The 2010 Xixax Awards: NOMINATE!

Started by MacGuffin, January 11, 2010, 03:55:45 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Captain of Industry

Quote from: polkablues on January 18, 2010, 08:49:57 PM
Worst Film is whatever you make of it.  2012 was by far the most fun I had at the theater all year, but I'll still enthusiastically pull the lever on voting it for worst film of the year.  But I would much rather see nominations that spark debate and we can have fun arguing over than ones that we all automatically agree on.

Some selections, like Inglourious Basterds, are argument fodder but couldn't possibly qualify for worst film.  The category, based on its usage here, should be Most Controversial Film or Most Dichotomising or such, but Worst Film nominations for Inglourious just makes the voters The Crankiest or Most Voluble.

pete

"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

polkablues

Quote from: Captain of Industry on January 18, 2010, 11:40:11 PM
Quote from: polkablues on January 18, 2010, 08:49:57 PM
Worst Film is whatever you make of it.  2012 was by far the most fun I had at the theater all year, but I'll still enthusiastically pull the lever on voting it for worst film of the year.  But I would much rather see nominations that spark debate and we can have fun arguing over than ones that we all automatically agree on.

Some selections, like Inglourious Basterds, are argument fodder but couldn't possibly qualify for worst film.  The category, based on its usage here, should be Most Controversial Film or Most Dichotomising or such, but Worst Film nominations for Inglourious just makes the voters The Crankiest or Most Voluble.

I could say the same thing about you and kal nominating Brothers Bloom for worst film, though.  I really liked it, you guys definitely didn't.  Clearly the people who hated Inglourious Basterds REALLY HATED Inglourious Basterds.  It's choosing movies that provoke that sort of passionate reaction that makes a worst film category interesting.
My house, my rules, my coffee

Stefen

Worst film is subjective. I think our tastes are pretty in tune with what's actually bad and we can move onto films that are supposed to be good but really aren't ala Juno and Crash.
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

Gold Trumpet

Inglorious Basterds is worthy of "worst film". It's meaningless to point out that the latest Lindsay Lohan movie is worst because yes, it is, but so what? This isn't the Razzies so we aren't specializing in scumming the bottom of the barrel that Hollywood has to offer. Besides, when it gets that bad, there is no logical differentiation between what is worst than the next movie. There all bad in endless amounts of ways, but the point is that they are purposely bad too. All they are is filler entertainment for a section of the population so annoiting them with "worst" this or that is meaningless because they have zero interest in awards. All their interest is monetary.

Even though awards are meaningless in many ways, you have to keep the critical objective to films that want to be something more. You have to take films in consideration that have the air of wanting an award consideration. Inglorious Basterds fails in every possible way. The apologists may think I should call it the "misfire" of the year instead of worst, but only so many movies can seriously be taken into critical consideration. Hollywood slosh isn't part of it. Of films worthy of critical consideration, I'll definitely shine my light on Inglorious Basterds for "worst".

Captain of Industry

Those are three good reasons for disregarding my assertion.

ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ

Quote from: pete on January 18, 2010, 11:43:16 PM


Fuck yes Departures. 

This is going to be a hard nomination process for me.  I feel bad for you suckers who didn't make it out to see all this awesome shit by the 31st.
"As a matter of fact I only work with the feeling of something magical, something seemingly significant. And to keep it magical I don't want to know the story involved, I just want the hypnotic effect of it somehow seeming significant without knowing why." - Len Lye

Pas

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on January 19, 2010, 12:49:23 AM
Inglorious Basterds is worthy of "worst film". It's meaningless to point out that the latest Lindsay Lohan movie is worst because yes, it is, but so what?

yeah that my point with the lundsay thing. Anyway lets rock the vote, i think we have a shot!

children with angels

I don't want to make too much of this, I just find it interesting...

If that's how you're conceptualizing worst (i.e.: not in fact worst, just overrated), then it's a weird category, or at least a weird name for a category. Presumably when voting for Best Picture you're voting for what you think is best (not just underrated), so why the sudden change in conception of the meaning of these terms for the Worst category?

Of course every evaluation is subjective (even seemingly automatic ones concerning entire genres/types of films like, say, the new Lindsay Lohan). But it seems that when coming to the Worst category the idea isn't even to vote for what you personally, subjectively, believe to be worst. It's odd, that's all. If what you're talking about is the issue of what's overrated, then maybe that's what the category should be called; then you won't have to "shine [your] light on Inglorious Basterds for worst" when you don't actually believe it to be anything of the kind!

I guess the basic assumption this train of thought relies on is something like this:

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on January 19, 2010, 12:49:23 AM
the bottom of the barrel that Hollywood has to offer [...] when it gets that bad, there is no logical differentiation between what is worst than the next movie. There all bad in endless amounts of ways, but the point is that they are purposely bad too. All they are is filler entertainment for a section of the population so annoiting them with "worst" this or that is meaningless

Which I personally think smacks of snobbish, received-knowledge rather than discerning critical judgment, but that's perhaps a different matter.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

Pas

but children, wouldn't it be even more preposterous to vote for a film I haven't seen as worst film because it looks so terrible?

Of all films I have seen in 2009, IB may or may not be the worst. But of all films I've seen that were made in 2009, it is. That is not even a matter of overrated or disapointment to me. The film annoyed me, bored me and I kept hearing people raving about it which annoyed me even more. So it is the worst film of 2009.

children with angels

Quote from: Pas Rap on January 19, 2010, 07:16:51 AM
but children, wouldn't it be even more preposterous to vote for a film I haven't seen as worst film because it looks so terrible?

Yes, it would: the very last thing I'm arguing for is people making value judgments based on assumptions that certain kinds of film will always be bad. That's the kind of thinking that leads to the state of affairs I'm pointing out.

Quote from: Pas Rap on January 19, 2010, 07:16:51 AMOf all films I have seen in 2009, IB may or may not be the worst. But of all films I've seen that were made in 2009, it is.

Okay, well see - that's a very different matter, and not something that had been argued before. If you didn't actually see any films that you consider to be worse last year then of course you should vote for Basterds. I may disagree with you entirely, but that's neither here nor there. Until now, the way people had been arguing suggested that they almost certainly HAD seen worse films than the one they intended to nominate for Worst, but weren't voting for them because they interpreted the category as meaning essentially something like 'overrated'. But if in your opinion Basterds truly is the worst film you saw, then obviously: by all means...!
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

Pas

It sure would be something for it to win best AND worst film!

modage

I'm thinking of it not by actual worst film of the year but just the worst film that I actually saw last year.  That makes Lindsey Lohans latest ineligible but makes room for something like The Brothers Bloom.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Fernando

FYC

Best TV Shows

Breaking Bad


It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia


Weeds



Best Film of the Decade


Gold Trumpet

Quote from: children with angels on January 19, 2010, 06:42:43 AM
Which I personally think smacks of snobbish, received-knowledge rather than discerning critical judgment, but that's perhaps a different matter.

Don't worry, I think the same of your responce. There is nothing productive in attacking movies that have no self interest but to please a certain section of the audience that could care less about any award honor meant to discredit the film. All it does is separate interest because the reviewer handing out the shame and the person enjoying it aren't looking for the same thing. I always got smacked of arrogance when I would go to family members and friends and say so and so film was the worst when they liked it and couldn't care less about the standards that go into my idea of best and worst. In fact, it was grounds for more resentment toward the critical community. I've come to accept part of their plea because I think intention and ambition should matter for something. The people who love Inglourious Basterds want to see it as the best.