Isn't it funny that there are more Razzie winners available on BD than Oscar winners

Its because in general, most oscar movies are garbage that is liked only by a few old guys in a room who get to make the picks while the rest of the movies are are the ones seen and liked by the general public. I have about 900 SDs and BDs and am very open minded but I wouldnt waste my time with 90% of the crap on the oscar list youve posted (Departed and Little Miss Sunshine not included). But I do own Crank, the Marine, Lady in the Water, and many other "Bad" movies because they are a lot more fun.

Its a problem of having a bigger catalog ...you get more of everything, including more junk.

The Queen, Dreamgirls, Letters from Iwo Jima (supposedly), and Happy Feet are all coming. I don't know about Pan's Labyrinth. Marie Antoinette was supposed to come out but was cancelled.

An Inconvenient Truth was probably passed on due to it being a documentary, which would not sell very well on HD at this point. We'll have to wait for the market to get bigger for documentaries to be released. Plus, it was Paramount, who has been more cautious (to put it nicely) than any other studio so far.

Unfortunately, some of the other titles were not released, probably due to demographics. We haven't seen any Fox Searchlight titles get announced. FWIW, Little Miss Sunshine had not yet picked up its nominations when the DVD was released.

Was the same with LV, Beta/VHS and DVD.

How many good songs did LP's or CD's with 10 to 12 cuts have? Even the Greatest Hits collection on LP's or CD's by any given artist may have 3 to 5 hits out of 10 to 14 cuts. Marketing & more Marketing. From a consumer point of view, I very much dislike the marketing. If I were in their position, well then.....

LOL! And very true.

Well, first we have to look at what the Oscars give awards for, and what HT enthusiasts (who make up a sizable chunk of the early adopters for high definition) want for their systems.

The Oscars ostensibly give awards to movies that have excellent production quality in one or more categories.

What HT enthusiasts seem to want early are not just enjoyable movies, but showpieces for their HT setup. After all, if your neighbor or friend visits and you want to show off your multi-thousand dollar rig, I would imagine you want a disc that shows off your system in a complimentary way. There's nothing wrong with taking pride in something you've spent a lot of time and money on, and I think the studios are trying to cater to that desire for high quality A/V.

Also bear in mind that, from the viewpoints of the studios, this is probably the best opportunity they've had in a while to make money on these otherwise low-quality films.

I had the impression that studios leave Oscar-nominated films longer in theaters for extended-runs to generate more revenue because of the positive buzz. It's also possible to slap on the dvd cover "X Oscar Nominations" or "Winner - Best Actor/Movie/etc." too.

For truly horrible movies (ie Razzies), I would suspect studios want to release soon after a theater run since they've spent a large amount on advertising and want to try to get the most out of it before it dies a quick death at the retail level.

Overall, both formats will have it's share of good and bad movies. Hate to say this, but I've probably watched more Razzie-type movies that Oscar-nominated/winners over the past 20 years (in theaters, dvds, pay-per-views and cable broadcasts.)

That is true... definitely get more impressed people when you show them some war scenes/explosions over some people talking.

This has been my problem with BD from the beginning. Lots of films, but most are crap that i have no desire to buy.

Well it's entirely subjective, so it's your problem rather than BD's! If anything HD DVD has crap you have no desire to buy, and BD has the same crap, just more of it.

BTW, this is no different to the early days of DVD. The better titles don't come out until there's a user base there

Your kidding right??
its all an opinion, BUT I can only asume with a coment like that you only care about AQ and PQ and not the film its self

list of the last 10 best picture winners-
TITANIC
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE
AMERICAN BEAUTY
GLADIATOR
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
CHICAGO
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MILLION DOLLAR BABY
CRASH
THE DEPARTED

yep your right all junk movies, give me Basic Instinct 2 and Little Man over those any day

I don't know that I totally agree with you on this, but I do know what you're saying.

Most films made by Hollywood are crap. Just the way it is unfortunately...

Interesting comparison. I wonder if the Razzie films will get stickers on their packaging mentioning their "victories". That would be kinda cool.

As for getting the Oscar nominees and winners released, that would make me very happy. I'm 26, not 90, and would much rather get some of these GOOD titles out, than the nonsense that keeps getting released. (I notice some of us have VERY different taste in films.) I would happily buy many more Blu-ray discs than I have, but when I look at the available discs, I wonder why I ever went high def.

I somewhat disagree on the logic that these films should be out already though. The early releases of The Departed and Babel are part of this new trend to get movies out to disc sooner-and-sooner, but many of the nominated movies just came out in theatres this past fall/winter. The March-May release seems about right to me. Plus, the studios get to advertise the films as Academy-award winning (which means a lot to limited-release films) when they do the video ads. The rapid dump-to-video of "Razzie"-quality films isn't something that should really be emulated by good films. Also, I think that if video releases didn't keep getting pushed further and further up, then we likely would have gotten a Blu-ray of Little Miss Sunshine, and perhaps some of the other smaller films that did well last night. Hopefully, the studios will use the Oscar-results to justify a HD release of those films later this year.

Personally, if I was on the BDA's marketing team, I would be trying VERY HARD to get all these titles out, so that they could run a campaign of having all the Oscar winners from this past year available on Blu-ray disc. That would make a very strong argument for Blu-ray's content advantage, and could quickly get a lot of "good movie lovers" (or cinema elitists if you hate our taste in films) to buy into Blu-ray--a group that seems to be left out of the current equation of releasing movies that appeal mainly to PS3 gamers.

Your kidding right??
its all an opinion, BUT I can only asume with a coment like that you only care about AQ and PQ and not the film its self

list of the last 10 best picture winners-
TITANIC
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE
AMERICAN BEAUTY
GLADIATOR
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
CHICAGO
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MILLION DOLLAR BABY
CRASH
THE DEPARTED

yep your right all junk movies, give me Basic Instinct 2 and Little Man over those any day

LOL, pwned.

Actually I only like two movies on that list... LOTR and Gladiator :\\.

There's 3 on that list I'd even consider buying, the rest you can keep. Not saying I'd take your 2 bad examples, but there's a lot out now/coming I'd rather have than most of those. But I definitely see the point, there should be a much better mix of "good" films and popcorn flicks than what we're seeing. I think if they truly believe this is the next step for disc based movies, then they should put everything they behind it. Why beat around the bush when execs are singing the "there is no war, it's just a matter of time" song? Just give us the movies already.

Sounds like you just don't have the attention span to enjoy a long movie. Let me guess, you also hate movies like Lawerence of Arabia, The Godfather, Dances With Wolves, Apocalypse Now Redux, Gandhi, Das Boot, Ben Hur, The Deer Hunter, The Green Mile, JFK.......all excellent films in my opinion.

Why criticize someone else's tastes in movies? Opinions like his are exactly why we're NOT seeing every Oscar winner on HD already.

For that matter, my list is pretty similar. It's not that Best Picture winners are bad movies, but they're not necessarily films you want to own, particularly if you don't like that specific genre.

My list looks like this, for instance:

TITANIC - Maybe.
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE - No.
AMERICAN BEAUTY - Not normally my taste, but I'd buy this just because it is such a great movie.
GLADIATOR - Yes.
A BEAUTIFUL MIND - No.
CHICAGO - Yes.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING - Yes.
MILLION DOLLAR BABY - No way.
CRASH - Maybe.
THE DEPARTED - No.

4 probable buys, 2 perhaps, and 4 definite non-buys. Does that mean I hate the movies I won't buy? No. I think The Departed is a great film. It just means I don't want to own it.

P.S. I like all of the films on your secondary list above except for JFK. But again, of the titles on your list I'm not sure I'd buy any of them except The Green Mile on high definition disc.

What this really boils down to is that the Razzie films happened to have been released earlier in the year than many of the Oscar films. There were also a few Oscar films that were technically released around August/September, but they were in very limited release and had to expand and generate press (unlike the typical wide release that opens in a ton of theaters and tails off quickly).

As for Mr Stroke's Best Picture list, I'd buy all of them except Crash.

Get real please. The only reason you like all those movies you listed is because they're all "classics" and you're supposed to like them for that very reason. Of course you will deny this because in your mind you are fully convinced that these are indeed "great" movies even though you probably haven't seen a significant number of films outside of Hollywood (and Das Boot doesn't count). The Departed is a good example because it was the first time I could truly see the kind of crap that can pass as quality in Hollywood. It was nowhere near as good as Infernal Affairs was and if some no-name director made the exact same movie with other no-name actors it would just be passed off as another derivative crime thriller.

And the Academy Awards are total BS. When was the last time a comedy won best picture? Can you say biased? Here are the prerequisites for winning best picture- it has to be big budget (no indie is EVER going to win); it has to be by a well known director; it has to be a drama, war, or epic; and it has to be at least 2 hours long (because let's face it, in this race quantity does equal quality). The Prestige was unquestionably one of the top 5 movies of 2006 and it didn't even get nominated. That is a travesty. IMO, the Razzies are more reliable.

Yup... Halle Berry won an Oscar... need I say more?

Thanks for a laugh!

lol, too true. I remember last year when Chris Rock was hosting, he went to a local mall and most people had no clue about virtually all the nominated movies. Oscars are mostly the result of internal community politics today IMO, and will only get moreso as time goes on

It makes sense to release razzie films ASAP on disc, cause the longer you wait, the more money you'll lose.

ALl of the oscar winners will be fine with a late release, as their hype will carry them. But bad movies need to release quickly so that the money spent marketing them for theater release may still be useful if people remember a commercial for basic instinct 2 or lady in the water.

so because J6P doesn't know a movie it's a bad movie? The oscar's is not a popularity contest that's what the MTV and all the other teeny awards are for.

It's naive to thing the Oscars are not already a popularity contest. Most oscars involve campaigning with the right people who make the decisions for these self-congratulatory awards. It is not by random chance IMO Halle Berry & Denzel Washington both won in 2002 (and Will Smith got nominated) the same year as the multi-actor Oscar bias campaign. I am not saying Washington is a bad actor (I do think Halle Berry is pretty bad overall), but that specific performance was easily not the best that year. I think the popular excuse nowadays when politics are blatantly obvious is that the winner was 'overdue' for an award.


The random people in a shopping mall mostly gain nothing from who wins or loses and are unaffected by campaigning, they probably are at least a group to take seriously IMO.

A lot of the movies that are nominated for an Oscar are only worth watching once (Titanic, Crash, LOTR). There are movies that do not win because they aren't long or about "gay cowboys eating pudding."

Al Gore, the man that uses 20 times the national average to power ONE of his three homes shoved global warming down our throats for months and won an Oscar. Sacha Cohen should have won Best Actor for Borat but since Borat is a comedy they had to give it to the football player from Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

The Academy Awards is a popularity contest and the Academy's opinion of what constitutes a good film should be taken with a grain of salt, if that.

Nailed it.