2005 Best/Worst Poll at IMDb.com

Well, I just checked and Ian McDiarmid is the last one listed for Best Supporting Actor! Mabey if well all vote (or vote again) we can keep him on there! Yay!

 

I'd agree with you general dooku, but I'm starting to think that it's more of an insult to be on that list than an honor.

 

Imdb is really only good for the following:

Box Office and business
Finding out which actors are dead and which are not
Cast Lists
and finally...seeing the failed acting career and horrible picture of yours truly

 

The fact that Doom rates lower that ROTS in the worst FX list should tell you plenty about the demographic of IMDb. Just a bunch of basher losers.

 

"What kind of nonsense is this?!"

Seriously... Hayden was amazing in every way in ROTS!
Nobody could have done it better!

 

Right...it's what Kevin Smith called the he-man Lucas haters club, or those who suffer from what I call Lucas Derangement Syndrome stuffing these polls and from what I understand IMDB is full of them.

--MissPadme

 

You know, some days, it's not easy being a SW fan! I bought (as I have been doing for about 12 years now) the Entertainment Weekly year-end issue, and man, snarkity-snark-snark-snark.

I mean, you guys, it is SO uncoolTM to like Star Wars! It represents everything that's wrong with H'wood! Hayden sucks! George Lucas can't write! But Yoda is kinda cool! And Chewbacca too!

I'm being sarcastic, of course. I think that Gl would have let, I dunno, some arty-fartsy "great" screenwriter do the script, cast Jake friggin' Gyllenhaal (he's, like, the best thing since sliced bread!) as Anakin and shot entirely in exteriors (blue/green screen is so the death of movie-making!) and they still would have bashed it. Why? Beats me.

 

What a killer band.

 

You know what these polls tell us is that there are more internet type people that really hate SW than dedicated fans.

Some of the votes go against all reason.

How can ROTS be in the voting for worst movie of 2005 when it made the most money. Broke over 6 records. Clearly millions of movie goers enjoyed this movie.

Yet movies like "Doom" and "The Cave" which are way down the list making $25 million and $15 million aren't even on the list. You could add up the 10 worst movies of 2005 and they wouldn't even come close to the ticket sales of ROTS.

Anybody with half a brain cell can go look at the 2005 ticket sales at www.boxcofficemojo.com look at how 150 films are ranked, and come up with a better list than IMBD

How about these movies in no particular order

Electra
The Cave
Doom
Aeon Flux
Lord of War
The Honeymooners
Dark Water
The Fog
House of Wax
Stealth

Now that is a more realistic list you don't take the top grossing movies of 2005 and put them in worst movie catagory, you pick the bottom grossing movies. These guys are brain dead.

 

How can ROTS be in the voting for worst movie of 2005 when it made the most money. Broke over 6 records. Clearly millions of movie goers enjoyed this movie.

Common sense would suggest that a film which raked in that sort of money would be liked by at least a portion of its audience. While I don?t think that box-office success is necessarily indicative of the underlying worth of a picture, it does at the very least speak to the popularity of a particular film at a given time ? in other words, someone must have enjoyed it.

Yet movies like "Doom" and "The Cave" which are way down the list making $25 million and $15 million aren't even on the list. You could add up the 10 worst movies of 2005 and they wouldn't even come close to the ticket sales of ROTS.

I am going to reiterate what I mentioned in the previous paragraph, which is that a picture?s financial haul does not equate to its artistic merit; many good or even great films have fared poorly at the box-office, and yet have found audiences and endured on home video/DVD. Frank Darabont?s "The Shawshank Redemption" is one of the most infamous examples of this trait; a movie?s box-office failure cannot always be determined by focus groups, statistics, charts, etc. ? sometimes, a picture fizzles for reasons that defy any sort of traditional logic.

As for the two films you mentioned, I avoided "The Cave," but I have seen "Doom," which is unequivocally one of the worst pictures of the year. Andrzej Bartkowiak, who directed the picture (and is also a respected cinematographer) has made some bad movies in the past ("Cradle 2 The Grave" ? which was, astonishingly, based on Fritz Lang?s "M" ? "Romeo Must Die," and "Exit Wounds") but this languid video-game adaptation is perhaps his single worst achievement as a filmmaker. And yes, I recognize that given Barkowiak?s filmography, that is quite a statement to make.

Anybody with half a brain cell can go look at the 2005 ticket sales at www.boxcofficemojo.com look at how 150 films are ranked, and come up with a better list than IMBD

Forget about the financial return of the motion pictures in question, that IMDB poll surpasses absurdity on its own merit. Let?s look at it more closely:

Best Actor: (in the categories I address below, I will not explore all of the nominees, just those that I find to be mystifying)

Daniel Radcliffe, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" ? GOF is a terrific entertainment, and Radcliffe is very good as the title characters, but honestly, is this performance worthy of a "Best Actor" citation?

Johnny Depp, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" ? Depp is of course a wonderful and gifted actor, but his performance in Burton?s film was completely miscalculated; I admired Depp?s willingness to reinvent the character of Willy Wonka, but the absence of a certain humanity in his characterization prevented the movie from being emotionally engaging.

Christian Bale, "Batman Begins" ? I thought that "Batman Begins" was one of the best pictures of last year, with Bale giving the deepest and most resonant performance in any of the "Batman" pictures thus far ? he penetrated the psychology of his tortured protagonist, and yet...once again, this is not exactly the sort of role that warrants award consideration.

Nathan Fillion, "Serenity" ? Fillion was wonderful as Mal in Joss Whedon?s "Serenity," but his inclusion as one of the finalists for Best Actor is utterly perplexing (see above).

Best Actress:

Emma Watson, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" ? Yes, I enjoyed the film, and yes, I enjoyed Watson?s engaging performance, but really, Best Actress? I don?t think so.

Summer Glau, "Serenity" ? I liked "Serenity," and Glau certainly has screen presence, but to consider her among the candidates for Best Actress is beyond ridiculous.

Angelina Jolie, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" ? Once again, I liked the picture, as well as Jolie?s performance, but this isn?t what you might traditionally describe as "great acting."

Best Supporting Actor:

Rupert Grin

 

I love you Tyranus_the_Hutt. And before RotS is executed in the arena, I wanted you to know that. ~sniff!

 

Dare I say it that IMDb plays host to some of the most obnoxious, incendiary and bigoted people on the planet?

I think many of these votes have been cast purely for effect - and not as honest endorsement/criticism of a given film or aspect thereof. Many more were perhaps cast with sincerity, however, and insofar as opinions are inherently subjective, may I say that theirs suck!

IMDb's majority voice: anti-gay, anti-Lucas, anti-intellectualism and anti-thinking in general. Why am I not surprised?

 

What's encouraging, though, is that in general, there has been less of this kind of talk after REVENGE OF THE SITH than there had been after THE PHANTOM MENACE and ATTACK OF THE CLONES. Ironically, there'd been alot of "preemptive" ROTS bashing before the movie came out, but since it's been released and people have actually watched it, they've been surprised by how much they liked it. Slowly, but surely, I think a backlash against STAR WARS-backlash has begun to develop, restoring the movies to their proper place in cinema history.

 

ROTS still gets no respect. Why bother and vote on those sites when you know that the final outcome.

 

Well since they won the People choice award this IMBd poll can...... well you know what.

 

Actually, I agree. The reception to ROTS has definatly been better and now the movies are finished and Star Wars fades into the back-ground, I feel it will begin to come back in vogue once again. Its not going to happen overnight, and could take several years, but you can already begin to sense that Star Wars Bashing is beginning to become rather old fashioned and dare I say it, very 90's.

 

Star Wars bashing & gushing will decrease because after a few years of no movies, SW will be off the radar, like it was in the mid 80's/early 90's.

I remember in 1986, SW was only talked about by the fans anymore, and that is the way most movie series go. Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Back to the Future, and even SW have their time to shine, and then when its over, its over.

The difference that makes the OT so mind boggling is it is the only movie series that still has pop culture references even today. There are so many examples from the OT that you see in movies, TV series that were popular during the OT run.

The PT, like any movie trilogy will fade for just the fans only. I do believe the bashing will subside cause people will move on, but I think most fans have made their decision toward the prequels, and that will not change over time. Either you love em or hate, and I have seen both sides stay the same for 6 years. The true test will be 20 years from now if the Prequels stand the test of time like the OT did. The OT fans, whether they bash the prequels or not, still truly love the original 3 films. Only time will tell if the PT passes the test of time, see you guys in 2026!

 

It's clearly retarded to say ROTS is the worse at everything in that poll .. as much as some of its bashers hate it, it wasnt the worse in 2005.. i think a % of those negatives votes are some anti-lucas people voicing their dislike for him and not so much to do with the movie itself..

To ME, ROTS was awesome, and i'm going to enjoy the 2 awards it got last night, cause the people have spoken

SW forever!

 

I think the PT is more popular than the OT. When you talk to OT fans these days. It seems like they only care about ESB.

 

The OT may have a lot of pop culture, but part of that reason is attributed to the constant selling of the movies. In 1993, we had the Collective Definitive 9 pounds laserdisc widescreen set, followed in 1995, by the last time original version THX remastered set, then 1997 we had the Special Editions, the only official version according to GL, in 2004 we have a new dvd set, and we still have the so called Ultimate Edition standing by. Most of the early EU stuff keeps referencing OT lines, even through the prequels. So its not like the OT just was washed away. This will be something interesting to see in the future to see if the preqeuls will have that kind of nostaglia.

 

Nah, even though alot of oldtimers love ESB, I myself still think the original is the best, most older fans will always say the true classics are the original & ESB, and ROTJ has its great moments, but is inferior to those two. Nothing beats the original for me.

 

The OT is unique to any movie series in the history of movies for some reason. There are so many pop culture references that have stuck through the years.

President Reagan called his missile defense system in the early 80's Star Wars. How about that for the ultimate compliment!

President Reagan also called The Soviet Union the Evil Empire, and always said the force is with us, cause he knew the public knew what he was talking about.

Everyone would howl like Chewbacca and know exactly what you mean

You could put two donuts over your ears and ask what character am I?

The death star has been used countless times, including Austin Powers 2 by Dr. Evil

Yoda is always referred to on TV shows as anyone who is a great teacher.

They made a whole movie spoofing the OT named Spaceballs

Pop Culture is things that the masses know, not just the fans, any average Joe on the street will know Princess Leia's Hairdoo in ANH.

For Some reason, those characters and references just seaped into pop culture, and nothing in the PT will ever come close to it. It isn't a knock on the PT, or any movie series, but the OT was able to capture something from the public that is unexplainable.

10 years from now the masses aren't going to remember QuiGon or Darth Maul, or Mace Windu, only Star Wars fans will, because that is usually how it works. The only reference that will come with the PT is Jar Jar, and they will always use him as the symbol for the PT, whether it is fair or not. Just last week on VH1, a comic talked about how much he liked ROTS and said, "It was really good, I almost forgive Lucas for Jar Jar." That is pop culture, whenever the comedian knows you're going to get the joke.

Oh yeah say to someone, "I am your father," And they will know exactly what you mean.

 

I know the OT has influence. But the PT does too. Look at Maul. People know who Darth Maul is even if they haven't seen the movie. Show people a pic of Ewan as Obi Wan and people will know which character he is even though they haven't seen the films. Clone Troopers are also pretty recognized by non movie goers.

 

Well, I'm an oldtimer (28) and I've got to say I value the PT just as much as the OT. Infact, I would go so far as to say that I thought ROTS was pretty much the best of the Saga, or certainly right up there with ESB. I found "Sith" such a profound and moving experiance, honestly, it was everything I could have wished for and more. I'll look back on this last 10 years since Lucas first announced he was making the PT, with such fondness and happiness. Its been great - Especially hanging out here everyday and getting my "Star Wars Fix." Now its all over, I'm left with a Saga that I love - that is a 6 PART SAGA - And a lot of great memories.