Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 3
This is an archive of past discussions about List of films considered the worst. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The Star Wars Holiday Special
Shouldn't The Star Wars Holiday Special be mentioned somewhere? I know it was only on TV, but it has all the original actors and actresses and is part of the Star Wars canon. I mean, that was a pretty bad movie to say the least. Masterhatch (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was really more of a special similar to one of the Charlie Brown shows, but it is INSANELY bad. I mean, Life Day? Jefferson Starship? WTF? 99.0.102.214 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (Chronus Valtiel [talkative mood, today....])
Anyone remember this masterpiece? Why isn't it on the list? 128.104.48.196 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was just wondering that myself. I remember it being the go-to reference in the 80s. Seelie (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"Ishtar" was noted at the time more for Budget Excesses than for total "Badness-Of-Concept" or execution. Pretty good crew & cast. I thought it had some scenes that were pretty funny, & the Faux musical numbers that the two "Musical Artists" (Played by Warren Beatty & Dustin Hoffman) came up with were a hoot. Basically a "2 Coye -out- of- the -goldfish- bowl" story, it was at LEAST as entertaining as any of those dreary Tim Conway- Don Knotts disney comedies that were popular at around the same time. Acting friends of mine used to quote the fake song lyrics from the film, & when I finally saw it, I was surprised at how "Not-That-Bad" it really was. But it went horrendously over budget- almost wrecked Elain Mays career, & hurt the studio. So- a Box office bomb? Yes. Worst ever made? Hardly. Only truly squirm inducing, gritted teeth baring, wince-making artifacts like Robot Monster deserve that inverted accolade. I'm just sayin' ...
71.6.81.62 (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC) mbd
- Vincent Canby ranked it as one of the best films of the year when it came out. Quentin Tarantino praised the film during a recent film festival screening. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC))
Rotten Tomatoes?
This does seem to be very biased towards ONE WEBSITE out of all the other critic websites. It seems to be, quite clearly, a very bad attempt at a Rotten Tomatoes advert. Koshoes (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes isn't review website, it's review collection website. L-Zwei (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt that it's intended to be an advert, but it's a convenient resource, so it might be a little lazy to rely on it so much. It's a good indication of public opinion of the films, because it averages the ratings of a lot of moviegoers. GuySperanza (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Stop! Or my mom will shoot" and "Batman and Robin"
How would these fit on the list? I'd agree the three other batman films of said series are better, but that doesn't make the fourth bad. Also, Stop or my mom will shoot? What's it doing on there? It's awesome and one of the few of his movies I can actually appreciate. 84.31.80.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC).
Never seen Stop!, etc., but George Clooney was wearing a suit with nipples.
Detailed nipples.
If that doesn't make a movie bad, then I don't know what does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.102.214 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Exorcist 2
This is worthy of mentioning in the "Prequels and Sequels" section. Bad reviews all round, and a terrible story line to go on top of it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.218.13 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
IMDb Bottom 10
The article currently has this listing from IMDb...
Rank | Film | Year | IMDb Rating |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Disaster Movie | 2008 | 1.5 |
2 | The Starfighters | 1964 | 1.5 |
3 | Fat Slags | 2004 | 1.5 |
4 | Ben & Arthur | 2002 | 1.6 |
5 | Zombie Nation | 2004 | 1.6 |
6 | Identity Crisis | 1989 | 1.6 |
7 | Who's Your Caddy? | 2007 | 1.6 |
8 | Pledge This! | 2006 | 1.6 |
9 | Troppo belli | 2005 | 1.6 |
10 | The Maize: The Movie | 2007 | 1.7 |
This is apparently as of January 21, 2009.
As of today, February 24, 2009, this list would appear like this:
- 1 Zaat (1975)
2 The Starfighters (1964)
3 Night Train to Mundo Fine (1966)
4 Daniel - Der Zauberer (2004)
5 The Skydivers (1963)
6 SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (2004)
7 Monster A Go-Go (1965)
8 Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)
9 Ape (1976)
10 The Hellcats (1967)
Barely over a month later and only one common film between the two lists.
So I put the question to the Wikipedians: does an inherently (and rapidly) moving target such as this really lend itself to inclusion in an encyclopedic article of this sort? 76.197.129.91 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Notable for negative reception?
Why don't we move this article back to List of films notable for negative reception? If a bunch of factors can effect how successful a movie is, it would be better to pass that judgment rather than look for a source that exactly uses the term "worst movie ever"? --ViperSnake151 23:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. That would be a good idea, as a list of films considered "the worst" makes it seem as if the writer of the article is expressing an opinion. Refering to films as "notable for negative reception", however, is more actual fact and means the article is written from a neutral point of view. Jprulestheworld (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, it would improve the article to a great extent; there would be, as noted, much less bias and the movies in the article would have a reason for being there even if they fared better in certain places. Changing it to that, however, would make it too malleable, as any movie that fits into the category of having received specially bad reviews from any particular demographic would be considered for the article. Still, I agree it would be a much better name but, either way, the article needs heavy editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.241.209 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Sequel Section
As far as I know, the Jonas Brothers 3D concert movie was not a sequel to anything, and may be under the wrong section. Peabody80 (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
TVTropes has something to say on this topic...
So Bad, it's Good So Bad, it's Horrible
These may be worth reading, if not mentioning in-article. ~ Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 03:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I Know Who Killed Me
Why is I Know Who Killed Me in the crossover section? Lindsay crossed over from acting to music, not the other way around, so it really doesn't make sense. A better choice would be Glitter. The Glitter article has a link to here and is mentioned to be considered one of the worst movies ever. Anyone agree? --Sylfi (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Just added Glitter even before stepping into this section. - Areaseven (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Godzilla (1998)
Anyone would like to second my nomination of Godzilla? I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.27.11 (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
No
Not even the worst disaster movie set in New York featuring a lizard -- The Muppets Take Manhattan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Major cleanup
While I love reading and laughing about bad films as much as the next bloke, this is not the "List of very very bad films", nor of ridicolous, widely panned, Razzie-nominated, so-bad-it's-good ones. There are thousands of them. This is a list of films considered the worst by some authoritative source (critic, book, reliable website). Not just bad, or very bad, or very very very very bad, not just films featuring rubber monsters, visible special effects, laughable acting, caustic reviews and the like, but the worst, or at the very very least the worst in their genre. Goochelaar (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good to me; this list does need a major rationalisation every so often so thanks for doing it. Mark Grant (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I think "From Justin to Kelly" should be at least mentioned here. Fits the bad crossover section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.139.221 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Highlander II
Really...isn't that the canonical example of an awful sequel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. 12.49.122.178 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) (Chronus Valtiel)
- Exorcist 2: The Heretic. Your move. Dkendr (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Batman and Robin
I'm going to have to challenge Batman and Robin's inclusion on this list for several reasons:
- The citation for its appearance on the list is a men's general interest magazine without either any focus on films nor a professional critic on staff (plus the citation is a broken link). Researching what was written in this article reveals the list to not be objective, comprehensive, or formal, wasn't based on any popular vote, and the content of the list itself is geared towards films interesting to write about over quality, most likely failing it as a reliable source.
- The top critics feature on Rotten Tomatos reveal a 20% approval rating and an average score of 4.0, with most of said reviews pretty far from calling it the "worst" even for the year 1997, much less "of all time". The content of most citable reviews suggested ambivalence.
- While the film was nominated for 11 Razzies, it only won one for what could be considered a throwaway category (worst supporting actress). The film was also nominated for the Saturn Award for Best Fantasy Film as well as Make Up and Costumes, won two Blockbuster Entertainment Awards out of four nominations, and won a Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Award out of three nominations. The latter two involved direct public voting and one of these awards was even in direct contention with the Razzie win.
- It made over 100 million dollars domestic for a total of 238 million dollars worldwide, which is pretty firmly in the "success" category regardless of its large budget. While not as large a success as hoped and the least successful Batman film, it was still considered a success. Both this point and the previous one fail this film as per the guidelines listed in Talk:Films considered the worst ever/Removed films.
While no doubt a bad film, it seems to be pretty far from being considered the worst by any citably large margin of reliable sources and has evidence to the contrary. If there's no objection within a couple days, I'm going to remove it. 140.146.210.18 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Recently, somebody copied and pasted the old text back without addressing the issues and tacked this on the end (as is):
- Michael J. Nelson, in Mike Nelson's Movie Megacheese, says "Batman & Robin is not the worst movie ever. No, indeed. It's the worst thing ever. Yes, it's the single worst thing that we as human beings have ever produced in recorded history."
Would this be considered a reputable source? Michael J. Nelson is a comedian and script writer, not a film critic and the book is mostly comedy rather than serious film analysis. Even then, I can't find any other serious source that calls it one of the worst films. 68.164.1.177 (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Film critics are professionals. Professionals who take their work seriously don't call it "Megacheese". He's no source. GuySperanza (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Delta Farce
Quoted from from the Reception page:
"[Delta Farce] received an overwhelmingly negative response from critics, and currently holds an abysmal 3% rating on review website Rotten Tomatoes."
There are better movies on this page than Delta Farce. 99.0.102.214 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC) (Chronus Valtiel)
What about Titanic, The Legend Goes On... (NOT THE JAMES CAMERON 1997 MASTERPEICE)
It's an animated musical about the titanic crashing that has a rapping dog, and supports mexican sterotypes (by using mexican mice) that rips off : Cinderella, and The 1997 titanic movie, and is extremely historically inaccurate. (it ends with the phrase "they lived happily ever after". How's that for the one of the worst movies? The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, wow. Saw the page for it, and you're absolutely right in my opinion. That kind of reminds me of that one mock Disney trailer on Saturday Night Live, where the Titanic was personified (a la The Brave Little Toaster) and the iceberg was voiced by Whoopi Goldberg. What next? The Adventures of Charlie and the Hindendburg? 99.0.102.214 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (Chronus Valtiel [I refuse to log on XP])
Sequels
Not as good as the orginals:
- Ghostbusters II {1989}
- received only a 52% rating from Rotten Tomatoes-in comparison to the original Ghostbusters 93% rating from Rotten Tomatoes
- Blues Brothers 2000 {2000}
- received only a 45% rating from Rotten Tomatoes-in comparison to the original Blues Brothers 77% rating from Rotten Tomatoes
- Highlander 2 (1991)
- No list of bad sequels (or bad movies) is complete without this gem, which currently holds a 0% (0/21) at Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 66% for the original.Prebys (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- But worst ever? No. This isn't a list of movies that are just bad. Your examples are just bad movies. Nobody compares a movie to Highlander 2 when they want to describe it as a piece of garbage. Dkendr (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Razzie nominations
- Tarzan, the Ape Man (1981 film)
- nominated for 6 Razzies and won 1.
- Bolero (1984 film)
- nominated for 9 Razzies and won 6.
- 'Ghosts Can't Do It {1990}: nominated for 9 Razzies and won 4.
- 'The Adventures of Ford Fairlane {1990} : nominated for 6 Razzies and won 3.
- The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle {2000}
- nominated for 1 Razzie
The Love Guru (nominated for 7 and winning 3) is widely considered to be one of the worst films in recent years, yet is missing from the list. -- 134.225.165.163 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- TLG was just a vanity project that flopped. I don't think it was ever made with any expectation that it was going to be any good. That makes it a very expensive B-movie, and as B-movies go, it wasn't that bad. If you want to talk about SNL vanity projects that died painful deaths, start with It's Pat, Stuart Saves His Family and Night at the Roxbury, keep digging till you hit Coneheads and stop when you arrive at Superstar. Dkendr (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Nostalgia Critic
I don't believe The Nostalgia Critic is really worth citing in any of the entries. He's not a professional reviewer by any extent and his series is mostly based around extreme exaggeration. His videos don't even show up on Rotten Tomatos. Contributions/68.164.1.231 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Independence Day
Perhaps there should also be an "overhyped" category. Independence Day, and for that matter anything that directors Emmerich and Devlin touch, was a big dumb movie that never delivered. Full of horrible dialogue, ethnic stereotypes, plot holes, and concepts that defied logic, it was a paragon of a bad movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.46.221 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Independence Day was generally well received. Just look here. 64.105.104.243 (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This List is too Biased Toward Recent Films
There aren't many movies older than 20 years on this list. This suggests that people contributing to this list are fairly young, and don't have a good general knowledge of film history. This list needs more input from experts, and less from people piping up about their least favorite movie. Also, is there any precedent for deleting comments from the talk page? This page is getting cluttered, and it might be a good idea to remove nominations- not out of disagreement with their opinions, but for lack of objective references? There are quite a few here where somebody just wrote, "What about this, it's the worst one I ever saw", and didn't offer any reviews or polls as evidence. Could those be moved out of the way? GuySperanza (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. It's obvious people are just sticking the newest crappy movie on here whenever it comes down the pipe (Dragonball Z? Really?) rather than for any substantial reasons, historic or otherwise, for its inclusion. For example, just off the top of my head two films that probably should be on this list but aren't are Exorcist II: The Heretic and Heaven's Gate. Those are films that actually had a wider impact on film history because of their "badness", real or perceived. As for the talk page, the usual practice is to archive older discussions when the page gets too cluttered. I'll do that right now. - Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree. Exorcist 2 deserves a place on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.159.218 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li
Who else thinks that epic box office failure and embarrassment to Street Fighter and its fans everywhere should be added to the list?
{As a side-note, I have a feeling Tekken and King of Fighters will make it onto the list after their releases.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.176.14 (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Recent additions and other concerns
It seems somebody added a bunch of unexceptional examples along with many that were challenged and removed before. I've reverted the ones that didn't pass a certain threshold or were copied wholesale from the removed entries list.
One trend I've noticed is the tendency of people within limited fandoms to add entries that weren't really that negatively received by those outside. Examples like the Star Wars prequel trilogy, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Batman & Robin, Dragonball: Evolution, and other similar films receive the bulk of their criticism from the fandoms surrounding their franchises while the critics and film scholars are more apathetic than anything. What a fan expects from a property and their rationale for its failure is usually quite different from what a critic would cite. We should probably put a notice somewhere asking fans of a franchise not to add entries of the disliked films stemming from them unless there is citable proof that a majority outside the fandom holds a negative view as well. 68.164.4.183 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- DB Evolution was panned by critics and epically failed at the box office. It wasn't just the fandom that hated it. This page also properly lists reasons why critics thought it was terrible. Also, Zac Bertschy is in fact recognized as a genuine paid critic.
216.121.211.142 (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is running 21% at Rotten Tomatoes and won Razzies for Worst Picture, Worst Actor and Worst Director the year it came out, so it's hard to blame that one on "fandom" either. Indeed, it takes a pretty serious Trekkie to even make it all the way to the end of that one (I know I never have).Prebys (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Trek 5 is so awful that Roddenberry declared it an orphan "out of canon." Worst ever? Nope. It's still better than Trek 9 (Insurrection) You have been warned. Dkendr (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Removing many of these movies to talk
In my mind, "worst", doesn't mean just bad, but really, exceptionally bad, so bad that they have become societal icons of the worst movies. Many of these movies are bad, of course, but they do not rise to the level of Plan 9 from Outer Space, Howard the Duck, or Battlefield Earth which are infamous for how bad they are.
Like some of these questionable entires, there are countless movies which make a 6% on rotten tomatoes, countless movies that have been panned, countless movies which have gotten razzies, but it would be impossible to list them all here, and if we did, it would dilute what "worst" meant. Instead, based on the 2000+ year slant in this articles, it seems like editors simply add movies here with no real guidelines on what "worst" is. Making this article full of recent, forgetabble bad movies. Ikip (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
[[:image:Houseofthedeadposter.jpg|thumb|210px|right|House of the Dead was Uwe Boll's first video game adapted movie, and was critically to universally panned by critics among other video game adapted films from Uwe Boll.]] [[:image:Max Payne poster.jpg|thumb|right|210px|Max Payne, starring Mark Wahlberg, and That '70s Show, Grounded for Life, and Family Guy's Mila Kunis, was regarded as another horrible video game adaptation, nominated for Worst Actor, Mark Wahlberg in the Razzies, along with The Happening.]] [[:Image:Dragonballposternewty5-1.jpg|thumb|210px|right|Dragonball: Evolution was heavily criticized for its lack of explaining plot elements, its hackneyed storyline and lackluster effort by the actors.[1].]] [[:Image:From-justin-to-kelly.jpg|right|thumb|210px|The hastily-made movie From Justin to Kelly opened on June 20, 2003 and spent until July 4, 2003 in cinemas.]] [[:image:Disaster movie.jpg|right|thumb|210px|Written and directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, Disaster Movie was a disaster of its own, being hailed by many as the worst movie of 2008, considered a big flop at the box office unlike the team's previous films, and nominated for six Razzies.]] [[:image:Cool as Ice poster.jpg|right|thumb|210px|Cool as Ice, starring rapper Vanilla Ice, was supremely panned by all critics, since it had Vanilla Ice and it ripped off Rebel Without a Cause.]] [[:image:Jaws the revenge.jpg|thumb|right|210px|Considered the worst in the Jaws film series, nominated for Worst Picture and Worst Special Effects in the Razzies, it became the last in the Jaws series.]]
===Comedy sequels===
|
Batman also removed by anon
An anon just removed batman and robin, and wanted to discuss it.
===Superhero, horror, science fiction, and fantasy movies=== [[:image:Batman & robin poster.jpg|thumb|right|210px|Known for crippling the Batman movie franchise for nearly a decade, Batman & Robin was nominated for 11 Razzies, including Worst Picture. Alicia Silverstone won the Worst Actress award for her performance as Batgirl.]]
|
Ikip (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
There are a bunch of reasons for the removal about halfway up this page from the first time. None of them have been refuted yet. Also, there's a sub-page to this discussion for placing entries that were removed. I'll move most of the above entries over in about a month or so. 68.164.4.183 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed from Plan 9 from Outerspace
But reception from professional critics was generally positive[citation needed]: the review site Rotten Tomatoes reported that 62% of critics gave the film positive reviews[citation needed].
While the reason given isn't terribly good (not contemporary critics even though modern ones probably have better perspective on its history), it's worth noting that nearly all the positive reviews even flat out state it's a bad movie, but an enjoyable bad movie. 68.164.4.183 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Alone in the Dark
Is there a specific reason on why Alone in the Dark is not present here in the section "Poorly executed adaptations"? Considering "it's not alone, and it's not in the dark", IMHO it would be first choice among these movies. --Lo'oris (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- It used to be there, but from the look of the deleted entry in the list of films removed from this article page, there was no cite that a reliable source had called it the worst movie ever. The article has to be limited to the worst of the worst, merely being horribly bad doesn't cut it. Mark Grant (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to see this one added back to the list. It is on the Top 100 Worst lists at both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and is actually in the Top 10 of the Bottom 200 at Everyone's A Critic. Surely that's enough references for there to be a consensus? Fortdj33 (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Disaster Movie
Why is Disaster Movie no longer on the list either? I'm I bit confused, because it's also not on the list of movies removed from the list. There was a brief entry on it before, and when that was removed, I added another, more detailed, entry about it with several references. But this has also been removed. I don't think there is any question as to whether or not it belongs on the list. It was once ranked #1 on the Internet Movie Database bottom 100 list, and it's score is still barely any higher than the movie currently holding that position, it was ranked as the worst movie of 2008 by The Times newspaper, and several movies recieved a bit better by critics are already on the list. Friedberg and Seltzer's movies have featured lousy attempts at comedy and offensive gags in ways that no other movie has. They definitely stand out among the worst attempts at filmmaking. (Not to mention that Disaster Movie was a bit of a box office disspointment.) 00:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.120.73 (talk) (UTC)
- Disaster Movie is merely awful. It is not among the WORST EVER. It is a badly made piece of exploitative dreck made by bumbling morons with a cell phone camera and a single Amex card. Then again so was Star Wars: Phantom Menace. Nobody points to Disaster Movie and says "What a piece of crap" because it was designed and expected to be a piece of crap. Dkendr (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposed additions
A couple movies that I think need to be returned to the list are The Hottie and the Nottie (2008) and Son of the Mask (2005). Both movies are currently on the Bottom 100 at the IMDB, both are on the Rotten Tomatoes list of the Top 100 worst reviewed movies of the last 10 years, and both have been included in Top 10 lists of the all-time worst movies (The Hottie and the Nottie on Metacritic, and Son of the Mask on Everyone's a Critic.com). Additional references to being one of the worst can be found on the articles for both of these movies. I've spent some time on this article, cleaning up the references to all of the above sources, but if no one objects I will plan on adding these to the Star Vehicles and Sequels sections respectively. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Objection. Those movies merely are awful, but nowhere near among the worst ever. The list is already clogged with movies that are just really, really bad, and not the very worst ever. In their respective genres: Moron T&A exploitation: Hottie/Nottie was still better than Pia Zadora in Butterfly. Stupid sequels: Son of the Mask was still better than The Crow: City of Angels. Dkendr (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, saying that these movies don't belong, because you liked them better than other movies, is just one person's personal opinion, which is not what this article is about. There are movies that have been added to this list that I personally enjoyed, but I haven't removed them because they are generally regarded as some of the worst movies ever made, by sources much more credible than me. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Son of the Mask was already removed once, and I'm removing it again. It is NOT one of the worst movies ever, it is just very, very bad. It did not bankrupt a studio. It did not end a career. Nobody got sued. Nobody points to it as a definitive piece of garbage. It is pedestrian, stupid and pointless. The worst movies ever are far from pedestrian, much deeper than stupid, and actually accomplish something with how bad they are. The world would be no different if Son of the Mask had never been released. Now, can you tell me if the world would be different if Plan 9 had never been released? Dkendr (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are incorrect -- this is the list of the films considered the worst movies ever. Son of the Mask does not rate as one of the worst ever. Simply being a piece of crap does not make you the worst ever. The list is getting polluted with every single winner of a Golden Raspberry award, which even they will tell you is not emblematic of being the worst EVER, just the worst of a given YEAR. It doesn't matter where they're rated on metacritic or rotten tomatoes, because those sites are skewed only to movies released or re-released contemporaneously. Dkendr (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Dkendr, with all due respect, you are apparently the one who "doesn't get it". The intro of this very article states that the movies on this list should be "cited by a combination of reputable sources" and examples of those sources are "Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, Rotten Tomatoes, the Internet Movie Database's "Bottom 100" list, and the Golden Raspberry Awards." Son of the Mask is cited by THREE of those sources as being one of the worst movies ever made, plus I included additional sources from 2 noted film critics, AND a fourth reference used by numerous other films in this article. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but this list is not about someone's personal opinion. It is about films notable for being the worst, and everything I have posted can be backed up with suitable references. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, saying that these movies don't belong, because you liked them better than other movies, is just one person's personal opinion, which is not what this article is about. There are movies that have been added to this list that I personally enjoyed, but I haven't removed them because they are generally regarded as some of the worst movies ever made, by sources much more credible than me. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not interested in continuing the flamewar beyond this: You proposed re-add after the item was deleted from the list. The only vote which came in went against you. You re-added anyway. That's not playing quite by the Wikipedia rules, now is it? Dkendr (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not interested in having an edit war either. I re-established Son of the Mask on the list, because I was able to provide new references as to why it belongs there. I followed the Wikipedia rules, by posting here first, to see if anyone had any documented reason for me not to add it. The only opposition, was your personal opinion that "Son of the Mask was still better than The Crow: City of Angels" With no references to back up your statement, and no opposition from anyone else, I went ahead and added a movie that meets the same criteria as Disaster Movie, From Justin to Kelly, Glitter and House of the Dead. My goal is to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not interested in continuing the flamewar beyond this: You proposed re-add after the item was deleted from the list. The only vote which came in went against you. You re-added anyway. That's not playing quite by the Wikipedia rules, now is it? Dkendr (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I'm not so sure that it does meet that criteria, as Disaster Movie has ranked lower on every single list in which they both have been included.130.49.131.173 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Too many movies that aren't the worst ever
This list is starting to become a collection of simply bad movies, instead of being the worst films ever. For example, I Know Who Killed Me is epically bad, but it's still better than Myra Breckinridge or Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Troll 2 was straight-to-video; if it never was released cinematically, it shouldn't be on this list. Monster A Go-Go appears to be on the list solely because the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew hated it so much. Howard the Duck was bad, but still better than Blue City and Casual Sex?, also from 1986. Alone in the Dark is awful but not one of the worst ever. Kazaam was no worse than expected and certainly not one of the worst ever. Glitter doesn't belong in the Crossover category (which should be abolished altogether) as it was a star vehicle for Mariah Carey. Disaster Movie doesn't count because it's a bad spoof made by bad spoofers and is there simply because the bad spoofers are collectively so bad that the worst element of their oeuvre is included to represent the whole thing. Showgirls is basically a large-scale T&A exploitation flick and should be judged as such (deserves to be on list); Striptease doesn't belong on the list, largely because it a) was better than Showgirls; b) made a lot of money, thereby proving only that Demi Moore naked is a bigger draw than Elizabeth Berkley naked; and c) Striptease was still better than GI Jane. Swept Away was really bad, but it was still better than Shanghai Surprise which in turn was better than Dick Tracy. The From Justin To Kelly fiasco doesn't deserve to be on the list either, since as movies starring two mismatched, repellant personalities go, it's still better than King Ralph and as musicals go it's still better than Can't Stop The Music.
I nominate the following be dropped from the list, as described above:
- I Know Who Killed Me
- Troll 2
- Monster A Go-Go
- Howard The Duck
- Alone in the Dark
- Kazaam
- Disaster Movie
- Striptease
- From Justin To Kelly
- Swept Away
- Remove the Bad Crossover category, drop Kazaam from list and move Glitter to the Star Vehicles section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- All of the above movies are referenced as to why they belong on this list. Saying that one movie is better than another is a matter of personal opinion, and this list is supposed to be about the movies that have been determined by a CONSENSUS to be the worst of the worst. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Those references are insufficient to mark as "the worst ever." They are merely very bad. You cannot have multiple "worst ever" and simply because two amalgamator sites mark something as "stinks" does not make them WORST EVER. Obviously you are not getting the concept. Mystery Science Theater's declamation, for example, does not make a movie bad, and if you look, every single movie I cited as being "better than" is in fact rated better and box-office outperformed than the movie being compared. If you plan on making Rotten Tomatoes the official denouncer of bad movies, then perhaps this page should simply be redirected over there. Dkendr (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure how you can state those references as "insufficient", when they are the basis for what this article is all about. If you look at the External links section of this article, the first 6 websites are cited by MULTIPLE movies as being one of the worst movies ever made, and ALL of the films you mention above are cited by more than just Rotten Tomatoes. In most cases, such as Alone in the Dark, From Justin To Kelly and Disaster Movie, they are cited by 3 or more of those sources, in addition to Rotten Tomatoes! I have gone to great lengths to make sure this page is properly referenced, and I do not add or delete material based on my personal opinion. If you disagree, then apparently you are not "getting the concept" of what Wikipedia is all about. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Those references are insufficient to mark as "the worst ever." They are merely very bad. You cannot have multiple "worst ever" and simply because two amalgamator sites mark something as "stinks" does not make them WORST EVER. Obviously you are not getting the concept. Mystery Science Theater's declamation, for example, does not make a movie bad, and if you look, every single movie I cited as being "better than" is in fact rated better and box-office outperformed than the movie being compared. If you plan on making Rotten Tomatoes the official denouncer of bad movies, then perhaps this page should simply be redirected over there. Dkendr (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- All of the above movies are referenced as to why they belong on this list. Saying that one movie is better than another is a matter of personal opinion, and this list is supposed to be about the movies that have been determined by a CONSENSUS to be the worst of the worst. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, those movies are "worst of the last 10 years," "worst reviewed," etc. They are not THE WORST EVER. It's really, really simple. Dkendr (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about all of them, but I think it's pretty well-established that Justin to Kelly richly deserves its place on the list. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there are sources that make Disaster Movie a contender for the title "worst movie ever" (rather than "merely awful"). It's rating as the worst movie of 2008 by The Times is one example. (If it's the worst movie of 2008, shouldn't it be comparable to the worst of other years?) As is the fact that it was once #1 on the Internet Movie Database bottom 100 list. (Movies that were never #1 over there have a secure spot over here in this article.) 71.162.2.126 (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Myra Breckinridge and Rex Reed
Reed went on the talk shows and describe how bad it was, while it was still in production. I doubt there have been many movies where that happened. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Move request
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
List of films considered the worst → List of films notable for negative reception — The current title of this article uses weasel worlds; who "considers" them to be the worst? This proposed title would work much better. --ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support for removal of weasel words. The proposed title is neutral. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Perhaps "negative critical reception"? Tevildo (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Critical reception" isn't necessarily the type of reception recieved. What matters is that it's negative overall.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support The grammar of the existing title seems somewhat awkward as well. —
INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I think that this article has move protection on it, because it has already been moved a couple times. This page could possibly be better served, by deciding on a definitive criteria for inclusion. Lots of films have "negative reception", this page should be reserved for the "worst" of them, according to a combination of critics, box office, and review sites such as IMDb, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I consider the present title to be more objective. If some professional critic, or journal, or film dictionary claims that some film is "the worst (in the history of cinema/in its genre/etc.)", this is an unquestionable fact. On the contrary, with the new title we should find a source that not only says that the film is bad, but also that it is notable for being considered bad. Goochelaar (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose That would broaden the concept to include every film ever made that has less than a 3-star rating by Leonard Maltin, as an example. And that would be thousands. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The current title is a narrower criterion by several orders of magnitude, and an objective one. There's nothing "weasel" about "the worst" either, compared to "negative reception". Shreevatsa (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- Support- That is a better name for the article. Golem866 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Golem866
New Sources
I know that there has been criticism of the objectivity of this page, but most of the movies on this list have been added by a consensus, as being one of the worst movies ever made. However, there are several other lists online, which can be used as references here. The more lists that a movie appears on, as one of the worst movies ever, the more evidence there is for it to be listed here as well.
Two sources that I think should have more consideration, are the DVD The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made, and the 100 Worst Movies list at digitaldreamdoor.com. The first one now has it's own page on Wikipedia, and has already been mentioned by a few of the B-movies on this list. The other has already been added to the External links of this article. Taken into consideration, there are movies on both of these lists that are also listed as one of the worst by IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Everyone's a Critic. I propose that if a movie meets more than one criteria for being the worst (e.g. it appears on more than one of these lists, PLUS it won Razzies and/or had bad reviews and/or poor box office), then it can be safely added to this article with the proper references. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Neither of these videos have been commented on by professional film critics. Reviews on Amazon and IMDb criticize 50 Worst Movies Ever Made as being poorly-produced and state that the film does not adequately describe the films it criticizes, instead relying heavily on clips from the films, or their trailers, in instances where clearances for the films would be expensive. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
- I realize that those sources are equivalent to just adding a couple more opinions to the list, I just thought that I would mention them here, since they had already been mentioned in the main article. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- ^ a b "Review" Dragonball Evolution". Anime News Network. 2009-03-16. Retrieved 2009-04-23.
- ^ IGN: House of the Dead Review
- ^ "Top 10 Worst Video Game Movies". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-04-25.
- ^ Rob Vaux (2005-01-28). "Alone in the Dark Review". FlipSideMovies.com. Retrieved 2006-06-13.
- ^ "Alone in the Dark". Eonline.com. 2005-01-28. Retrieved 2008-10-24.
- ^ "Max Payne Movie Reviews, Pictures". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 2008-10-17.
- ^ "Max Payne (2008):Reviews". Metacritic. 2008-10-17. Retrieved 2008-12-02.
- ^ Humanick, Rob (2009-04-10). "Dragonball Evolution". Slant Magazine. Retrieved 2009-04-23.
- ^ Tookey, Christopher (2009-04-09). "Race to Witch Mountain and Dragonball: Evolution: These Two Should Be Burned at the Stake". Daily Mail. Retrieved 2009-04-23.
- ^ Rotten Tomatoes - Dragonball: Evolution
- ^ "Nirvana Meet World, Vanilla Ice Tanks, Kid 'N Play Party: This Week In 1991". MTV News. October 28, 2002. Retrieved 2009-03-07.
- ^ The Washington Post - Cool as Ice
- ^ Crouse, Richard, ed. (2005). Reel Winners: Movie Award Trivia. Dundurn Press Ltd. p. 216. ISBN 1550025740.
- ^ "Tomatometer for Cool as Ice". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 2007-01-09.
- ^ "Action, Adventure, War & Westerns". The Scarecrow Video Movie Guide. Sasquatch Books. 2004. p. 383. ISBN 1570614156.
- ^ Tyrangiel, Josh (2006-02-05). "Miss Independent". Time.
- ^ From Justin to Kelly at Rotten Tomatoes
- ^ James Berardinelli review
- ^ "Hottie and the Nottie, The (2008): Reviews". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2008-12-08.
- ^ "The 100 Worst Movies of 2008". The Times. 2007-10-23. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ ""Today's Ten: Worst Movies Of 2008"". NY Post. Retrieved 2008-12-03.
- ^ Whitty, Stephen (2007-12-27). "Worst films Of 2008: 10 films to forget". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Morgan, James (2009-01-02). "The Worst Movies of 2008 - Part 5". The Tart. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Pais, Matt (2007-12-11). "Worst movies of 2008". Metromix. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Rotten Tomatoes - The Hottie and the Nottie
- ^ 2008 Razzie Winners
- ^ Harry Knowles (2008-06-19). "Harry says, 'If Shit Got THE LOVE GURU On It, Shit Would Wipe It Off!'". Aintitcoolnews.com. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
- ^ Rotten Tomatoes - The Love Guru
- ^ Jaws 4 - The Revenge at Rotten Tomatoes
- ^ Washington Post - Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
- ^ Rotten Tomatoes - Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
r-s 245
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "There should have been only one."
- ^ Rotten Tomatoes - Wild Wild West Cream of the Crop
- ^ Roger Ebert - Wild Wild West
- ^ Total Film magazine, Feb 2009 Issue 151, pp 120-125, Will Smith: The Total Film Interview, by Lesley O'Toole, Future Publishing Ltd., London England
- ^ Rotten Tomatoes. "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor".
- ^ Metacritic. "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor".
- ^ "'Dark Knight' Soars Past $400 Million". Box Office Mojo. 2008-08-06. Retrieved 2008-12-20.
- ^ Roger Ebert Punisher: War Zone review
- ^ Weekend Box Office for Punisher: War Zone
- ^ Marvel Comics Movies at Box Office Mojo
- ^ Box Office Mojo summary
- ^ Rotten Tomatoes - Speed 2 Cream of the Crop Reviews
- ^ Rotten Tomatoes - Speed 2: Cruise Control
- ^ IMDb - Speed 2 Awards
- ^ [1]
- ^ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1156283-doogal/
- ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0763304/usercomments?filter=hate
- ^ Caddyshack 2 at Rotten Tomatoes
- ^ Caddyshack 2 at the Internet Movie Database
- ^ Worst sports movies ever
- ^ ESPN - Top 20 Sports movies of all time - page 2
- ^ Worst movie sequels at bullz-eye.com
- ^ The WORST Movie Sequels EVER! Caddyshack 2?! - forum thread at eBay guides
- ^ Barnes, Brooks (January 28, 2008). "Direct-to-DVD Releases Shed Their Loser Label". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-30.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ Daddy Day Camp | The A.V. Club
- ^ Msn Movies - Best Superhero Movies
- ^ http://www.maxim.com/articles/index.aspx?a_id=4706