Sfdebris.net

The joke awards they give out each year to serve as good natured ribbing have just been released. Anybody want to share some opinions? Mine are below the link.

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/ar ... D=ref_fark

I see a lot of comments on this with the word "bias".
I don't think people know what that means.
This is an opinion piece, awards given in a facetious spirit to mock movies whose quality didn't measure up in the film criticism community, but often times had a disproportionate amount of success.
That is bias toward their own opinion or toward certain film making conventions they felt fell short in the execution of the movie.

If you liked one of these movies, or hated a particular movie that was not chosen (or even nominated) instead of commenting about the award's biases instead use these awards how they are supposed to be used, as conversation starters. They are a joke meant to provoke good natured discussion about what we like and dislike about movies.

They are not "official" or "influential" or part of some conspiracy. If you don't agree that is fine, but don't just rant about "objectivity" like there is some kind of scientific process for measuring the quality of a film, just point to who won, explain why you think that movie was picked, and then explain why you would have picked a different movie. This helps you and others understand your world view. It is supposed to be fun.

Yeah I never understood the idea of an 'objective' review seems oxymoronic really - I want to tell me your opinion on this work of fiction without using your opinions!

The main criticism with the Razzies is that they go off of popular hate, and often votes are cast by people who never even saw the movie in question. I get it--I avoided every single one of these films that were listed, and in casting a vote for an award for a film I've never seen would be just as bad for the Razzies as it is for the Oscars.

That said, I HAVE seen reviews of BvS and Hillary's America, and going off their descriptions alone I am finding it difficult to disagree with their choices. I mean, Hillary's America is outright liar's propaganda and deserves anything heaped on it, but in the case of BvS . . .

Well, let's say BvS and Gods of Egypt were EQUALLY flawed. In this case, even if it might have been more equitable for Gods of Egypt to take some razzies, it still makes more sense for BvS simply because the level of awareness between the films is separated by an order of magnitude. In some cases, measuring by popularity, even negative popularity, DOES make sense. Maybe there ARE objectively more terrible movies this year, but few reached the critical mass that BvS did.

Rasp wrote:Yeah I never understood the idea of an 'objective' review seems oxymoronic really - I want to tell me your opinion on this work of fiction without using your opinions!

If you as a reviewer write for a general audience, should you warn about your biases? If you have a political bias for example?

Agent Vinod wrote:

Rasp wrote:Yeah I never understood the idea of an 'objective' review seems oxymoronic really - I want to tell me your opinion on this work of fiction without using your opinions!

If you as a reviewer write for a general audience, should you warn about your biases? If you have a political bias for example?

No, the readers are going to make that judgement themselves anyway - why bother signposting it? if someone wants to make a political statement let em - I generally don't care so long as the goverment isn't trying to stop them.

Can the Oscars get a Razzie?

Wargriffin wrote:Can the Oscars get a Razzie?

Yes

I only saw "Hacksaw Ridge" and "Arrival". I liked both.

I can't really make too much fun of anything. Gay-Black coming of age films are not aimed at my Cis-White butt. The only movie that I could see as being targeted at me is "Manchester by the Sea" as I have a brother who is the likable of us two, and I can imagine balling my eyes out at that thing.

Rasp wrote:

Agent Vinod wrote:

Rasp wrote:Yeah I never understood the idea of an 'objective' review seems oxymoronic really - I want to tell me your opinion on this work of fiction without using your opinions!

If you as a reviewer write for a general audience, should you warn about your biases? If you have a political bias for example?

No, the readers are going to make that judgement themselves anyway - why bother signposting it? if someone wants to make a political statement let em - I generally don't care so long as the goverment isn't trying to stop them.

What's the guarantee i will know a movie was panned because of the politics of the critic?

Agent Vinod wrote:

Rasp wrote:

Agent Vinod wrote:

Rasp wrote:Yeah I never understood the idea of an 'objective' review seems oxymoronic really - I want to tell me your opinion on this work of fiction without using your opinions!

If you as a reviewer write for a general audience, should you warn about your biases? If you have a political bias for example?

No, the readers are going to make that judgement themselves anyway - why bother signposting it? if someone wants to make a political statement let em - I generally don't care so long as the goverment isn't trying to stop them.

What's the guarantee i will know a movie was panned because of the politics of the critic?

there is absolutely nothing wrong in my mind with there never being one. If you're that curious watch the film yourself and make up your own mind.