Talk:List of films considered the worst/archive2

message: The 2007 movie had an eight percent in Rotten Tomatoes. Harshly criticized and with a box office though the floors. Will you add it?200.71.186.240 05:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You answered your own question.  "Harshly criticized" and "considered the worst ever" are enormously different degrees.  Some people really do not read the criteria before they post. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is Premonition??

message: Alright, listen. I know that as Wikipedia editors, we strive for quality in the way we present information to its respective readers. However, there are often times where I read the articles here and it makes me feel like it's some sort of way for people to show how pretty (Sarcastically speaking) their sentences are. "Constant state of flux"? We're not talking about Chaos Theory, this is an IMDb list of the top 10 worst movies. Isn't "constant state of flux" just a little too overdoing it in terms of choice of words? There really is no need for that to be so wordy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.136.69 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ..."This list is in a constant state of flux"?

message: Shouldn't there be some on this list?  It seems English-centric... - Narfness 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anglo-centric. What films did you have in mind? --Thaddius 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't too many films released on the art house circuit that would qualify.  Pete Toombs's Mondo Macabro would have examples.  Toombs cites, for example, Kunt Tulgar, aka Kunt Brix, whom he calls Turkey's answer to Ed Wood.  The Spanish film Accion mutante has a poor reputation. There is also the B and C class cinema in India, which are shown in different theatres and sometimes have topless/softcore scenes added and taken way by projectionists because such scenes are illegal, but often the reason audiences go and are thus cheated.  Indeed, one of my colleagues is writing his master's thesis on such films, which Bollywood wants to pretend do not exist.  Apparently the Ramsay Brothers films are of this ilk, but I'd have to see them first.  My colleague clearly holds the B and C biases and wonders why I would want to see them since I'm not researching the movemement like he is.  They are just starting to get issued on U.S. DVD.  I want to see Penanggalan most of all.--Scottandrewhutchins 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of at least a few danish productions that are really in an international scale bad. Gay Niggers From Outer Space Reptilicus Angel of The Night —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carewolf (talk • contribs) 10:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign Films

message: Van Helsing all the way. The stinky one with Hugh Jackman (poor Hugh). Can someone *not* agree?
201.19.153.149 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please add Van Helsing 

message: in a topic which is based purely within the realm of personal opinion, is about the most idiotic exercise in self serving navel gazing I've seen in a while.
I don't know, it's kind of interesting, and come on- this is just wikipedia!
"Just wikipedia?" *Falls to ground, twitching* Crowstarcaws 01:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicussing neutrality and weasel words... 

message: Regardless of the movies, I have to wonder why this is listed on Wikipedia. While there can be no-one left on Earth who doesn't know that Wikipedia is full of stuff that should never see the light of day again, never mind not even approaching encyclopedic merit, this article is still garbage even by Wikipedia's low standards.
It's a fluff opinion magazine / tabloid TV piece that should never see the light of day. There's no way of establishing "Worst Movie Ever" except by some index linked to Box office stats. And you'll never see the genuine figures, so it can only ever be subjective.
Good for bar chat, pointless for everything else. Please delete it again, and keep it that way, if you are to have any hope of dragging this trivia site up to any kind of mediocre standard.
That's exactly why the page should stay up.  Name one legitimate use of Wikipedia than settling arguments/ bar bets.
:I believe this article should be kept. If this is deleted, every other article about "best movies", "worst movies", "best games", "worst games", "controversial movies" and so on would need to be deleted, which is a large amount to delete. Seeing as how this article has been nominated five times for deletion and has been kept, I think it's safe to assume that your opinion that this should "never have seen the light of day" is only personal opinion. 
Personally, I was expecting to see "Epic Movie" on this list, as I cannot find a single person (and couldn't, right after it was finished) that didn't think the same of it. Wikipedia is used for reference. If people want to refer to a list of movies considered 'failures', then they should be able to, rather than dig through 100 pages of personal opinion on a search engine. Zchris87v 06:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective Garbage

message: On what basis is this film considered the worst ever? It has a 6.0 rating on IMDB and slightly negative to luke warm reviews on other sites.
*Hm, yeah, I agree. 26% rotten tomatoes isn't low enough to be considered the worst ever in my opinion. Suredeath 12:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, I don't see any evidence that it qualifies. I've removed it. Mark Grant 13:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think whoever put that there was talking about another "Fantastic Four" film, made in 1994.  Because of its shoddiness, it was never released, and many bootlegs have circulated.  The Green Lantern 01:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantastic Four (2005) 

message: http://imdb.com/title/tt0326983/
If you think that the "Turkish Star Wars" belongs in this article please see this film its absolutely hilarious for all the wrong reasons. Its a recent horror Bollywood film that rips off various Hollywood films such as Terminator, Mission Impossible, Matrix etc.
Though not well known in Western circles this film was derided by the Indian public which is a lot considering the amount of poor quality films produced in India that are considered classics at home.
This film is easy to find on ebay, you don't even need subtitles to enjoy it (though it may enhance the hilarity due to poorly written script).
I honestly think that this would make the article so I would reccomend that you watch it for a quick laugh.
: I've removed it for the moment (along with 'Alien Beasts') as both sound bad but neither has an assertion of being considered among the worst ever. Feel free to add it again if you can cite some support for that claim. Mark Grant 08:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jaani Dushman: Ek Anokhi Kahani" 

message: Why is it that "Immediate additions" lists a film from 2005, yet other sections include films from 2005 and 2006?  If 2005-6 isn't too recent for the other sections we don't need an immediate additions section. Ken Arromdee 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that section should go too, though maybe 'Alone in the Dark' should stay in a different part of the article. Mark Grant 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I didn't know where to fit those two films into the "Reasons" list when I created it so I left it there. If they can be integrated into a section explaining why it failed, it would definately help clean up the page. 68.39.174.238 21:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved "Alone" out of there. I don't know where to stick "Material", "Stars" maybe? 68.39.174.238 22:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: It seems to me that most of the movies listed as 'disowned by the makers' do have legitimate claims to being considered among the worst ever, but it's not clear to me why they're in a separate section? Is there a good reason for separating them out in this way, particularly when it encourages the addition of other movies (e.g. 'Burn Hollywood Burn' and 'Caligula') which may be disowned but don't include an assertion of being 'considered the worst ever'? Mark Grant 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of those films I couldn't fit into the "Reasons" hierarchy when I threw that together, so left them there. If you can fit them in somewhere in a section describing the reasons for their failure, I'll gladly see that section disappear. Infact, let me see if I can do some of that myself, now... 68.39.174.238 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got rid of Catwoman (Moved to new section). Not sure about the rest— someone more knowledgeable about them should see if they can go elsewhere or just delete some. 68.39.174.238 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Burn, Hollywood, Burn' seems the only one of dubious merit for the article as the others have at least one critic or award claiming they're one of the worst movies of their year, or worse. I'll see if I can move the others around and delete the section, but it may take a few hours as I have to go shopping soon :). Mark Grant 18:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ok, I think I found reasonable homes for them in the end. I'm not certain about 'The Conqueror', but from the online reviews I read it does seem that John Wayne was seriously miscast and that was a major contribution to the failure of the movie (I'm sure I've seen it in the distant past but don't remember much). Mark Grant 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Getting all lists on the page into a coherent, unified hierarchy definately makes this page look better and should help prevent the addition of one-off dislikes (Especially new contentious films in the "Immediate additions" one). 68.39.174.238 01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disowned by the makers 

message: "All hell is about to break loose."  One of the crowning cinematic taglines in history.
----
We should question the authenticity of the claim that the movie "Supernova" is 
listed as one of the worst movies ever made.  This movie has developed a huge
cult following, and has it's rightful place on many collectors shelves.  We will
never see another movie with such an amazing plot line or starring characters.
Easily James Spader best achievement, "Watch him as he escapes with his life from
a supernova! The most massive explosion in the universe!"  As quoted by the director.
: Well, I can't comment on that, but I don't think the entry justifies its inclusion. I'd delete it unless there's more support for it being 'considered one of the worst movies ever'. Mark Grant 22:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it for the time being. It can be put back if someone can justify it being 'considered the worst ever'. Mark Grant 18:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity of Supernova Editor 

message: While Godfather III isn't widely considered to be one of the worst films of all time, it has got to be one of the most loathed sequels of all time, in comparison to its predecessors. There have been multiple pop-culture references related to its (lack of) quality (example: Fat Tony of the Simpsons: "I haven't cried this hard since I paid to see Godfather 3.") an it is pretty much universally known to be one of the biggest disapointments in cinematic history. It did recieve an above-average rating on IMDB and a 77% on rottentomatoes, but nearly every positive review unfavourably compares it to the first two films. I believe it should be in the "sequels" section, because it may be the most unfavorably referenced film in pop culture. --C civiero 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still doesn't make it considered the worst ever. Much as I dislike Godfather III I think I'd delete it straight away if added, as I can't see any way that it meets the requirements. Maybe 'worst acting ever by a relative of the director' :). Mark Grant 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I love how hypocritical that last statement was. How intolerant and ignorant. Let me try to explain his comment in plainer words. Godfather III has too many sources against it being worst movie ever that it cannot be put on the list. It's Wikipedia criteria, man, to delete untrue statements straight away if added. You get a life. 161.184.179.200 19:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but I've heard more negative comments about it than any other movie, so I thought I'd throw it out there. --C civiero 04:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Godfather: Part III 

message: The arrangement of the current edition of the article does not agree.  I've read about half thus far, and it is disappointing to see that the first portion is arranged chronologically, while the second is alphabetical.  As such, I am arranging the whole article chronologically. Crisco 1492 22:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrangement of Article

message: I'll keep it short: If I were to mention the amount of weasel words in this article, it would take me hours. This article is in serious need of cleanup. Ohyeahmormons 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: Honestly do not trust the IMDB rating, watch this film and it is honestly beyond the worst film ever made.
: The third act sucks, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's generally considered one of the worst movies ever made... from what I remember it got pretty good press when it was released (probably better than it deserved). Mark Grant 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I thought Cube was excellent, and so have many, many people, including reputable critics. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the largest grossing Canadian film for a while from what I remember. --Thaddius 02:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great movie. --Steinninn talk 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cube

message: I've removed a few new additions which don't seem to rise to the level of 'worst ever' based on the citations included with them. They all appear to be bad movies, but if merely being bad was considered enough to get on the list it would be as long as the  removed films list. 
If citations can be found to support them being generally considered 'the worst ever' rather than just bad then there's no problem adding them back. Mark Grant 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying 

message: If I include the links that were on the page I provided, would it suffice to keep Alien Beasts on the worst list? --Scottandrewhutchins 02:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see any relevant links on that page, maybe I missed it. To avoid putting every horrible direct-to-video movie on the list, it really needs to have won at least one 'worst movie' award or been called one of the 'worst movies ever made' by a recognized critic... pretty much every single movie on IMDB has at least one person claiming it's 'the worst movie ever', so there has to be some kind of standard to restrict what's included. Mark Grant 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's objectively far less competently made than say, Blood Sucking Freaks.  You're right, though, I pasted rather than linking.  I'd have to find them again, and they're still not name critics by any means. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alien Beasts

message: It's been a while, so I'll raise this again: the current categories are rather arbitrary and smack of POV. The text inside them (e.g. the non-movie specific text) could be considered original research, and it is certainly not verified. I much prefer the older alphabetical version. Turnstep 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: The movie The Creeping Terror pretty much falls flat in all areas and I have heard it considered by quite a few people to be at least one of the worst movies.  Plus on the page, it links here. O_o -WarthogDemon 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. I only now just saw the links up there. ._.;;; -WarthogDemon 21:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Creeping Terror 

message: The above three movies, I believe, are qualified to be on this list. These descriptions are hackneyed (I'm tired and want to go to bed), so make any necessary changes before you add...
Crossover - A movie that deals with a high school basketball player's struggle to decide between an education or money and fame in the NBA. This movie has received a rare 0% on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer and has a 1.2 overall rating at IMDB. If that isn't enough to add to this list, then I will look up a few critic reviews later.
The Covenant - A "horror" movie that deals with supernatural forces or something like that. Has a 3% rating on the Tomatometer and a 4.4 on IMDB. The IMDB rating may exclude it from this list, but it has been critically panned by many esteemed critics.
In the Mix - Usher's debut in the acting genre. A staple on the IMDB Bottom 100 (Usually in the Top 10). Currently has a 2.1 rating on IMDB and a 6% rating on the Tomatometer.
I will add more to this tomorrow. I would try harder, but I want to go to bed, so good night. Hossmann 03:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossover / The Covenant / In the Mix 

message: I have often seen this film cited as worst ever, and the Wikipedia page certainly makes a strong case for it without even trying.   Why isn't it listed here?--Scottandrewhutchins 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have you seen it cited as the worst ever? Wryspy 00:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A Google search for "worst ever beast of yucca flats" (not as a string) turns up a high number of hits, including quotations from Leonard Maltin, Bill Warren, and Michael Weldon.  Maltin called it one of the worst films of all time. Warren called it the worst non-porno science fiction film ever made, and Weldon, in The Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film, said it was even worse than The Creeping Terror. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be sufficient as long as you cite the sources that called it the worst. Wryspy 05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Beast of Yucca Flats]]

message: what about the infamous Ishtar? voodoom 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It got less than 20% approval on Rotten Tomatoes--Vercalos 05:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Financial failure is not the same as being called the worst ever in terms of movie quality. Wryspy 06:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually seen the film? It's a dreadful, incomprehensible mess, and for years film critics, historians, and movie buffs have cited it as a prime example of an A-class movie in which everything went wrong. It certainly belongs in this category, and I don't understand anyone attempting to exclude it.  SFTVLGUY2 13:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many people who like the film, and not all critics gave it negative reviews. We're looking for absolute worst here, and Ishtar isn't it. (Ibaranoff24 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Find an appropriate external source that considers it the worst ever. That's all we need. Wryspy 23:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's generally agreed that Ishtar is horrible. It belongs here. Astruc 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's generally agreed that it wasn't a financial success. There's no proof that it's "generally agreed that Ishtar is horrible." It doesn't belong here. (Ibaranoff24 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ishtar 

message: This is a terrible film, and i could find a lot of people who agree with me.  seriously, watch it.  it sucks.  to hell.  and back.--The leprechaun tells me to burn things 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to find it for ages.  It won several awards, so it's not going on here. --Scottandrewhutchins 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it won awards doesnt mean its a good film.  my class at school were subjected to it, and not one of the 26 people there enjoyed it.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 09:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how does that response qualify it for this page?  It doesn't. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're meant to suggest crappy films, and I am, and this one is really crap, so I think it deserves to go on this page.--Andy mci 11:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom's midnight garden 

message: No one knows enough about this horrible film. I recommend everyone to pick it up for $8 on DVD (came out finally last year). I guarantee you'll be disgusted, but you'll want to keep the DVD after viewing it. Then... it can make this list.
:that was one of my favorite movies as a kid, no joke, and as an adult, or at least far more of one than i was when i was 5, the movie is pretty bad, i now know why my parents were so reluctant to rent this for me after i had seen it the first time--Manwithbrisk 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robot Jox 

message: Recently cleaned this article up to try and bring it to a better level. 3 big areas of editing made. 
1- I removed all films made in the last year, especially those made this year or within the last 5 years. There is simply no way that such a new movie could already be so universally considered to be the worst ever.
2- I removed the movies that only mentioned rotten tomatoes or metacritic or straightdope opionated reviews as references. One said "Only 5 of 57" positive reviews on rotten tomatoes, sorry, that's 5 reasons it couldn't be added to the list. This should be almost exactly like the article for 50 worst movies of all time, suprisingly few of them are listed on this page. 
3- Got rid of some purely speculative and leading material that does not live up to the wikipedia standards. 
I'm sure the same dozen people will ravage the sensible edits I've made and ad Zoom (2006) staring Tim Allen back to the list, because afterall, it's been out for less than a year, so it's gotta be considered by everybody to be one of the worst films ever.(sarcasm) See what I mean? Use your heads people, respect wikipedia, Less is always more. Take your arguments to rotten tomatoes where the editors there can treat you like the bickering children you are behaving like. Just because you didn't like a movie and found 50 reviews agreeing with you, does not in fact make it actually one of the movies that everyone considers to be one of the the worst, ever. 
Final Note- The soundtrack for Sgt. Peppers (which was included before my edits) is a phenominal 2 disc collection of some of the most popular Beatles songs ever. Almost every song on the sound track is in the movie, I don't think you can have this good of a soundtrack in a "musical" and it be fairly considerd the worst film ever. 
71.234.110.209 07:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, you did not read the inclusion criteria. The films are among the worst ever, which is a lower bound for inclusion - it does not require critical unanimity, which you seem to require, merely a preponderance of criticism. Furthermore, your assertion that movies only released in the last few years cannot be considered amongst the worst ever is horrifically untrue - when Battlefield Earth was released, critical consensus was near-universal: it was amongst the worst films ever released. Your assertion that rottentomatoes and metafilter are inappropriate for judging critical consensus is simply spurious - the inclusion criteria for the list include the aggregate of critical opinion. What do rottentomatoes and metafilter do? That's right, they aggregate critical opinion. Finally, your use of the speedy deletion tag was totally incorrect, to the point that it borders on abuse. Captainktainer * Talk 14:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stay civil. I have had nothing to do with this conversation and feel your comments above are uselessly abrasive. 68.39.174.238 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Changes 

message: Change the name to Films widely considered worst ever
:How has this article survived 5 afds?  Renaming it with the word "widely" in the title will just make it more weasely.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Widely" is not objective, though. How will you prove it? You can't. "Some people"? No, a name like that would get the article deleted altogether as ambiguous, excessively broad OR. Wryspy 06:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Because unobjective=unacceptable. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the title 

message: To those who are doing the lead edits on this page -- you may want to look at The Smithee Awards.  They've been doing this for 15 years now. Cyberjoek 13:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Resource for Use

message: Should consideration be given to this stinker's place in the history of cinematic folly?  Eddieuny 04:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  I wouldn't try putting Rocky on here, even though I personally think it's cinematic trash.  The most negative reviews I could find were from Vincent Canby and Andrew Sarris, who found almost nothing praiseworthy in it except Talia Shire, but neither referred to it as one of the worst ever made.  --Scottandrewhutchins 13:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Zardoz]]

message: The headline of a Denver Post review of Battlefield Earth (12 May 2000) uses Travolting in its headline.  The web original is archived by the Post but the Internet Archive has a copy of it in cache.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010330005309/http://www.denverpost.com/scene/earth0512.htm
Since I am not well versed as to the Wikipedia way of handling such things, I post this here to affirm that the assertion that Travolting was used to describe Battlefield Earth is cited. LightningMan 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travolting 

message: It may be a bit early to put this one down, but not only did it get 13% at rotten tomatoes, many fans on the rotten tomatoes forums agree that they distorted the book so much that it might not be possible to make the sequel. Telepheedian 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 13% isn't as low as much of what's on this list. Its average rating by critics is 39% (see metacritic.com). While weak, it's not going to earn it a place among the worst ever. It's apparently too mediocre to make this list. Wryspy 10:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if your considering puting eragon on the list because of 13% then what about the grudge 2 with 7% in its opening week that it is still at today?--Manwithbrisk 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone called it the worst ever? Or close to the worst ever? A number of movies listed in this article need to be removed for failing to meet the article's defining criterion. Plenty of movies rank worse than 7%. That rating in and of itself doesn't cut it. What some critics rank as the worst ever could have some diehard fans who jack up the average rating. Wryspy 09:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: most, if not everyone i have talked to who has seen the movie said that it was bland, predicable, and redundant, wiht no steady plotline throught he whole movie, and odd, seemingly random events happening in the movie that were mostly unexplained and did nothing for the movie but to cause more confusion among audiances. this movie was overly hyped, poorly writen, seemed like the director was just making things up as he went along rather than being planed out. its a dreadful movie. if no one has said that it was the worst movie ever made, then i am going to say, I, Manwithbrisk, henceforth do declair that the film "The Grudge 2" is the worst peace of film ever made.--Manwithbrisk 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "everyone" you "talked to" is not an encyclopedic source. You personally are not an encyclopedic source because, among other things, that would violate WP:NOR. Wryspy 08:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I retain my opinion but conceed the point. not only are we not getting anywhere with this aurguement but your right. --Manwithbrisk 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eragon 

message: What about Ed?The film was universally panned and is still considered one of the worst? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.246.172 (talk • contribs) 
:Says who? See article description for the kind of veriable, legitimate sources that count. Wryspy 09:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing about that, number one on many lists is the movie "Crossover", which was released just last year. It earned a 0% on rotten tomatoes, is number one on IMDB's list of worst movies ever, and was only shown in theaters for less than a month. In addition, it earned $7 million, which is much less than the production cost for many movies. I don't know whether or not it lost much or gained much, but it couldn't have made much money. That, by many means, allows it to be on this list. But I do agree that too many new movies are on this list. The ones that'll someday be on VH1's "I love the 00's" being made fun of are the ones that probably deserve to be on this list. Not saying that anything after 1997 should be ignored, but the ten-year period is probably a good idea. Tell that to rotten tomatoes and IMDB, since a good chunk of their lists consist of new movies. Zchris87v 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds about right. JimmmyThePiep 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed

message: Since the  boxes at the top of this page keep getting larger (Usually my doing), I tried to write up something that we can keep on a subpage and link to with a short explanation. I've tried my hand at User talk:68.39.174.238/films and I welcome other people to read, write, respond, etc. 68.39.174.238 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top of the Talk(:) 

message: Shouldn't that movie be added? Son of the Mask is on here and its also a Jim Carrey rip-off.
:It's not really one of the movies I think of when I think of "worst ever". A talking duck comes to mind, but certainly not this movie. Keep in mind that because a movie was a "rip-off", that doesn't make it one of the worst movies ever. Plenty of successful rap songs have been rip-offs of older songs, but they turned out to be hits. Zchris87v 06:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumb and Dumberer

message: I've heard Batman and Robin was criticized for being weaker than the previous films. 67.188.172.165 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen it? Shwartenegger made me realize that an entire movie can be sunk just on the basis of a single actor. (.. btw, Terminator rocks. ... Just shouldn't be in Batman.) JimmmyThePiep 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, its a bad bad movie. And we shouldn't base this list only on what Rotten Tomatoes says --Steinninn talk 19:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Batman and Robin

message: MysticLyman 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossover 

message: I think everyone hates 'Star Wars; The Phantom Menace'.
.... ughh.... .(I cringed when I typed out the name.)
There's the blatant racial-stereotype alien character. There's the annoying child. There's not nearly enough R2 and C3PO. The queen getting dressed in ever-more bizarre costumes every 10 minutes. And the very dull, dull, dull, extremely dull sections about Star Wars politics. ... not to mention ripping off the Bible with the whole 'immaculate conception' - wait, never mind it's Darth Vader' subplot.
And to quote Comic-book Guy: "Worst movie ever. I will only watch it 12 more times today." JimmmyThePiep 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Phantom Menace 

message: If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Not even Emma Caulfield added anything to this expensive piece of tripe. JimmmyThePiep 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darkness Falls 

message: I removed this after it was removed previously by somoene else.  Appearance in the cheap and snide documentary The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made is not justification for any film's appearance on this list, though it may be used to bolster it.  The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made is no more a reputable source than http://www.mrsatanism.com/OtherFeatures/videoentertainment.htm .  It's written by unknowns and overstuffed with a cheap animation sequence eating into the brief and ad hominem "reviews" illustrated with nothing more than trailers.--Scottandrewhutchins 14:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood Sucking Freaks 

message: I don't get it. On Yahoo!Movies it got C+ as avarage rating. That's very good in my opinion. So why is it listed? I really don't get it. I found it great, so did others. Y!M is very famous movie database. TheBlazikenMaster 12:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lousy measure of awfulness. It's inherently biased toward recent movies. There are literally hundreds of awful low-budget quickies and grindhouse pictures from the 50s and 60s that are unquestionably worse than this and most other entries in this list. --Tysto 05:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Zoom listed? 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 reason why this has been nominated for deletion five times is probably because the title is a little POVish. Why not move it to Films notable for negative reception (like Video games notable for negative reception that was earlier called List of Video Games considered the worst ever)? 220.227.179.4 08:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree: This title is a good suggestion, I would go for anything less childish. —Wikibarista 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * "Films considered the worst ever" is clear. "Films notable for negative reception" sounds like an electrical technical expression. Anthony Appleyard 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support move for reasons nominator has given. Joeldl 05:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  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.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: 9-0%
*Catwoman (movie)
*A Man Apart
*Norbit 
*Slackers (film) 
*Say It Isn't So 
*Taxi (film) 
*I Dreamed of Africa 
*Juwanna Mann 
*First Daughter 
*Urban Legends: Final Cut
*The Number 23 
*Elektra
*White Noise 
*Darkness Falls 
* Gods and Generals 
*Kangaroo Jack
*Stealing Harvard
*A Sound of Thunder
*The Skulls
*Underclassman
*Man of the House
*Venom
*My Boss's Daughter
*See No Evil
*The Wash
*Out Cold
*Basic Instinct 2
*Premonition
*Dragonfly
*Surviving Christmas
*The Reaping
*The New Guy
*Lost Souls
*Boat Trip
*Date Movie
*Deck the Halls
*Chill Factor
*Ultraviolet
*Undiscovered
*Jawbreaker
*Stay Alive
*Gray Matters
*The Order
*I Still Know What You Did Last Summer
*Doogal
*Gigli
*Envy
*Yours, Mine and Ours
*Johnson Family Vacation
*Glitter
*Cheaper by the Dozen 2
*Summer Catch
*The Adventures of Pluto Nash
*Extreme Ops
*The Forsaken
*Universal Soldier: The Return
*Material Girls
*Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie
*The Fog (remake)
*Supercross
*Big Momma's House 2
*Code Name: The Cleaner
*Swept Away (remake)
*Corky Romano
*Serving Sara
*The Perfect Man
*Because I Said So
*Texas Rangers
*Bloodrayne
*Soul Survivors
*The Mod Squad
*My Baby's Daddy
*Darkness
*The In Crowd
*House of the Dead
*Down to You
*Happily N'ever After
*Fear Dot Com
*Son of the Mask
*Bless The Child
*Rollerball
*The Whole Ten Yards
*Christmas With The Kranks
*Baby Geniuses 
*The Covenant
*Deuces Wild
*Battlefield Earth
*Epic Movie
*Godsend
*Zoom
*Half Past Dead
*The Master of Disguise
*Twisted
*National Lampoon's Gold Diggers
*Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2
*King's Ransom
*Pinocchio (Roberto Benigni version)
*Crossover
*Alone in the Dark
*Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever
BlueLotas 20:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The worst reviewed movies on Rotten Tomatoes 

message: I recently watched the 1983 version of "Hercules" and the story line rarely made sense and the special effects were extremely low quality. This film received 17% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 2.6 out of 10. The only reason it received some good votes is due to people laughing at such a poor quality movie.
Rotten Tomatoes
IMDb Reviews SquareShot97 00:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hercules 

message: Just curious why this film, one of the biggest Hollywood disasters (and, last I knew, credited by the Guiness Book as "biggest box office flop of all time"), isn't here. Or Hudson Hawk (which I am actually rather fond of), Heaven's Gate or Ishtar, for that matter.
I can see why box office failure is not the only criterion for "worst ever", but surely the mass public's vote in avoiding these very expensive films - the same category Pluto Nash is in - is as significant as reviewer consensus on sites like Rotten Tomatoes, which was created long after most of these movies passed out of public conciousness. dharmabum 08:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Cutthroat Island]]'' 

message: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/super_mario_bros/
I think it deserves mention.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RadLink5 (talk • contribs) 
*Then provide a source that calls it worst ever. This isn't a list of all awful movies. It's the worst ever. The Rotten Tomatoes score isn't low enough. 6% means it's not in the bottom twentieth of the scale. Wryspy 06:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Super Mario Bros. movie is almost universally considered awful 

message: How can you forget this classic?
*If you can find sources citing this as one of the worst films ever made, then add it. (Ibaranoff24 16:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[No Holds Barred]] 

message: If you read the Rotten Tomatoes reviews rather than just look at the rating scores, it seems obvious that the ratings are low because the reviewers are not the card-playing kids to whom the movie is marketed.  The ratings, in other words, don't say "this is a bad movie," but "this is a bad movie for adults", and since 10 year olds don't write movie reviews, reading the movie reviews gives a biased view of just how bad the movie is. Ken Arromdee 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the entry, at least until someone shows that the movie is poorly received by 10 year olds.  I'll also point out now: a movie aimed only at children is not a "family film", it's a children's film. Ken Arromdee 19:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, well said. -- Chronus Valtiel 08:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yu-Gi-Oh the movie 

message: There's a Z movie rated worse than Glen or Glenda... Shouldn't Z movies be put into consideration? So bad that the general public stays away from them? --Hitsuji Kinno 03:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about Z movie?

message: I'm amazed two movies didn't get put on here, Mommie Dearest, and Xanadu. They were universally panned, so why aren't they here? ~Crowstar~ 19:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm amazed... 

message: According to Wikipedia, "Blair Witch Project" is IMDB's worst rated movie. The worst rated movie on IMDB is actually the "Tony Blair Witch Project," which is not "The Blair Witch Project."
71.98.106.238 13:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blair Witch Project? 

message: I think we should have an article of this. We already have the films (obviously) and video games.  86.156.200.70 07:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tv Shows Considered the worst ever 

message: I was just on rotten tomatoes and I don't if it is significant yet but if this trend continues could we add it?
 
I would suggest star vehicles category possibly since it has academy nominated actor Cuba gooding jr. or family?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daddy_day_camp/ it has 2% already after about 40 or so reviews. Pigman5 07:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: consideration for Daddy Day Camp?

message: In addition to Brideshead's comment, the newly added movies to this section have not even been released worldwide. Thus, they're only considered the worst American movies ever made. What about movies that bomb in China, the most populated country in the world? This is yet another problem with this article. Irk Come in for a drink! 03:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: China may be populous, but it has a miniscule theater-going population with respect to most other industrialized nations. Robert K S 08:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American view

message: I know its prob not the worst, but with over 400 viewings and only a hanful of comments, I have to say, I guess its pretty unviewable. I leave it under the exploitation genre because I feel most exploitation films have had a part in what actually happens in my film. The violence and mistreatment of fellow humans is a very important issue in this world today, we have wars of many different levels. THis film i feel honestly documents what exploitation REALLY is all about in our culture. I made it look as bad as possible because i wanted it at the bottom of the list, alongside all those other exploitation films, to show you that because of those genre of films, there has been a raw reality created. who is responsible? I cannot cite any credible reviews because this film has been ignored by everyone its been handed to, thus i think it deserves a higher title than Showgirls (which atleast you can use for stimulation)
;Filling Bolster (2006): Documented  using 3 broken cameras & edited off a TV screen audiences cant seem to find more than 5 minutes tolerable. Filmed during a year of alcholism.drug addiction this film documents a raw hour of being lushed.  There is no behind the stage confessionals to explain who these people are or why they treat eachother this way, one fellow filmmaker has regarded it as making his mind happy because of this docu-drama disortion. It brings a new level of involvement to a film experience in which you are so unsure of whats going on and being said, your subconscious fills in the blanks. This leaves the film open for numerous viewings to discover what was really going on.
Most film students disregard it as unimportant "why do you feel it that something you shoot, by just picking up your camera and shooting constitutes a film? Just curious... because generally, I don't think that." This comment comes from the wide population of student filmmakers more concerned with making a pretty portfolio than searching for some truth in their lives. Others have found something more real than the typical portrayal of rape in cinema, “what truly shook me was that, that kind of behavior, that cruelty, isn't really that strange” the film; 
Warrenoaksfishing 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filling Bolster 

message: User:GGH7664, I think you have a point, but the encyclopedia is not for users' opinions.  If you can find published, notable reviews to the same effect, and write it with a different (neutral) tone, I'd be happy to see you include it. --Scottandrewhutchins 13:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Somewhere in Time

message: Since this article's name is pretty hyperbolic, I would like to suggest renaming it to the more neutral List of films notable for negative reception, after the precedent set by video games notable for negative reception. Chubbles 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. "Negative reception" is excessively broad, subjective, open to interpretation. We have criteria for "considered the worst ever". We have enough trouble trying to keep this one straight. A broad term like "negative reception" could get the whole thing deleted. Wryspy 05:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It once got renamed, but soon change back. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Films notable for negative reception for detail. L-Zwei 06:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Leave it alone, ok as is. The Parsnip! 20:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename suggestion

message: The dilemma with this article is even when films have evidence, this article in inherintly POV by what it includes and does not include.  Just because a film is not here doesn't mean there isn't evidence that there's not evidence that it's not the worst ever, it just means that people haven't found it yet.  Which means that films that perhaps have the most evidence of being the worst ever might be left off this list.
A better way to structure this article I think is to reformat it completely into a series of cited lists by prominent sources such as famous critics, like Roger Ebert, famous institions, like the American Film Institute, and famous news sources, like New York Times art section or something. That's the only way this article can really escape POV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that evidence may be out there that other films are considered the worst ever doesn't mean this list is POV. Wikipedia as a whole is continually evolving, as more information is found and added to articles. As these other films are found to have ratings that qualify them for this list, I'm sure they'll be added in time. Each of the existing films here has at least one cited reference that shows why it should be included. The Parsnip! 19:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural Suggestion 

message: While listing some bad movies, and citing sources, the article as a whole seems like just a mishmash of movies. I'd even go as far to say that the movies listed in the article are just ones a certain person or two don't like off rottentomatos' list. I see like, the first one off the list, then the 40 something, and few inbetween. What makes the 20 or so listed on Wikipedia worse than the others. This Article either needs to list RT's full list citing it, or be deleted for bais. In my opinion.
R.L. Nieman 07:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List is not biased, as sources are included to help support the notion of being considered the worst ever. Not all sources are from Rotten Tomatoes, as the article would then be "list of worst movies ever according to Rotten Tomatoes". They also come from IMDB, from ratings of well known film critics, etc. The Parsnip! 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The credibility of the this article. 

message: I don't know how many people actually watched this B movie, but I'd say it definitely ranks up there.
R.L. Nieman 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not like it, but it was well reviewed and has a cult following, and thus its inclusion would not be encyclopedic. --Scottandrewhutchins 00:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Alive! 

message: I remember this one from the 1992 Spy article. The slap-stick comedian Jerry Lewis miscast in a film about Auschwitz -- no, I am not making that up. We are talking the worst of Ed Woods or Manos served up with unbelievable tastelessness. The only reason it couldn't be added to the list is that it has never been commercially released; but there is sufficient evidence for its existence. -- llywrch 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Day the Clown Cried]] 

message: This movie was one of the most poorly executed comedies ever made, and it's 3% rating at Rotten Tomatoes actually gives it too much justice.
And watching an 80 minute comedy without cracking a smile is very poor comedy.  Chronus Valtiel 08:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No [[Delta Farce]]? 

message: Why is this is all of these categories?:
*All articles with unsourced statements
*Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007
*Articles with unsourced statements since August 2007
*Articles with unsourced statements since September 2007
Is there a broken bot? I would imagine just the first would be sufficient. Turnstep 14:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people add the  template, and SmackBot dates them accordingly. If you think about it, they're all accurate. --Closedmouth 14:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category creep