Editing Golden Raspberry Awards (section)

==Criticism==
The Razzies have received criticism, including from news sources such as ''[[IndieWire]]''<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|first=Sam|last=Adams|date=January 5, 2015|website=Criticwire|access-date=October 18, 2020|archive-date=November 23, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201123172015/https://www.indiewire.com/2015/01/why-the-razzies-are-the-worst-awards-ever-125174/amp/|url-status=live}}</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" /> The awards follow a different set of rules<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com" /> than the invitation-only [[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]] does.<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|access-date=January 5, 2015|archive-date=January 6, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150106001352/http://www.oscars.org/about/become-new-member|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Gaughan |first=Liam |date=March 22, 2021 |title=We No Longer Need the Tired Joke Known as the Razzie Awards |work=[[Dallas Observer]] |url=https://www.dallasobserver.com/arts/the-razzies-arent-relevant-anymore-and-theyre-not-fun-either-11996796 |access-date=25 January 2023 |archive-date=January 25, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230125235744/https://www.dallasobserver.com/arts/the-razzies-arent-relevant-anymore-and-theyre-not-fun-either-11996796 |url-status=live }}</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 of notice,<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> and continuing to appeal to celebrities, seemingly for publicity and attention.<ref name="blogs.indiewire.com" />

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'' wrote, however, that "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, the Razzies have 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|access-date=July 30, 2021|archive-date=June 29, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629145820/https://www.gq.com/story/ignore-the-razzies|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2021, Liam Gaughan of the ''[[Dallas Observer]]'' wrote, "It’s easy to find fault in any awards nominations, be it Oscars or Razzies, but the greater issue that the Razzies face is that making fun of bad movies is no longer original. Film criticism, essays and satire all live in abundance on the internet, from both established publications and non-professionals."<ref name=":1" /> Daniel Cook Johnson of ''[[MovieWeb]]'' echoed a similar sentiment, writing, "Wilson and Murphy's insulting event may have been a wonderfully snarky and skewering enterprise back in the '80s when there was much less film criticism and audience reactions to recent movies. But now, there's little reason for such an invalid vehicle, and the retirement option should be recognized before their relevance and shaky reputation are completely gone."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Johnson |first=Daniel Cook |date=November 14, 2022 |title=Is It Time To Retire The Razzie Awards? |work=[[MovieWeb]] |url=https://movieweb.com/is-it-time-to-retire-the-razzie-awards/ |access-date=25 January 2023 |archive-date=January 25, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230125235742/https://movieweb.com/is-it-time-to-retire-the-razzie-awards/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

The Razzies have also seen significant criticism from both within the industry and its own voting body for including underage actors and actresses in their ballots and nominations, with many noting the outcome of their careers and later personal and legal issues. Among those who were nominated or won include [[Aileen Quinn]] (at age 11) for [[Annie (1982 film)|''Annie'']] (winner), [[Gary Coleman]] (at age 14) for ''[[On the Right Track]]'' in 1982, [[Macaulay Culkin]] (at age 14) for ''[[Getting Even with Dad]]'', ''[[The Pagemaster]]'', and [[Richie Rich (film)|''Richie Rich'']] in 1995, [[Jake Lloyd]] (at age 11) for ''[[Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace]]'', [[Jaden Smith]] (age 15) for ''[[After Earth]]'' (winner), and [[Ryan Kiera Armstrong]] (at age 12) for [[Firestarter (2022 film)|''Firestarter'']]. [[Maddie Ziegler]], though 18 years old when nominated, won [[Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress|Worst Supporting Actress]] for [[Music (2021 film)|''Music'']], released in 2021, for a role she played at 14 years old during filming in 2017. After backlash in 2023, the Razzies announced they would no longer nominate individuals under age 18.<ref name="varietyjan2023" />