Talk:The Golden Turkey Awards

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Film: Awards / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Film awards task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Untitled

I moved the article from "Golden Turkey Award" to The Golden Turkey Awards, since the former only exists inside the latter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other films

I have removed the following text because it pertains to the book Son of Golden Turkey Awards and not the subject of this article. I don't have this second book so I don't feel qualified to start an article, but if someone wants to take it on, these can be good starting points.

Kwaheri (1965): A jungle pseudo-documentary that won "The Most Idiotic Ad Line in Hollywood History" in the Golden Turkey sequel, Son of Golden Turkey Awards; the ad lines featured such imaginative phrases as "Dancing called Go-Go!"

Such Good Friends (1971): In the second half of his life, American director Otto Preminger experienced his eternal nadir that would last through the 1970s, directing such films as Hurry Sundown, Skidoo, Rosebud, etc. This is a drama about Julie Messenger (played by Dyan Cannon) trying to perfect her life. She fantasizes a bestselling author, played by Burgess Meredith, grabbing her breasts and asking, "How about a little nookie?" Meredith won for "The Most Embarassing Nude Scene in Hollywood History" in Son of Golden Turkey Awards.

- 23skidoo 18:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete text

I really want to delete/change the below bit of text.

Since the publication of Medved's book, it has been criticized by film scholars and film buffs who argue that Medved's opinion is biased and unfair.

Though as wikipedia editors we are always mindful of NPOV, it is not a consideration in entertainment books, which is what The Golden Turkey Awards is. I am not saying I've have read every scholarly article about the cinema, but having studied cinema at university I have certainly read a great number of books and articles on the subject, and I don't really recall The Golden Turkey Awards ever being mentioned. The Golden Turkey Awards is clearly presented as a humour book with no pretense of being scholarly, and is transparently based on the opinion of the author. I don't really believe we have to point out that scholars have realised it is a subjective humour book when clearly any teenager glimpsing the book will instantly realise this too. Asa01 22:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a humor book, but most of the movies listed are ones that are generally considered to be bad, and likewise the performances. So in some respects the Medveds are just backing up what critics like Roger Ebert, Rex Reed and Leonard Maltin to name a few had already announced. I agree that the statement in question - if it cannot be sourced - should be deleted as a good example of "weasel wording". Which film scholars? Which film buffs? I can't image anyone really thinking Medved's opinion of "Rat Pfink a Boo-Boo" is unfair! ;-) 23skidoo 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Which "scholars"? This and The Fifty Worst Films of All Time aren't exactly academic works, but most entries aren't too controvercial and do seem heavily backed-up by bad reviews and sometimes negative comments by the film's participants themselves, along with reports on the lacklustre business of the films. The few exceptions to this - critical and popular classics like Ivan the Terrible - feature the author's detailed explanation and attempts at a thoughtful justification for the inclusion. Personally I think The Hollywood Hall of Shame is their most interesting book because it relies less on personal opinion and lets the facts of the troubled productions described to speak for themselves. BTW: who thinks the gay porn film Him is the fake entry in The Golden Turkey Awards? Asa01 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus Movie

Since the contest is long over and the answer was never revealed, should the bogus movie be revealed here? Did anyone ever get the correct answer? CFLeon 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to know the answer but I can't for the life of me remember which one it was. A little voice tells me it might be "The Erotic Adventures of Pinocchio" but I can't be certain. I'm pretty confident it isn't one of the award "winners". If anyone can find the answer I agree it should be indicated. (I guess these days you just need to run the titles through IMDb.) 23skidoo 23:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believed it to be Him - a gay pornographic film purportedly containing such scenes as a priest masturbating in the confessional, and a poster depicting a Jesus-like figure with a glint in the eye that was resamblant of a crucifix. The Golden Turkey Awards description just seemed too outrageous for the film to have been forgotten. I was also suspicious because the listing for this film was brief, it wasn't a winner, there were no pictures, and the crew list seemed very vague listing only (from memory) producer Ed D. Louie. (I tried making anagrams out of that name but couldn't come up with anything.) I recall a couple of years ago googling for corroboration on this film, finding only matches on www.snopes2.com [1] (and though it is skeptical, Snopes does not explicitly confirm that the film was a hoax), and another site which featured a tiny scanned pic of a poster resemblant of the Him poster described by the Golden Turkey Awards entry. That site implied that the existence of this poster proved that the film existed. Nothing about it on www.imdb.com though. There is an imdb entry for The Erotic Adventures of Pinocchio (1971) [2] and it apparently features such well-known performers as Uschi Digard. Asa01 03:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... if this is true, then they DID give "Him" an award because it's listed as the winner of the "Most Unerotic Concept in Pornography" category ... 23skidoo 04:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award or not, that was just my theory/reasoning... the fact that the film was given an award means nothing except how forgetful I can be. I have since done extra searches for Him and "Ed D Louie" and have still found nothing. Not even reports of reports of the film... Asa01 09:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read that it was "Dog of Norway". The giveaway is that the same dog is in the photo of the authors (i.e. it's their pet dog). [3] Rocksong 09:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dog of Norway" was our guess, also- for pretty much the same reason. I'd be interested on where you read about it, though. I saw "The Erotic Adventures of Pinocchio" years ago in an animation book (with a still or two) from the '80s, I think. 64.122.198.80 21:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I read about it? This blog entry: [4]. Follow the links from there for more discussion.

Since we seem to have a few sources suggesting Dog of Norway, I will go ahead and add it to the article. Thanks! 23skidoo 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posted at http://www.ntgateway.com/weblog/2005/05/gay-jesus-film-hoax.html a link to http://cinematreasures.org/theater/6376/ , which seems to provide reasonable evidence that Him was a real film. Rocksong 02:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Burton?

You have to be kidding...that has to be vandalism.61.69.12.13 03:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - it's legit. He's cited for his work in films such as Cleopatra, Exorcist II: The Heretic, and The Sandpiper. See P. 296. 23skidoo 17:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of Junk. Burton is a great actor.Thefourdotelipsis 08:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but there's no denying he made some lousy movies. Exorcist II? Remember also that this book was published in the late 70s-early 80s, when Burton was still alive. Like many actors he has come to be more appreciated after his death than he was during his lifetime. 23skidoo 20:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In The Hollywood Hall of Shame the same author spends plenty of time critiquing Burton's (and Elizabeth Taylor's) career slump, ill-advised career choices, and purportedly self-indulgent, lazy habits and 'star'-like behaviour. Whether we like it or not, the author delights in sending-up Burton and his films. Asa01 23:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Turkey Awards Nominees

Shouldn't there be a list of nominees? I've transcribed a bit on Psychorama myself, otherwise known as "The Precon Process". I've got more on these other technical "advances" written up on my MySpace blog. DrWho42 01:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be pushing things beyond fair use as in theory it would mean copying most remaining "new information" from the book. Besides this was never a formal awards. 23skidoo 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic and Humorous awards Category

Every other award in the category is an ongoing award. While notable as a book, it's a one shot, not an ongoing project. Removing it from the category because it really doesn't belong there.Horrorshowj 05:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worst Romantic Dialog

"Worst Line of Romantic Dialogue: an exchange between Gary Cooper and Madeleine Carroll in Northwest Mounted Police"

Let's be honest. This is because the book was written long before Attack of the Clones.17.224.21.32 (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fictional?

The Golden Turkey Awards are no more or less "fictional" than any other awards. Any person, persons, or group is free to give awards as s/he, they, or it sees fit. There is no "official" agency anywhere certifying the "validity" of any award. I have therefore removed "fictional" from the article. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]