| Diff: | Content deleted Content added
|
|
| Line 322: |
Line 322: |
|
|
|
|
|
==Criticism== |
|
==Criticism== |
|
The Razzies have received criticism, including from news sources such as ''[[Indiewire]]''{{Hair space}}<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com">{{cite web|url=https://www.indiewire.com/2015/01/why-the-razzies-are-the-worst-awards-ever-125174/amp/|title=Why the Razzies Are the Worst Awards Ever|author=Sam Adams|date=January 5, 2015|website=Criticwire}}</ref> and ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'',<ref name="telegraph.co.uk">{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10669966/Why-I-hate-the-Razzies.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220111/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10669966/Why-I-hate-the-Razzies.html |archive-date=January 11, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Why I hate the Razzies|date=March 1, 2016|website=Telegraph.co.uk}}{{cbignore}}</ref> for several issues, including that members of the Golden Raspberry Foundation are not required to watch the nominated films,<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com" /> it follows different set of rules<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com" /> which is different from the invitation-only [[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscars.org/about/become-new-member|title=How to Become a Member|website=Oscars.org – Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences|date=July 18, 2014}}</ref> Critics take issue with the Razzies picking "easy targets" and critically panned mainstream films instead of those perceived as less popular but more deserving productions,<ref name=crave>{{cite web|url=http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/942899-easy-targets-razzies-pick-year#LWWkuOBHDvy3xX32.99|title=Which Easy Targets Did The Razzies Pick This Year? - CraveOnline|date=January 13, 2016|access-date=October 31, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170630155454/http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/942899-easy-targets-razzies-pick-year#LWWkuOBHDvy3xX32.99|archive-date=June 30, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> continuing to appeal to celebrities, seemingly for publicity and attention, over other, worthier films and performances.<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com" /> |
|
The Razzies have received criticism, including from news sources such as ''[[Indiewire]]''{{Hair space}}<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com">{{cite web|url=https://www.indiewire.com/2015/01/why-the-razzies-are-the-worst-awards-ever-125174/amp/|title=Why the Razzies Are the Worst Awards Ever|author=Sam Adams|date=January 5, 2015|website=Criticwire}}</ref> and ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'',<ref name="telegraph.co.uk">{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10669966/Why-I-hate-the-Razzies.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220111/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10669966/Why-I-hate-the-Razzies.html |archive-date=January 11, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Why I hate the Razzies|date=March 1, 2016|website=Telegraph.co.uk}}{{cbignore}}</ref> for several issues, including that members of the Golden Raspberry Foundation are not required to watch the nominated films,<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com" /> it follows different set of rules<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com" /> which is different from the invitation-only [[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscars.org/about/become-new-member|title=How to Become a Member|website=Oscars.org – Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences|date=July 18, 2014}}</ref> Critics take issue with the Razzies picking "easy targets" and critically panned mainstream films instead of those perceived as less popular but more deserving productions,<ref name=crave>{{cite web|url=http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/942899-easy-targets-razzies-pick-year#LWWkuOBHDvy3xX32.99|title=Which Easy Targets Did The Razzies Pick This Year? - CraveOnline|date=January 13, 2016|access-date=October 31, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170630155454/http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/942899-easy-targets-razzies-pick-year#LWWkuOBHDvy3xX32.99|archive-date=June 30, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> continuing to appeal to celebrities, seemingly for publicity and attention, over other, worthier films and performances.<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com" /> Well, well well, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Adams of ''[[Indiewire]]'' has said the Razzies are "like hecklers hurling insults at comedians or a concertgoer yelling out 'Whoo!' during a quiet song, they're not-so-secretly crying out to be noticed. The Razzies, properly enough, avoid pouncing on the little guy; they don't trash no-budget indies no one has seen for having bad lighting or terrible sound".<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com" /> Robbie Collin of ''The Daily Telegraph'' has said "the Razzies' ongoing failure to train its sights on anything but the most obvious targets means it grows more tired and redundant by the year".<ref name="telegraph.co.uk" /> [[CraveOnline]]'s William Bibbiani stated that the Razzies follow "a cheap shot of pranksterism", and "with only a handful of exceptions, only seen fit to nominate the most infamous movies of the year, and not necessarily the worst."<ref name=crave /> In 2018, Scott Meslow, writing for ''[[GQ]]'', accused the Razzies of being "pretty lazy, very sexist, and a little racist" in their choices, reiterating criticism that voters were overreliant on films already widely perceived as notorious, and further asserting they disproportionally nominated films directed by and starring [[Tyler Perry]] and films marketed towards women.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gq.com/story/ignore-the-razzies|title=Ignore the Razzies—They're a Total Sham|last=Maslow|first = Scott|website=GQ|date = January 23, 2018|accessdate = July 30, 2021}}</ref> |
|
Sam Adams of ''[[Indiewire]]'' has said the Razzies are "like hecklers hurling insults at comedians or a concertgoer yelling out 'Whoo!' during a quiet song, they're not-so-secretly crying out to be noticed. The Razzies, properly enough, avoid pouncing on the little guy; they don't trash no-budget indies no one has seen for having bad lighting or terrible sound".<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com" /> Robbie Collin of ''The Daily Telegraph'' has said "the Razzies' ongoing failure to train its sights on anything but the most obvious targets means it grows more tired and redundant by the year".<ref name="telegraph.co.uk" /> [[CraveOnline]]'s William Bibbiani stated that the Razzies follow "a cheap shot of pranksterism", and "with only a handful of exceptions, only seen fit to nominate the most infamous movies of the year, and not necessarily the worst."<ref name=crave /> In 2018, Scott Meslow, writing for ''[[GQ]]'', accused the Razzies of being "pretty lazy, very sexist, and a little racist" in their choices, reiterating criticism that voters were overreliant on films already widely perceived as notorious, and further asserting they disproportionally nominated films directed by and starring [[Tyler Perry]] and films marketed towards women.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gq.com/story/ignore-the-razzies|title=Ignore the Razzies—They're a Total Sham|last=Maslow|first = Scott|website=GQ|date = January 23, 2018|accessdate = July 30, 2021}}</ref> |
|
|---|