Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 7

Tom and Jerry: The Movie

I added the film, because it was a lack of continuity of the MGM shorts.--99.14.105.150 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to take into account the Hanna-Barbera and Filmation cartoons in which Tom and Jerry were also friends.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Baby Geniuses?

I do not see either of the Baby Geniuses films here, and those have been very widely panned by critics. It's quite likely that at least the sequel has been called the "worst" movie ever. --Raddaluigi (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Baby Geniuses 2 was on here but was removed because none of the sources called it the worst. Might be included again on the strength of it's #1 position on the imdb's bottom 100?--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be included. Most of the argument to remove titles was based on the word choices of journalists and not on the actual meaning behind those words. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The current discussion to use a standard other than specific "the worst" wording, started by Burpelson AFB, is above. Please make any comments regarding this suggestion there. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be re-added. You can easily find enough sources describing it as the worst movie. I don't know about the first one but the 2nd one definitely meets requirements. --Wassup!!-D33DeeD33Guy...R.I.P. Dad 06:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

Now, I am not sure if it can be added because of how recent it is but this film has received massive negative reviews and reception. Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film only half a stare (which is rare for him) and called the movie a visual and actual bore. The ratings for this movie on websites like Amazon and eBay are also very negative with a majority of hundreds of reviews being in the one star area. Entertainment Weekly panned the movie asking "Who is to blame for the last airbender?" Charlie Jane Anders said the plot made little sense and the main character had no personality and acted horribly. It was nominated for 9 Golden Raspberry Awards and won 5 of them. I know it's a stretch but this film should be added in my opinion. I didn't see it and now I'm sure I don't want to. --Wassup!!-D33DeeD33Guy...R.I.P. Dad 06:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Do any sources call it the worst movie of all time?--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Time.com called it the worsr epic movie ever. Ivillage talks of it as one of the worst ever/. Additionally, Cole Smithy said in his review ""Battlefield Earth" has a new rival for the title of "worst-film-of-the-last-20-years And stating the obvious it did sweep last years Razzie awards. IamTorgo (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Highlander II: The Quickening?

This movie was added together with Jaws 4 due to 0% on RT. The movie wasn't also a box office failure according with the page of the film. In Italy also grossed more that 5 milion. Also I can't find a source that said "worst movie ever", this movie is bad but can't be stay here; is also still present in the removed films list. Anyone else have any thoughts? This movie can be removed? --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Highlander II has been debated endlessly and has come and gone many times. I think it's fair to interpret Ebert's "immortal low points of the genre" as "worst". On the other hand, the strong argument for inclusion was back when there was a specific "Bad Sequel" category, which simply couldn't exclude this film. The case may be a bit weaker now.Prebys (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Highlander II: The Quickening is #84 at the worst movies ever list at everyones a critc

Time magazine says it hasone of the Worst Movie Sequel Titles ever

Roger Ebert named it one of the worst films of the year in 1991

an article on examiner.com named it hte 5th worst sequal of all time

of course there is the resurrection of Ramirez who died in the first Highlander

msnmovies named Highlander II: The Quickening one of the Worst Movie Sequels of all time

the avclub named it the worst movie sequels that is tenuously related to their predecessors IamTorgo (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Again "worst movie sequel" and "worst movie of 1991" aren't "worst movie ever". --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, many films on the list now aren't here because they are the worst, they're here because they're the worst of a given genre. Catwoman seems to nominally be riding the dubious honor being the worst superhero movie; ditto for From Justin to Kelly in the musical category.209.34.51.198 (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I will try also to remove those movies. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? They're still awful movies which have been heaped with negative critical reviews, fan hatred, and have become memetic. This article is called "films considered the worst." Cutoff. Not single worst ever. Just worst. There should be no restriction on a movie simply because it is representative of the worst of its genre.209.34.51.198 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, is about worst movies ever, read the incipit "The films listed here have achieved notably negative reception as being called one of the worst films ever made"--Kekkomereq4 (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't the name of the article, though. I could easily click "edit" and remove the qualifier. Why are you eager to restrict notable genre examples? If horror movies are a subset of movies, and x horror movie is considered the worst horror movie ever made, doesn't it logically follow that x horror film is one of the worst movies ever made, and more narrowly, the worst horror movie ever made?209.34.51.198 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk with the creator of the page that said "worst movie ever". I'm only a user that edit this page. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Being considered "the worst movie ever" is the qualifier for this article. That's it. Highlander II isn't widely considered the worst movie ever (if it is this isn't shown). "List of films considered the worst" doesn't mean "list of films considered to be really, really bad", it means "considered to be the worst of all time". If that's unclear, the title should be changed. Swarm ^X 00:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the movie due to no source that said "worst movie ever". --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

From Roger Ebert's Review - "If there is a planet somewhere whose civilization is based on the worst movies of all time, "Highlander 2: The Quickening" deserves a sacred place among their most treasured artifacts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.139.155 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's enough to put it back on the page IamTorgo (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does this keep getting removed from the page under the claim of nothing calling it the worst when the above up from Ebert's review has been in it? IamTorgo (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Because Ebert said in the review of North that "North is a bad film – one of the worst movies ever made," and this is more explicit than the review of Highlander 2--Kekkomereq4 (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Kekkomereq4, while others have worked to improve the support for this entry, you simply keep removing it. By my count you've done three reverts in the last ~28 hours, so you're coming dangerously close to getting yourself blocked. Please accept the general "consensus minus one" on this issue and move on. This is a highly subjective article, and there's really no changing that at this point.Prebys (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the Highlander II and Troll 2 entry and to me it seems that the case for their inclusion is about equally strong. Troll 2 has Yahoo! Movies calling it one of the worst films ever made. The Highlander II section has two sources calling it the worst: Roger Ebert, and IGN who compares it to an Ed Wood film (another way of calling it one of the worst since Wood is best know for Plan 9).--Sus scrofa (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Birdemic

Okay...so I added a discussion here about adding Birdemic: Shock and Terror to this list, which is archived here. Granted, I only got one person to weigh in, but it was a support vote, and I left it up for the month before it was archived. So I added it to the list, since the discussion was apparently now over. Now it's been removed from the list. Did I do something wrong? Do I need to get more votes in support? I'm patient, I'm willing to make a case and do what it takes to get this film on the list... PerryPlanet (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm well I don't think you did anything wrong really. You left it up for people to give you opinions and after a month passed you decided to act. It was only one vote but it was a considerable amount of time. I think it should be re-added. It is compared to "The Room" and "Troll 2" and it is considered so bad it's good. I think it should be added. The acting is awful, the production is awful, the effects are BEYOND AWFUL and the premise alone is awful. I think it meets requirements. You just need to source it...which really shouldn't be hard considering the amount of negative feedback it has received. --Wassup!!-D33DeeD33Guy...R.I.P. Dad 06:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I'll re-add Birdemic. If anyone else wants to weigh in, this is the place to do it. :) PerryPlanet (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This movie didn't reach consensus. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well then, would you like to weigh in on whether the movie should be included on this list? PerryPlanet (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Further more, this discussion did reach a consensus - it may only be three people at this point, but no one argued against inclusion in this article, and nowhere in Wikipedia:Consensus did I see that the number of people determines whether or not you have a consensus. Instead of reverting due to "no consensus" (which again, is questionable), can you provide a solid argument for why this movie should not be included on this list? I'd honestly like to hear it - I want to play ball here. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just to add another voice, since this movie has been removed and readded several times now: based on the Slate article and the HuffPo review, I personally think there is enough evidence to keep Birdemic on this list, at least for now. Since some HuffPo writers are just joe-schmoes, I'm not always quick to accept them as WP:RS, but this Fabio Periera guy seems to have some legit film critic cred. The Salon article is even more compelling, because it discusses the film in the context of how a wide range of audiences have accepted Birdemic among the worst-film canon, as it were. Maybe some more sources would be helpful, but for now, I'm comfortable with Birdemic being included on this list. — Hunter Kahn 17:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think ultimately, everything on Wikipedia is an "at least for now". ;) But thank you for your advice, more sources would be good. I completely missed the Salon article, so I just added that, and I threw in a review from Variety as well to be on the safe side. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Breaking 2: Electric Boogaloo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakin%27_2:_Electric_Boogaloo

I feel that this could be included in this listed because it is referenced numerous times when talking about unnecessary and pointless sequels (especially w.r.t. memes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.225.1 (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

Now, I am not sure if it can be added because of how recent it is but this film has received massive negative reviews and reception. Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film only half a stare (which is rare for him) and called the movie a visual and actual bore. The ratings for this movie on websites like Amazon and eBay are also very negative with a majority of hundreds of reviews being in the one star area. Entertainment Weekly panned the movie asking "Who is to blame for the last airbender?" Charlie Jane Anders said the plot made little sense and the main character had no personality and acted horribly. It was nominated for 9 Golden Raspberry Awards and won 5 of them. I know it's a stretch but this film should be added in my opinion. I didn't see it and now I'm sure I don't want to. --Wassup!!-D33DeeD33Guy...R.I.P. Dad 06:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Do any sources call it the worst movie of all time?--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Time.com called it the worsr epic movie ever. Ivillage talks of it as one of the worst ever/. Additionally, Cole Smithy said in his review ""Battlefield Earth" has a new rival for the title of "worst-film-of-the-last-20-years And stating the obvious it did sweep last years Razzie awards. IamTorgo (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.128.48 (talk)

Barney's Great Adventure

I think Barney's Great Adventure should be included, because it was considered the worst film ever made--99.73.188.241 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but that films not notable enough for this list, if it is been called one of the worst films ever made you must provide some reliable sources in order to prove so.

Your kidding, right? The film is notable enough because it was based on the uneducational, unpopular show of Barney & Friends. I think Barney should be mention here.--99.14.103.55 (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Alone in the Dark (Film) and Disaster Movie

I belive they should both be re-added. If MST3K films can be, than they should be too. --75.74.62.224 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I belive they should be re-added too. I would also reccomend Mixed Up Zombies and Turkish Star Wars to be on it too. --MaxRebo120 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out many, many times on this talk page, you need to provide WP:RS and some actual reasoning for why films should be readded. (The "MST3K films" that are included on here are here because that reasoning has been provided in the past. They aren't here by virtue of simply being on MST3K, or else there'd be hundreds of other MST3K movies on here.) That being said, I've argued in the past that Alone in the Dark should be readded to the list. Another user has previously provided reliable sources from the Orlando Sentinel and the Denver Post. In addition to that, there are other sources, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, Empire Online and Entertainment Weekly that I think justify its readdition. — Hunter Kahn 16:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I still say the the current qualifications for the list, that "somebody" has to have called it the worst movie to put it on, are a joke (as many critics as not don't even bother picking a "worst" movie, and movies like Catwoman are making the list for being called "possibly the worst superhero movie" while several movies with undeniably worse overall reception, the very lowest of which wouldn't be hard to determine at all, are left off). However, I do believe that Disaster Movie qualifies, even under the new requirements. Critic Adam Tobias called it "one of the worst films of all time" and added "I just don't see how anyone could not find 'Disaster Movie' one of the worst films of all time" [1]. Dustin Putman called it possibly the worst of the decade (and the year, of corse) [2], and at least twice, [3] [4], critics stated that they were considering creating a new "lowest score" option for the first time to use on this movie. (And I really hope nobody will try to say "they didn't say 'the worst'!" for that last one. They're singling it out as the movie they would score lowest of all. That means it's the worst movie to them.) And of course, it's still a standout for reasons that no longer count in this article, including the fact that it once ranked #1 on internet movie database's bottom 100 list (making it an all time worst for audiences) and is one of the lowest scoring movies on rotten tomatoes (even more so than it was on the "all time worst" list, as movies that ranked ahead of it have recieved a couple positive reviews since then).

I don't intend to look into Alone in the Dark much, especially since more people already seem to be on it, and since it's considered possibly the worst movie from the guy often considered the worst director right now, they probably don't need my help. But it didn't take much to find people at least calling it probably the worst movie of the year, such as critic Betty Jo Tucker [5]. (It was released at the beginning of the year, which is why "probably" was said so much.)74.111.127.30 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

At Long Last Love

Does anyone feel that this movie should be mentioned on this list? It was a box-office flop, most critics trashed it upon its release, it has a 10% rank on Rotten Tomatoes, and was profiled in The Fifty Worst Films of All Time book. Not to mention that there is only one film in the 1970s section.

Or, are there any legendary bad films released in the 1970s that we could place in that section? Myra Breckinridge seems all alone. Freshh (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How about I Spit On Your Grave (1978)? I do believe Siskel, Ebert, and quite a few others were all over it for being an all time worst.74.111.127.30 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Son of the Mask

i tryed to add son of the mask to the list but it got deleted the next time i checked, that movie has widely been panned by critics and fans and its even on IMDb bottom 100 list, there would be many sources calling it one of the worst films ever made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you provide some of these sources? — Hunter Kahn 04:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Films can be commercially successful but still be considered one of the worst?

i just read some of the requirements for films to be included and they said it needs to be a commercial failure too? i mean, a films commercial success doesn't change a movie from bad to good, like look at batman and robin for example, that movie was commercially successful but it was huge critical failure and it is considered one of the worst superhero films in history, doesnt that prove that any movie can be successful but can still be extremely huge critical failure too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they need to be big flops to qualify, it's just one of the criterion that can be cited.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it's completely irrelevant. A horrible film can be successful and a great film can be a commercial flop. "Worst" refers to whether the film is so bad that someone (a reliable source) states there are no other films that are less good. It has nothing to do with whether or not it was well marketed. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see "commercial failure" listed as a criterion? - SummerPhD (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

From the lede:"The films have been cited by a combination of reputable sources as one of the worst movies of all time. Examples of such sources include Metacritic, Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Rotten Tomatoes, box office bombs[.]" But I agree with you that box office isn't all that relevant, films like Birdemic and Plan 9 have met with (relative) commercial success with the so-bad-it's-good audience, but are still considered bad films by almost everybody.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it, partially based on our discussion here, but more based on the fact that it gives a Wikipedia article as a source. Obviously enough, we can't be our own source and our articles are certainly not reliable. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Jaws 4

I think Jaws 4 should be mentioned here, because it was panned by critics. --99.23.76.5 (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Last Airbender?

Now, considering how recent this film is im not sure if i could be added. i haven't seen this film but i've heard it has recieved massively universal negative reception and reviews and it swept last years razzies too. here are some sources: Time.com called it the worst epic movie ever. Ivillage talks of it as one of the worst ever. Additionally, Cole Smithy said in his review ""Battlefield Earth" has a new rival for the title of "worst-film-of-the-last-20-years And stating the obvious it did sweep last years Razzie awards. it also has a 6% rating on rotten tomatoes and time magazine had an article about it titled "Who's to Blame for The Last Airbender" where it panned the film in nearly every aspect, particularly M. Night's involvement in the film. Charlie Jane Anders said the plot made little sense and the main character had no personality and acted horribly. it managed to barely bypass its $280 million budget. Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film only half a star (which is rare for him) and called the movie a visual and actual bore and the movie rating on websites like ebay and amazon are really low with many negative comments within the 1 star area. Isn't that enough sources to get this film added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Swinging with the Finkels

Though not well known this movie got 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and 4.0 on IMDB. It seems to be a British sex comedy that went very wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanime5 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2

Awhile ago i saw that this film was on the list but it was for some reason removed, why is that? that films been universally panned by critics and audiences alike and many websites and critics have considered it one of the worst films ever made. doesn't anyone aside from me agree that this film should be included on this list? this movies #2 on imdb bottom 100, its 6th of the worst reviewed films of the 2000s on rottentomatoes with a 0% rating on the site, and one such critic said "superbabies has no redeeming qualities". Critic Steve Blance, in his Top Ten Terrible Movie Review, called the movie "the worst I have ever witnessed" and also noted that he would "rather be tortured for twenty-years with searing iron than have to sit through even a minute of this again." plus its was nominated for several razzies in 2004 and it bombed at the box office failing to recoup even half of its budget, isn't that enough proof to get this film re-added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

as i said above, i saw that this film was on the list awhile ago, but it got taken off? why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It had no sources calling it specifically the worst. There was a previous discussion about re-adding the film to the list but nothing came of it. As I said then, it might be re-added because it has such a low score on IMDb's bottom 100 (second worst ATM). (It was number one at the time but has been displaced by some Hungarian movie.) But you seem to have lined up some sources calling it the worst now, so if there are no objections I guess there is a consensus for re-adding it to the list.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Glitter (2001)

Now, out of all the "worst movies" lists' and surveys ive searched up on the web, this movie ive found in at least 80% of those lists. its a film with mariah carey, i think we could consider it being added cos of all the "worst movies" sites ive seen it listed in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate really should be on here.

I noticed that Heaven's Gate was removed from this list. However, I definitely think it qualifies to be on here. New York Times called it "an unqualified disaster,". Roger Ebert called it "The most scandalous cinematic waste I have ever seen", and Joe Queenan called it "The worst movie ever made". Readers of Empire Magazine voted it the 6th worst film ever made. The film was so bad that is is widely regarded as having been responsible for destroying Michael Cimino's career. It was nominated for five Raspberry Awards and won the award for "Worst Director". I'd say it's definitely worse than many other films on this list. If this film is not included in this list, then this article is obviously entirely subjective and biased, and should probably just be deleted altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleo2012 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Critics disliked it, to be sure, but not as much as films that are proclaimed as the worst. 45% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes liked the film, and European critics hailed it as a masterpiece). The failure of Heaven's Gate was more monetary rather than critically. The film also had a troubled production: rising costs, clashes between the studio and Cimino, etc. Then Cimino requested to the studio to pull the film after the bad reviews came out in order to make it "better." Then the film's reputation soured, the public assumed that the film was really bad, and the film died at the box office. Cimino's career was destroyed more because he had a "perfectionist" attitude (he spent an entire day shooting only a couple shots of the film) that led to the film's rising costs, not just because the film was bad. I'm not defending the film in any way (personally I've only seen bits and pieces of it, and I got my information from a making-of documentary), but the film should be on there if the film is legendary as being an awful film in every sense of the term, like Ed Wood films, and not on how much money it made. See the talk page post Films can be commercially successful but still be considered one of the worst? and you'll see what I mean. Freshh (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Lonely Lady

Does anybody belive it should be here?--75.74.62.224 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rotten Tomatoes lists a 0% rating, but I am not quite sure this means if it qualifies as among "the worst movies ever." More research would help. Freshh (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

National Lampoon's Pledge This! (2006)

Another awful movie by Paris Hilton. It got 1.6 on IMDB and on 0% Rotten Tomatoes making it worse than "The Hottie and the Nottie".

Can you cite reliable sources specifically calling it one of the worst films ever? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bratz: The Movie (2007)

A movie based on the Bratz toys. 4 girls are split into different clique by Meredith, then after a year apart they become friends again and vow to take down Meredith. It got 2.6 on IMDB and on 7% Rotten Tomatoes.

Can you cite reliable sources specifically calling it one of the worst films ever? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Improving Jaws: The Revenge

The section on Jaws the revenge is rather poorly written. While undoubtedly it belongs here,for reasons outlined in the passage. It could do with a clean up on grammar wording and additional facts, I would attempt such to fix such a matter being knowledgeable on the matter but I feel someone else is capable of sorting out the issue better than I can. Atm the moment it seems as if a child as written the paragraph on the film.

86.172.124.37 (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, not only was this added recently with no talk page consensus, but this is a film that was previously removed. It sholdn't have been readied. I'll remove it. — Hunter Kahn 00:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you get rid of Jaws: The Revenge, when it SHOULD be on there? It's a zero at Rotten tomatoes and everyone hates it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.186.187 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe you should read what the actual criteria is for including a film on this list. — Hunter Kahn 04:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Problem with Jaws IV as well as with some other films added to the list is that they not only need to be universally hated (are they merely very bad or the worst), but we need specific quotes from critics calling the film the worst ever (not of the year/decade etc.). Art is subjective. But Wikipedia's goal is to be objective. There is a conflict here and the only solution is to depend on the option of the cadre of experts whose collective opinion stands in as objective fact about art in this case. Wikipedia's goal to report the facts as the mainstream of the field sees it. Getting back to the matter at hand. If it's to be re-added: the Jaws IV article needs to be fortified with quotes from mainstream critics calling it the "worst ever" without qualifiers (such as "worst comic book movie" etc..), or critics comparing the film to another well known "worst ever" films such as Manos - The Hands of Fate or similar analogues for "worst".--Sus scrofa (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Jaws IV is missing! What happened?Westvoja (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite reliable sources specifically calling it one of the worst films ever? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mars Needs Moms

I removed Mars Needs Moms because

• it had not been discussed here
• while it was a box office bomb, it had no references calling the worst and has a very high (for here) 35% at RT.
• whoever added it also screwed up the reference list.

Prebys (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bolero (1984 film)

• According with "TV Guide's Movie Guide": «Bolero must rank as one of the worst major movies ever made»
• Rottent Tomatoes: 8%
• Bottom 100
• Won multiple Razzies
• Box office bomb
• Bombed at the box office DigitalDreamDoor.com 100 Worst Movies
• Everyone's a critic Bottom 200

--79.18.83.150 (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• • So, Bolero can be included in the list?--79.35.89.29 (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

This film is probably the most hated film of our time! It has one five Golden Raspberry Awards and has been universally panned by critics. I has recived an aprroval rating of only 6% and universally hated by the fans of the show Avatar: The Last Airbender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westvoja (talk • contribs) 00:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite reliable sources specifically calling it one of the worst films ever? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mommie Dearest

This film was removed from the article despite being winning a Razzie for both "Worst Picture" (1981) and Wost Picture of the Decade. By the sources, it received some of the worst reviews in history. Please actually read the content before removing it for non-policy reasons.--Oakshade (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see in the sources that it received some of the worst reviews in history.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Reel Winners: Movie Award Trivia by Richard Crouse - "Mommie Dearest was revieled by critics, earning some of the nastiest reviews ever.[6] That citation was deleted by you. Even without that, winning a Razzie for Wost Picture of the Decade is plenty of evidence of criteria for this article. And what's with this "The WP:BURDEN of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" when the evidence was provided? Please actually read the content you're removing.--Oakshade (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oakshade, please don't take it personally, there is just a long-standing WP:CONSENSUS on this particular page that films not be added until they are discussed on the talk page, and there must be verifiable reliable sources that identify the film as one of the worst. Your Richard Crouse citation is a good start, and the Razzie for Worst Picture of the Decade is also a strong factor for inclusion. Can you generate any other sources that identify this as one of the worst movies? If so, I would likely be inclined to support its inclusion. — Hunter Kahn 16:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• By far the threashold has been passed already. Additionally, the citations, that were removed, of horrible review examples from Roger Ebert and Daily Variety are more evidence.--Oakshade (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "Horrible" reviews are not the same as reviews that identify it as one of the worst films ever made, and one source saying that isn't meeting the threshold here. But I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just saying we need to produce a few more sources that explictly identify it as one of the worst. And if the film's as bad as all that, it should be easy to find that. Once we can do that, I'd support its inclusion. — Hunter Kahn 16:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Sweeping the 1981 Golden Raspberry Awards and also winning Wost Picture of the Decade (last I counted we've only had 11 full decades of filmmaking) and being idintified has having the "nastiest reviews ever" - reviews being multiple - is plenty alread for inclusion. I think we're going to need a RfC if this kind of WP:OWN and inventing of rules for a specific article keeps up. --Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Who has identified it as having the nastiest reviews ever? That has not been cited. The examples Crouse gives don't really seem to support the "nastiest ever" claim. Also, Ebert's review is bad, but it doesn't indicate that the movie's abnormally bad.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The Ebert and Daily Variety reviews were added simply as examples of terrible reivews for the reader. A you've seemeed to have acknowleged that it's identified as having some the nastiest reviews ever in addition to being honored by the Golden Raspberry Awards as Wost Picture of the Decade (you keep ignoring this), it's about time to stop blocking this. --Oakshade (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Nobody's ignoring anything. Recognition by the Razzies is all well and good, but they are rarely enough by itself. The "Worst Picture of the Decade" award is much more compelling, as that's a more exclusive "honor", but the most important criterion here is reliable sources that cite is one of the worst films. You've gone one, the "nastiest reviews ever" source, which I'm fine with, although one other user has raised questions about. If you'd exert even a little bit of effort into searching for other sources that explicitly call it one of the worst films, you'd probably be successful. — Hunter Kahn 18:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Recognition by the Razzies as '"Worst Picture of the Decade" is all well and good? It's huge. And that fact supported by multiple reliable soaurces and this has easily passed the threashold, much more so than many of the films already accepted onto the list. We go by reliable sources, not personal opinions. The one user who raised questions about the "nastiest reviews ever" has subsequently struck their statement that it's not cited by a reliable soruce. I'm going to add it and we'll need a RfC if this content supported by multiple reliable sources is removed.--Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
        • The Razzie is certainly a great source to show it's been called one of the worst. But we need multiple sources explicitly calling it that. Not just terrible reviews, or commentary on how terrible the reviews are, but reliable sources specifically using the superlative.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Wikiepdia goes by reliable sources, not a user's opinion of them. And what's this "mulitple sources specifically" saying "one of the worst"? The criteria at the heading of this talk page states "Cite at least one (bold mine) of those sources (Preferably the most reliable one(s)) that explicitly calls it "one of the worst films ever"." Recognition by the Razzies, which even you admit is a "great source" as "Worst Picture of the Decade" (remember, there's only 11 full filmmaking decades) easily fits that criteria by your own admission. --Oakshade (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
            • The fact that you seem so desperate to avoid seeking any other WP:RS citing this film as the worst is only giving the impression that you can't find any others. Maybe the film isn't worthy of inclusion after all. — Hunter Kahn 20:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
              • Sorry but content on Wikipedia is decided by reliable sources, not someone's opinion of another editors actions. That's a case of WP:DISRUPT. This film easily passes even the stringent artificial criteria placed above this talk page and shifting away from deciding content by Wikidpeida's guidelines that just to spite another editor is also a case of WP:POINT. --Oakshade (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
                • Oakshade: The criteria for this article are decided by consensus. So far, three editors specifically disagree with you on this. No one has been disruptive ("WP:DISRUPT") -- to make a point ("WP:POINT") or otherwise -- and I see no evidence of personal attacks ("spite"). When the consensus is against your position, you have four choices: 1) work to support your point within the consesus 2) give up your point 3) work to change the consensus 4) bang your head against the wall and denigrate the consensus. I'd suggest one of the first three. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • SummerPhD, #4 was a personal attack. Please stop. Yes, Consensus here is selectively excluding this film even though it flies against not only Wikipedia's guidelines of deciding content by reliable sources, but even the more stringent artificial requirements of reliable sources that some users conjured up for this article. In fact, a much broader WP:CONSENSUS that decided Wikipedia's policies is what we should go by instead a few users on a talk page. Nobody here has made any credible case that inclusion crietia has not been met. If consenesus has decided a film that's been awarded Worst Film of the Decade by the Golden Raspberry Awards should be excluded from a page entited "List of films considered the worst", there's something up with this room's "consensus". --Oakshade (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
                    • Actually, no, it wasn't an attack. Would you like to come up with more sources that support the point you'd like to make in the article, or are you just going to tell everyone they're wrong? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
                      • Not calling them wrong, but providing very strong reliable sources (including "a great source" as stated by one above) as to evidence of inclusion criteria. Again, nobody is providing any credible counter to the evidence provided. Instead we're getting "I want even more sources" for some reason. There's something really strange going on here.--Oakshade (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
                    • Oakshade, you are metaphorically banging your head against a wall and, quite literally, denigrating the consensus. I am not saying anything about you as an individual. I am merely saying I feel you are approaching this in a way that is unlikely to achieve the result you hope for. The consensus present here says the film does not belong on the list. That consensus does not seem to be yielding to your arguments. While you are certainly free to continue to say the consensus is wrong and you are right (or, I guess, claim the consensus is not what it appears to be), as a matter of policy, consensus trumps most other arguments. If you feel there is another issue here, you're most likely going to have to go beyond this talk page. A third opinion is obviously well behind us. I suppose an RfC or some form of mediation are options. Good luck, it seems to me you'll need it. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
                      • I've been editiing for over 4 years here and have extensive knowlege of our guidelines and I've never seen anything like this. "Consensus" has decided that a film considered by a "great source" (the Golden Raspberry Awards , listed as inclusion criteria at the top of the article) as "Worst Film of the Decade" is not allowed in an article entitled "List of films considered the worst."? Even a new user would agree there's something very strange going on here. You can call my opinion "bangingyour head against a wall" all you want, but there is something more than adherance to Wikipedia's guidelines occurring. I should note that broad consensus trumps narrow consensus. If there's an AfD on an biography that doesn't pass WP:GNG and most the "voters" are in favor of keeping it, broad consensus, meaning the large number of editors who decided our guidelines, trumps those "voters" and it rightfully should be deleted. I've seen it happen many times. Glad you agree this to to go RfC. Won't be able to start until the weekend. --Oakshade (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
                        • The reason that one source, even if it is "great" for what we need, cannot be the only one using a superlative calling a film the worst is that we don't want parts of the list to be built around the opinions of just one person or body. Roger Ebert calling a film "the worst ever" would also be a great source, but without others calling it the same it is nothing more than Roger Ebert's opinion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Myra Breckinridge and the 70's

I've brought up before that there really aren't enough supporting citation for Myra Breckinridge. It's certainly an awful movie, but it doesn't come close to the standards we've set for the other films on the list. The only "worst" reference is Medved's book, and there are over 30 films on his list that don't appear here, so that's really not enough. It's got a surprisingly high 29% at RT (some are "so bad it's good", but some actually compliment the film). I propose that it be removed.

Of course, that would leave no movies from the 70's. Now having lived through 70's cinema, I simply can't accept that :).Prebys (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know enough about Myra Breckinridge to support keeping it or removing it at this point, although I could do a bit of research on it. I agree, though, that the 1970s section needs to be expanded a bit. Do you know of any other movies that might fit the bill for the 70s? (We'd have to search for sources for them, of course.) — Hunter Kahn 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bruno Mattei or Joe D'Amato's work during the 1970s might qualify. But it would be hard to find English mainstream critics writing about his stuff at is was all Z-level shocksplotation with limited releases.--Sus scrofa (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Starcrash could be added as a representative of the 1970s, although I'm having some trouble finding a source putting it among the worst of the worst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.224.248 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Prebys, I lived through the 70s too. Hopefully unlike Prebys, I lived through Starcrash. There simply have to be sources. It is unimaginably bad. I'll look... - SummerPhD (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Shockingly, a number of critics liked this film movie disaster. They seem to be of the impression that the camp value cancels out the oh-holy-god-who-thought-releasing-this-was-a-good-idea factor. Bummer. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Should we add The Cat in the Hat (film)?

I believe that according to Rotten Tomatoes, the film was given a 11% rating, even though it grossed about $133 million out of the $109 million budget.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Chris

Do you have multiple reliable sources claiming that it is one of the worst movies of all time?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the phrase "one of the worst films of all time," although there is of the worst movies of the last dozen years, of the most repulsive kiddie movies ever made, and reason there will never be any more live-action Dr. Seuss movies. Yes, it's bad, but not bad enough for this list, IMHO. PaintedCarpet (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Mommie Dearest (film)

Should this film be included in this article "List of films considered the worst"?--Oakshade (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - In 1981 Mommie Dearest was the winner of five Razzies by the Golden Raspberry Awards including "Worst Picture" and "Worst Actress" [7]. It was the first film to sweep the Razzies.[8]
  In 1990, the Golden Raspberry Awards named Mommie Dearest the "Worst Film of the Decade".[9]
  It was included in Michael Sauter's book The Worst Movies of All Time. [10] and author Richard Crouse in the book Reel Winners: Movie Award Trivia identified it as having "earning some of the nastiest reviews ever" by critics.[11]--Oakshade (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Include. The references currently provided by Oakshade in this RFC seem to be more than sufficient to justify inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include - The consensus on this page (see top) requires "Cite at least one of those sources (Preferably the most reliable one(s)) that explicitly calls it "one of the worst films ever"". That source, apparently, is Michael Sauter's book. I can find no info on who Sauter is. The publisher of his book, Carol Publishing Group, seems to be best known for being on the losing end of Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group (their Seinfeld trivia book was found to be copyright infringement). Why is this a reliable source? Heck, what does he even say about the film. Is he merely reproducing Razzie "winners" and other lists?

Yes, Richard Crouse said it earned nasty reviews. He does not, however, say the film was one of the worst ever. He quotes two critics who say some pretty nasty things. No doubt they seem to consider it a ""bad" or even "crappy" film". Again, see the criteria outlined at the top of the page.

That leaves us with the Razzies. (Sweeping the Razzies seems to be why the film landed in the aforementioned trivia book.) I'll take the Razzies naming it the worst film of the decade as a supporting cite, but we still need a reliable source, "Preferably the most reliable one(s) that explicitly calls it "one of the worst films ever"". I don't see that yet. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Michael Sauter is an entertainment writer, most notably with Entertainment Weekly. [12][13][14][15][16]. The New York Times quoted Sauter in regards to his book The Worst Movies of All Time [17]. If it's a good enough source for the New York Times, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Richard Crouse said it earned some of the "nastiest reviews ever", not just "nasty reviews." Demanding a source states "One of the worst films ever" whilst discounting ones that say one of "Worst films of all time" or "Worst Film of the Decade" due to a non-policy wording conjured up by a limited consensus of users (see WP:CONLIMITED) is simply game playing semantics.--Oakshade (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Slow down a bit. OK, Sauter is good, though I'd like a quote from the book. (I asked who he is because it was not obvious: I found no other books by him, a quick Google didn't find him, the book was remaindered and the publisher was not a confidence builder.) As a writer of some tenure for EW, I'll take his opinion as a source. Your accusation of "game playing" is completely off-base. I did not depreciate "worst films of all time" as not saying "ever", it was based on lack of clarity over who Sauter is. "Nasty reviews", to me, says the reviews were nasty: vicious, spiteful or ugly[18]. If the film is included, I'd use it to mention the general tone of the reviews, though, by itself, I don't see that phrase as saying much about the film. "Worst Film of the Decade" is a strong step in the right direction, but does not cover "of all time". In fact, for their worst films of the 20th century, "100 Years/100 Stinkers", Mommy Dearest didn't make the cut.[19] It was one of the 300 worst of the 20th century, they said[20], but not one of 100 worst.[21] "Battlefield Earth" won by a landslide. So, for the moment, we have the Sauter book title (I'd like a quote). *I* don't see anything compelling from Crouse. I'm now less moved by the Razzies.I still don't see "widely considered one of the worst films by a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics" and the "one of those sources (Preferably the most reliable one(s)) that explicitly calls it "one of the worst films ever"" is one critic, by inference from the title. Unless you have more, my !vote stands. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• We're pretty much just going back and forth here and pretty much all the arguments are out there. Just a couple of clarifications, it was Entertainment Weekly writer Michael Sauter who included Mommie Dearest in his book The Worst Movies of All Time and it was Richard Crouse who stated the film "earned some of the "nastiest reviews ever." You'd like to see a quote from Sauter's book. Fair enough. I think being included in the book which presumably goes into detail of why its included it very strong evidence of inclusion in this article. I'll note that The Golden Raspberries awarding the film the "Worst Film of the Decade" Razzie does in fact imply one of the "worst films ever/of all time" as there so far has only been 11 full filmmaking decades (unless you count the 1890's which was rather limited and experimental).--Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The worst film of one particular decade is not necessarily one of the 11 worst films ever, unless it is worse than the second worst film of every other decade. And, again, they left it out of there 100 worst films of the 20th century. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• That website you're citing this "100 worst" list, "The Bad Cinema Society" (not the Golden Raspberries which you seem to be implying) likely wouldn't be considered a reliable source as it was largely written by one guy, a non-journalist Michael Lancaster, who ran a poll for visitors to his now-defunct website. I personally find that much weaker than a well-respected journalist like Michael Sauter or the very highly referenced Golden Raspberries, which unlike this "The Bad Cinema Society," is even quoted at the top of this article as an example of a reputable source. --Oakshade (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, the website is a bad link on my part. The Razzies announced and started a poll by the same name, but hunting for results only turned up the wrong link I posted. (I love the Razzies, but they don't seem to keep the best site...) I certainly do not intend to say that a film not being on any particular list means anything for our effort here. In any case, the rest of my reasoning stands. Yeah, the Razzies said it was the worst of a particular decade. This is similar to a "worst (whatever) movie ever" -- the qualifier shoots it down. If anyone can find the Razzies "100 years/100 stinkers" results (if they followed through), I might change my mind. Failing that, my !vote still stands. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Since you seem to be hung up on this Razzies "100 worst" list, John J. B. Wilson's The Official Razzie Movie Guide does have a "100 worst films of Hollywood" opinion and, while I don't have access to the book, a user on a message board re-published the list and Mommie Dearest is included. [22] It's in the "THE VERY BEST OF THE VERY WORST" category which seems to be reserved for the truly worst like Showgirls and Glen or Glenda.--Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not "hung up on it", thanks. FWIW, though, it's the "THE VERY BEST OF THE VERY WORST" of "100 funniest 'so-bad-its-good' movies of all time". No help. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• And you're not considering that another reliable source because?--Oakshade (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• the "100 funniest 'so-bad-its-good' movies of all time" are what they say they are. This article is not "List of films considered the funniest 'so-bad-its-good' movies of all time" or, a subset of that, "THE VERY BEST OF THE VERY WORST". - SummerPhD (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm just trying to understand your logic. So by the semantics of the wording you don't think Golden Raspberry Awards founder John J. B. Wilson's book The Official Razzie Movie Guide is his opinions on the 100 worst films and the title of his 10 film list "THE VERY BEST OF THE VERY WORST", which includes other Razzies "Worst Picture" winners Battlefield Earth and Showgirls, wasn't just used as a more catching and whimsical title for "The worst films ever"? --Oakshade (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• My logic is that the book means what it says. Since no one here has yet cited the book, we have precious little knowledge of what it says. My logic is that this article goes by the consensus established above unless and until a new consensus is established. If you'd like to open that up, please do (my argument will be for including those few films called the worst ever (per the title, as opposed to "one of the worst"). Under the current consensus, I don't see sufficient evidence of this film fitting. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The book means what it says? To me it says it's a book going into detail of what the author considers the most awful films ever. In fact, USA Today says that's exactly what it does ("100 most awful — yet perversely fun — movies to watch").[23] USA Today also confirms that Mommie Dearest is included in that "100 most awful" book. [24] Do you really think that The Official Razzie Movie Guide is stating that Showgirls, Glen or Glenda, Mommie Dearest and Battlefield Earth are all some of the top 10 best films and USA Today was wrong? As for your "consensus" claim, in fact the local consensus states a film be considered by reliable sources as "one of the worst", not just "the worst" as you're claiming. But we're going back to my point above. Demanding a source states "the worst film ever" whilst discounting ones that say one of the "Worst films of all time" , "Worst Film of the Decade", one of "100 most awful" or as the The Official Razzie Movie Guide states, this is one of the 10 ""VERY BEST OF THE VERY WORST" due to a non-policy wording conjured up by a local consensus of users is a textbook example of game playing semantics. You've kept on demanding this film be included in the non-existent Razzie Award published "100 years/100 stinkers" (feel free to provide evidence to correct me on its existence), however when provided an actual Razzie publication that includes this film in the 10 "very worst" category, you've shifted yet again demanding specific wording whist inexplicably questioning its meaning.--Oakshade (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the book means what it says. If you'd like to cite the book, please tell us what it says. Do I "really think that The Official Razzie Movie Guide is stating that Showgirls, Glen or Glenda, Mommie Dearest and Battlefield Earth are all some of the top 10 best films and USA Today was wrong?" If I did, I would say that. I didn't say that. Your repeated insistence that I am discounting "Worst films of all time" , "Worst Film of the Decade", one of "100 most awful" based on the wordings suggests that you are either not reading or not understanding. I am not playing games. Please assume good faith. I didn't "demand" anything. I suggested that, if it were included in the "non-existent" Razzies 100 years/100 stinkers might help change my mind. If you have anything new to add, I'm listening. If you'd like to repeat that I am game playing (editing in bad faith) or repeat claims that I have said something I have clearly not said or that I've made up a list (the "non-existent" Razzies 100 years/100 stinkers) I have no more time for you. Failing additional sources, my !vote stands. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• The book The Official Razzie Movie Guide, cited by USA Today as the ""100 most awful" films, says Mommie Dearest is included in the top 10 list of "VERY BEST OF THE VERY WORST" along with Battlefield Earth and Glen or Glenda. What about this book is not a an example of a reliable source calling it one of the worst films ever? Repeating "it means what it says" is a nonsensical answer. And the book was in fact an "additional source" to the Razzie Awards "Worst Picture of the Decade" award and Michael Sauter's The Worst Movies of All Time. --Oakshade (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why the concern about Sauter? He's been used to cite movies for inclusion on this article for years. I don't see why he's suddenly an issue now, or an issue only for this particular film. Gamaliel (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't examine every film included, just this one. I saw no indication who he is. I see it now. He's the one source I accept, though I'd like a quote (I think we're actually citing the website at the moment, not the book). If there are other sources that use him alone, that's a separate issue, as he is not "a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics". I am simply saying this film, as presented so far, does not currently meet the consensus established here. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• In fact we have multiple sources in addition to this Worst movies of all time book which, as Gamaliel indicted, has already been cited for inclusion on this list for several films. --Oakshade (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning toward include. I had earlier opposed based on the fact that only one source was included (Crouse) and questions were raised about it. Oakshade has since identified a second reliable source, the Sauter Worst movies of all time book (and possibly a third, with the John J. B. Wilson book). Between those sources, and the Razzies Worst of the Decade award (which by itself wasn't enough, but along with the other sources I feel is), I'm now leaning closer to inclusion. I will note, however, that I feel Oakshade showed a lack of respect toward the previously-established WP:CONSENSUS and the good faith questions raised by other editors here, and if he'd exerted even a fraction of the energy he spent on complaining toward finding sources in the first place, it likely wouldn't have had to come to an RfC at all. — Hunter Kahn 05:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Update in Golden Raspberries founder John J. B. Wilson wrote the notable book The Official Razzie Movie Guide: Enjoying the Best of Hollywood's Worst which describes the "100 most awful" films and Mommie Dearest is included according to USA Today.[25] While I don't have access to the full list in the book, a user on a message board re-published the list and Mommie Dearest is included in the top 10 "THE VERY BEST OF THE VERY WORST" along with Showgirls, Battlefield Earth and Glen or Glenda.[26]--Oakshade (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, CBS Minneapolis WCCO-TV rated Mommie Dearst #1 on their "Best ‘Worst Movies Ever" list (Showgirls, Howard the Duck and Glen or Glenda were rated lower.) [27]

If there's a source that lists it and it been used to support other inclusions then this should be a no brainer. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The consensus here calls for "a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics" (among other things, see the top of this page). Films are not listed based on one source, but multiple sources (otherwise, this already long article would be several times longer. That one source, used as one of many elsewhere, lists a film does not ensure its inclusion for that reason. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case we have multiple sources.--Oakshade (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include the variety of sources supporting inclusion is sufficient. Swarm ^{u | t} 17:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This RfC has been in place for over 20 days and the discussion seems to have wound down. With 5 participants, 4 are inclined to include this film in the article with 1 still apparently against. Consensus has spoken. I will be closing this RfC and re-adding the film to the article. --Oakshade (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have no problem with that. However, I think the sentence "The film earned some of the worst reviews ever" should be changed to something tamer like "The film earned overwhelmingly negative reviews" or something. As worded now I think it violates WP:NPOV and, although I know we have a source that says "some of that nastiest reviews ever", I think that statement is suspect. — Hunter Kahn 23:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I can cite the source that calls it having received "some of the nastiest reviews ever" [28] and word it as such attributing it to the author in the article content, therefore not a violating of WP:NPOV. --Oakshade (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm OK with the change as it's now worded. — Hunter Kahn 03:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Titanic: The Legend Goes On

this movie HAS been considered one of the worst films by many reliable sources. why isn't it on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.216.179 (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If you know of such sources, feel free to add it, citing them of course. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic doesn't count. He's a fictional character played by an actor and his "reviews" are satire, not critical opinion. Freshh (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

An entry that writes itself?

I recently saw a news clip about a movie that opened in one theater in Los Angeles, with one viewer, grossing $11 at the box office, and titled The Worst Movie Ever or something like that. Is that too recent to count, or what? 75.73.225.224 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Until independent reliable sources call it one of the worst films ever, it's called a "publicity stunt". - SummerPhD (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the story: http://www.ifc.com/news/2011/08/the-worst-movie-ever-lives-up.php. It sounds like the guy was shooting for a "cult classic", but missed. The story is actually all over the web, but I don't think any reputable reviewers have weighed in. Besides, it seems like intentionally bad movies should be off limits (unless they accidentally turn out good, maybe?).Prebys (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

House of the Dead

I myself think this film should be on here, but I will let others decide.--75.74.62.224 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Find some sources, and then get back to us. Freshh (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate

Didn't know that a film had to be discussed here before suggesting it for the list--so here I am. Surprised that Heaven's Gate was removed (as I now see it was). Consider that it was nominated for five Razzies and won one, has been called the worst by Roger Ebert and Joe Queenan, and virtually ended the existence of a major Hollywood studio. Thoughts? Blueboy96 11:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

All that may be true, but 45% on Rotten Tomatoes seems too high of a score for a film to be considered one of "the worst." Freshh (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno--when you're called "the worst piece of cinematic waste I've ever seen" by Ebert, it's probably one of the worst ever. Plus the fact it brought down United Artists. And it's one of the 10 worst on Empire's list. Blueboy96 12:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

":*I agree that between Ebert, Empire and the Guardian, this movie is fitting for inclusion on this site. — Hunter Kahn 18:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Other poorly recieved films?

Titanic II, Dragonball: Evolution, The Last Airbender, Bucky Larson, and Megaman are all widely considered to be terrible films. Why are these not mentioned in the article? --99.120.152.215 (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, cite multiple WP:RS sources that call them "the worst." So far, I haven't even found enough material to qualify They Saved Hitler's Brain.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Titanic II was direct-to-video, so that doesn't count. Bucky Larson so far has terrible reviews, but let's wait until the Razzies. The rest? Well, take Scott's advice and find sources. Freshh (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

At Long Last Love

At Long Last Love should be included. It was included in the books The Fifty Worst Films of All Time [29] and Michael Sauter's book The Worst Films of All Time. Esquire film critic John Simon said, "it may be the worst movie musical of this--or any-- decade."[30] The Encyclopedia of American Cinema for Smartphones and Mobile Devices noted it was "panned by critics as one of the worst films ever made." [31] It is also included in The golden turkey awards:nominees and winners, the worst achievements in Hollywood history.[32]. The Buffalo News film critic Jeff Simon wrote, "About 45 minutes in, it became apparent to one and all that this was one of the worst and most embarrassing major-talent turkeys of all time." [33] Film critic Jay Cocks said it's "regarded as the great white elephant catastrophe of its time."[34] Writer and director Peter Bogdanovich sent press releases to newspapers across the country apologizing for this film.[35] --Oakshade (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)\

I suggested this film a few months back. It was certainly considered one of the worst movies ever made at the time, but it certainly hasn't been mentioned as much as other bad films in recent years (I guess as other movies worse than this came out in the years following it). But I'll nominate the film for inclusion on this list anyway, because the 1970s section needs expanding.Freshh (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It was considered one of the worst films both at the time and years, even decades, later. At Long Last Love was released in 1975. The Fifty Worst Films of All Time, The Golden Turkey Awards:Nominees and Winners, the Worst Achievements in Hollywood History and The Worst Films of All Time (Sauter) were published in 1978, 1980 and 1999 respectively. Yes, the 1970s section is surprisingly lacking. --Oakshade (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As it's been a few weeks and only support after discussion began and this follows the letter of guidelines, both broad and those specified by WP:CONLIMITED here, I will be adding this film.--Oakshade (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't Stop the Music

can't believe this isn't on here.--98.226.9.223 (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible title change

If this article deals primarily with the worst American films, why not just change the name to "List of American films considered the worst"? Chris (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Because this is supposed to be a worldwide list. The pro-American bias is largely a product of the greater availability of reliable sources for the American ones. I can certainly think of a few Turkish films that would qualify for the list, though... J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep an eye on...

Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star. So far, it's been getting a lot of reviews that have been very negative, on par with the "worst ever" comparisons. If there is more of this type of reviewing, especially if it wins a bunch of Razzies, it may qualify for this list. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

IMDb Bottom 100

I just deleted all IMDb user rating scores and all mention of IMDb Bottom 100 since it is based on user scores. We do not add such user submitted scores, only critics certified to review films. However I did leave a link in the external links. —Mike Allen 07:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Caligula (1979)

Does anyone think this should be included to the list? It somehow managed to squeeze out a 21% on Rotten Tomatoes, but as far as the most offensive, disastrously produced, and poorly completed films go, Caligula has to be pretty high on that list. I should add that none of those positive reviews were from top critics and Roger Ebert rewarded it no stars in his review, famously ending his review with what the lady in front of him in line at the drinking fountain said... Anyway, let me know your thoughts. Jg2904 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mockbusters

Why aren't there any mockbusters (such as movies from The Asylum and Video Brinquedo) on this page? Aren't they considered among the worst movies too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.164.78 (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just speculating, but I think that mockbusters are supposed to be awful. Most of the movies on this list were major films with actual budgets and high hopes that became famous for bombing. Nobody expects Transmorphers to be an Oscar winner, I suppose. Dayewalker (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't Disaster Movie on this list?

Seriously, I don't know a single person with common sense who likes that movie. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And I didn't even find it on that other list of removed movies. Both movie fans and critics hate the movie, and I can easily use a reliable source to back that up. But I won't because I know there is no such thing as "reliable source". All websites have their share of lies. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been over a weak and no reply. I'm surprised. So none of you know the reason why Disaster Movie is not on the list? Everyone I know hates the movie. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember if Disaster Movie was ever on the list, but I think it boils down to the old "no sources calling it the worst" chestnut.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Three films that should be on the list

Why aren't Bio-Dome (1996), Baby Geniuses (1999) and Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002) on this list? I think Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever was even on the list at one point, so why was it taken down? Obviously there are a lot more films that should be listed here, but I feel like at least these three should be included. --Angakoq (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Baby Geniuses 2 (considered worse than 1 I think) was listed here on the strength of its 1# spot on the imdb bottom 100. Someone decided that wasn't enough to keep it and no one objected. IIRC it had no sources calling it the worst per se. The situation is similar with Ballistic; although it has a perfect 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes it had no sources calling it the worst (or words to that effect), so it was removed. It might be re-added on the fact that it was deemed RT's worst of the 2000-2009 decade ([36]). It's also impressive that RT couldn't find a single positive review of 108 they list for the film.--Sus scrofa (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You've uncovered the big problem with this article (and the reason it was nominated for deletion): there are no objective criteria for inclusion. The quasi-accepted criteria seem to be that "one 'qualified' reviewer has called it 'the worst'" or "more than one 'qualified reviewer' has called it 'one of the worst'", but there's a lot of subjectivity there and there are plenty of exceptions to these rules. I would claim that having a 0% at RT is sufficient cause for inclusion, so try it and see. It all comes down to how hard you're willing to argue for inclusion versus how hard someone else is willing to argue to keep it off. For example, go back in the archives and study the epic battle it took to get a no-brainer like "Highlander II" on the list :)Prebys (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been fighting to get They Saved Hitler's Brain and Alien Beasts on the list, but the problem is finding professional reviews of the films that state that they're the worst. I haven't really found any professional reviews at all. I believe They Saved Hitler's Brain was given a Golden Turkey Award, but I don't think all Golden Turkey Award Winners automatically make it on here.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"At Long Last Love" made it in with a Golden Turkey and an entry in Medved's book and "Myra Breckenridge" made it in with only Medved's book, so it seems like "Hitler's Brain" should make it with a Golden Turkey and the fact TV guide called it "one of the all-time worst", so give it a shot. Like I said, it all comes down to how much someone else doesn't want it on the list.Prebys (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever

The 2002 movie Ballistic:Ecks vs Sever needs to be returned to this list. It was taken off several months ago during the massive cleanup. Here are a few reasons why it should be returned. It was a colossal box office flop. It is on Roger Ebert's most hated list, With ebert giving it half a star out of four calling the movie "an ungainly mess, submerged in mayhem, occasionally surfacing for cliches". Guylaine Cadorette of hollywood.com Remarked "Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever has to be one of the worst films ever made. Sadly, you almost have to see it to believe it." Various other critics gave it ever more damning reviews; Nick Rogers of state journal-register stated "The backyard battles you staged with your green plastic army men were more exciting and almost certainly made more sense", and Rob Vaux of flipside movie emporium said in his review "You'll have more fun setting fire to yourself in the parking lot. You'll be more entertained getting hit by a bus". Most notably, this movie is also the single worst reviewed movie on rotten tomatoes; 108 critics weighed in, not a single one of them gave it a good review. This earned it the number 1 spot on rotten tomatoes worst of the worst list. The worst of the worst list contains the worst reviewed movies of 2000 to 2009, The includes a few movies that are currently on the 'list of films considered the worst' page (IE Battlefield Earth and Alone In The Dark) and This movie outranked all of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.9.186 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You make a strong case for inclusion, the case for inclusion of Ballistic seems at least as strong as several other films currently on the list.--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Hottie and the Nottie (2008)

How about this movie...it had been criticized a lot and it gains nothing but Razzie awards. Also Paris Hilton has been criticizes a lot in this badly produced movie. --Syukri Abd Rahman (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Does it have any sources calling it the worst? Not every Razzie winner is listed here.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)