    It could happen this year if Eddie Redmayne wins a Razzie for Jupiter Ascending and an Oscar for The Danish Girl. I can see both happening, especially the former, as he's by far the highest profile actor nominated.
  • Wizard_of_OzilWizard_of_Ozil Posts: 1,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #13
    A lot of these are easy targets. The idea behind the Razzies is amusing but they always pick on the most predictable targets.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 23,827
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #14
    gashead wrote: »
    It could happen this year if Eddie Redmayne wins a Razzie for Jupiter Ascending and an Oscar for The Danish Girl. I can see both happening, especially the former, as he's by far the highest profile actor nominated.

    I sometimes wonder if Redmayne would have won if Jupiter Ascending had been released before the Theory of Everything as originally intended, it might have had the same effect on his chances that Norbit did for Eddie Murphy.
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,125
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #15
    Wizard_of_Ozil wrote: »
    A lot of these are easy targets. The idea behind the Razzies is amusing but they always pick on the most predictable targets.

    Are we questioning the integrity of the Razzie nomination process? ;-):D

    It's a bit of fun to puncture the inflated egos of those in Hollywood, not to attack less talented people who make poor films.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,326
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #16
    Is there a jumping the shark award they could give to themselves?

    I suppose it was mildly amusing for about ten minutes when it first started, but it really isn't needed any more.
  • Residents FanResidents Fan Posts: 9,204
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #17
    blueisthecolour wrote: »
    Are we questioning the integrity of the Razzie nomination process? ;-):D

    It's a bit of fun to puncture the inflated egos of those in Hollywood, not to attack less talented people who make poor films.


    When the Razzies first started out, they sometimes nominated directors like Stanley Kubrick and William Friedkin for "Worst Director", which would have been highly
    controversial. Now they only nominate directors who have been universally panned,
    which is less divisive but also less interesting.
  • LMLM Posts: 63,477
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #18
    The razzies's decisions over the years are quite odd at times.

    Once upon a time, they did used to nominated really bad films. These days, they go for films that are not really bad but just happen to be classed as bad films because a few people said so.
  • Wizard_of_OzilWizard_of_Ozil Posts: 1,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #19
    blueisthecolour wrote: »
    Are we questioning the integrity of the Razzie nomination process? ;-):D

    It's a bit of fun to puncture the inflated egos of those in Hollywood, not to attack less talented people who make poor films.

    Hm, maybe. Though it's still boring that they go after the usual suspects. Everyone knew Fifty Shades of Grey would be targeted. Dakota Johnson was pretty solid in the film for what it's worth.
  • Residents FanResidents Fan Posts: 9,204
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #20
    Wizard_of_Ozil wrote: »
    Hm, maybe. Though it's still boring that they go after the usual suspects. Everyone knew Fifty Shades of Grey would be targeted. Dakota Johnson was pretty solid in the film for what it's worth.

    Wasn't everybody saying "Dakota's performance was the only good thing about
    50SOG"?
  • Wizard_of_OzilWizard_of_Ozil Posts: 1,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #21
    Residents Fan wrote: »
    Wasn't everybody saying "Dakota's performance was the only good thing about
    50SOG"?

    Yeah, she was the best thing about it but even then I don't think the overall film was bad. I certainly could name 15 or more films that were worse that came out last year. I thought Sam Taylor Johnson did the best job she could with the toxic material she had to work with.
  • silentNatesilentNate Posts: 84,079
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #22
    No nomination for Daisy Ridley?? I'm both amazed and bitterly disappointed!! :o
  • Sorcha_27Sorcha_27 Posts: 138,810
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #23
    silentNate wrote: »
    No nomination for Daisy Ridley?? I'm both amazed and bitterly disappointed!! :o

    Wow I am surprised that you think she deserves a razzie :o
  • firefly_irlfirefly_irl Posts: 4,015
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #24
    Residents Fan wrote: »
    Wasn't everybody saying "Dakota's performance was the only good thing about
    50SOG"?

    Thats not saying much given how awful the film was, maybe she didn't deserve the individual nomination but they should win that worst combo award, they had no chemistry.

    I do think they pick a lot of low hanging fruit sometimes, like Sandler constantly, I don't think Sandler and others like Tyler Perry are looking for Oscars or GGs with their films, I'd prefer if the Razzie's targeted films that clearly are trying to be something special but are awful.
  • LMLM Posts: 63,477
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #25
    Adam Sandler gets a lot of flack but his films are box office successes. Always making twice or triple their budget. He must be doing something right. Otherwise, his films would be flopping and losing money. But they are not.

    He is a profitable box office draw.
  • Residents FanResidents Fan Posts: 9,204
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #26
    little-monster wrote: »
    Adam Sandler gets a lot of flack but his films are box office successes. Always making twice or triple their budget. He must be doing something right. Otherwise, his films would be flopping and losing money. But they are not.

    He is a profitable box office draw.

    Like Michael Bay, Sandler seems to have good insight into what will make a film
    profitable. Whether such films have artistic merit is a whole other issue...
Sign In or Register to comment.