Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 1

message: (a fine name for a bad movie)
====List of movies that have been considered the worst ever====
Silly list. Inherently POV. Wyllium 01:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the work you are doing trying to keep this article in a good usable state despite the never-ending drive-by additions of regular joe bad movies, Aranel. Thanks! Pcb21| Pete 17:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I readded this, with solid cites. Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I can't save this one. Luc "Somethingorother" French 08:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Let's keep the conversation productive and civil, please. Gamaliel 08:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but I had to take it out again. I agree that there are other films on the list that should be removed for lack of documentation, but that doesn't mean that this one should stay. 10% on Rotten Tomatoes signifies a particularly bad movie, not "the worst ever". 0% on Rotten Tomatoes would perhaps be notable. (I think we need to establish a policy for Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb data.) Just because it was released the same year as another bad movie doesn't mean that important reviewers didn't review it. (You might start by checking what Ebert said.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD Part II: This sucker won't die 

message: Silly list. Inherently POV. Wyllium 01:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Films considered the worst ever|List of movies that have been considered the worst ever]]

message: *The Brown Bunny (2003): Hyped entirely on the "controversey" it created at Cannes, it was in fact declared unpatriotic because it purported to represent American filmmaking. 
-Aranel ("Sarah") 22:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the work you are doing trying to keep this article in a good usable state despite the never-ending drive-by additions of regular joe bad movies, Aranel. Thanks! Pcb21| Pete 17:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I readded this, with solid cites. Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I can't save this one. Luc "Somethingorother" French 08:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Let's keep the conversation productive and civil, please. Gamaliel 08:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but I had to take it out again. I agree that there are other films on the list that should be removed for lack of documentation, but that doesn't mean that this one should stay. 10% on Rotten Tomatoes signifies a particularly bad movie, not "the worst ever". 0% on Rotten Tomatoes would perhaps be notable. (I think we need to establish a policy for Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb data.) Just because it was released the same year as another bad movie doesn't mean that important reviewers didn't review it. (You might start by checking what Ebert said.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another one, just added

message: North was sheer brilliance!  What on earth is it doing there?  You people don't understand hyperbole.  Fishal 00:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: North

message: The following template was added to the article. It is obvious metadata meant for editors so I am moving it here. Make of it what you will. 
:No, this template is obviously meant for the article page: Any notice of bias belongs on the article because it qualifies the accuracy of the article to readers, and it refers the reader to the talk page, so obviously isn't meant to be posted on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes. 119 21:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article page

message: I removed this entry:
*Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
It's listed above, but has apparently been reinserted with even less documentation than it had previously (i.e. none).
There are a lot of other entries that are rather POV, of course, but I didn't get to that. The sometimes vague references to "[unspecified] reviewers said" and "is widely considered" make it hard to distinguish fact from speculation. --Aranel ("Sarah") 01:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added Leonard Part 6, this time with documentation. Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed for lack of documentaion

message: The following entries used to be in the main article, but now aren't. There needs to be at least some attempt to document these (other than just describing how bad they are) if they are to be reinserted. Can anyone provide the relevant citations?
*The Beast with a Thousand Eyes: Another classic awful film, in the vein of Robot Monster. It is especially famous for its "score", which was composed by playing a record behind the camera during the filming.
*Glen or Glenda (1953): An inept quasi-documentary from Ed Wood about transvestism, this film tells the story of Glen, who enjoys wearing women's clothing.  After a nightmarish dream sequence (which is so transcendently bad, it's even worse than the rest of the film), Glen undergoes psychotherapy to help cure his affliction.  Bela Lugosi appears for the sole purpose of spouting bizarre psychobabble at the camera.  Many aficionados of Wood's films insist that this is a worse film than even Plan 9 from Outer Space.
**This comes close, but "many aficionados of Wood's films" is not exactly a source. -Aranel ("Sarah")
*Hudson Hawk (1991): Bruce Willis film which received very negative reviews.
*Leonard Part 6 (1987): Written by and starring Bill Cosby as a CIA agent out to prevent villains from brainwashing small animals to kill people.  Fortunately Parts 1 through 5 were never filmed.
*Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964): A terrible Christmas season film that was also the screen debut of Pia Zadora. Includes irritating and catchy opening theme.
*Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1978):  A movie adaptation of the famous Beatles record of the same name, starring The Bee Gees and Peter Frampton.  The movie is considered one of the worst musicals of all time and was wildly unsuccessful, especially considering the extreme popularity of the Bee Gees at the time.
I was being nice. There are some that are left that have support that is close to the handwaving variety. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added Leonard Part 6, this time with documentation. Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Round two

message: How does one determine which movies are the "worst ever"? Here are some proposed guidelines:
* All personal feelings about a movie should be put aside.
* Financial success (or lack of) should not be considered.
* Each movie should have at least two cites, from a movie critic, where "movie critic" is defined as someone who gets paid to write reviews. The more well known and established, the better.
* A "Razzie" nomination counts as at least one reviewer. A "Razzie" award counts as two.
* Each cite should indicate not only that the movie was bad, but that it was (in the reviewer's eyes) one of the "worst ever".
* The movie should roughly be considered a "bomb" but at least 50% of all reviewers.
* Having a few reviewers love the film does not disqualify it, but does merit further scrutiny. There are films (although rare) that truly fall into the "love it or hate it" category.
* Some movies may be the worst of a particular year, but this list should think broader.
:Good points, but doesn't this inherently bias against older films? I know MetaCritic doesn't even rate films prior to 1998, and I'm sure RottenTomatoes has a similar cut-off date. Even the Razzies were only instituted in the 1980's. So what about earlier films? There's quite a dearth of citations for films before the internet age, so it's hard to meet the arbitrary 2-source standard above. I still believe that discussion on this page is the best barometer of whether a movie should be here or not, since personal feelings are really the essence of this article. POV cannot be avoided when it comes to "bad movies", so why don't we just embrace it by deliberating the movies here? Not to say that the guidelines above shouldn't be used, but just the opposite: they should, but with a healthy amount of common sense mixed in. Davis21Wylie 16:20, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good ideas, but they seem more open then the unofficial rules were anyway.  Only two cites?  And a Razzie award counts as two?  Even popular movies have been nominated or "won" Razzies (often times for Worst Song), so that opens the door for just about any movie to go on here.  And that would seem to contradict the last suggestion (which I like) about movies just being worst in their particular year not being good enough; that's what the Razzies are about!  Also, all folks have to do to find two critics is look up Rotten Tomatoes and pick two bad reviews, even if the overall score is good.  I know this is not really how you wrote the suggestions, or how I assume you mean them to be read; it's just that they could be interpreted in ways that would open up this list to way too many movies to be added/re-added that are merely bad or have mixed reviews (or even 'allow' the re-addition of Titanic.)  A lot of the ones I removed really had some goofy criteria for being added, like: overspending (which again, would qualify Titanic), just being on the IMDB Bottom 100 (which would qualify, hey, 100 movies), or finding a random or even famous "worst list" somewhere.   I don't think the rules should be chokingly strict, but this list does need some.  What they should be, I have some ideas, a few of which are listed in the Higher Standards section of this talk page. Dannybu2001 16:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Turnstep: Yeah, I almost re-added "Wild Wild West" myself, but got beat to the punch, lol.  IMO, the jury's still out on "Batman and Robin" for me; I actually re-watched it last night, and it's actually not THAT bad (maybe corny and inconsistent, but 'worst'? Not really.)  As it's written, though, it's really only got one cite (a scathing review.) It did pretty well at the box office and, while it has a 13% RT rating, I think the consideration that it was a third sequel and had 'expectations' are also to consider.  Anyway, my point is, it's movies like this that make having rules for this list difficult.  I could cite the tomato rating and keep the review, but it doesn't seem right somehow or at least enought to re-add it (especially when I'd rather watch B&R over and over, than ever have to watch Catwoman.) Plus, the review was from a humorist and even some of the reviews listed on RT seemed quite on-the-fence rather than squarely 'rotten'. Ebert's was listed as 'rotten' yet said, "Wonderful to look at, and has nothing authentic at its core."; that could describe a LOT of movies! B&R was pretty 'bad' but doesn't really seem like 'a worst'.Dannybu2001 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I think perhaps the movies from the "50 Worst Movies" DVD need to have their own article with a 'see also' link at the bottom of this article or at least a special section on the page with ALL of them listed.  Most (if not all) of the ones cited from this that are listed, ONLY have this as a cite, with nothing else to back it up.Dannybu2001 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for Inclusion 

message: *How can this be a part of an encyclopaedia!
This is outragous.  This is all totally subjective, there is no way around it.  I could add the Godfather to this list or Star Wars, as many people I know think they are crap.  Go check up on them in the Movie Database movie listings and tens of thousands of people argue that they get 0 out of ten, which surely makes them movies "that have been considered the worst ever."
It is this kind of drivel that makes me want to give up on wikipedia completely.
jucifer 02:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Winning" at the Golden Raspberry Awards is not subjective. 0% ratings at Rotten Tomatoes are not subjective. This article does not report that these movies actually are the worst ever. Just that some reputable source has considered them remarkably bad. See the preceding discussions on this page. I agree that the standards need to be increased. Being "somewhere on the bottom" at IMDb is not particularly notable. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The page move was a bad idea in this respect. "Amonth the worst ever" is a sucky nebulous concept, whereas "the worst ever" is precise. Has it been called the worst ever? Yes? Then it's on the list -  No? Then it's not. Simple. At least it should be! Pcb21| Pete 07:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The issue has aleady been debated, and it has twice been decided that the article should not be deleted. I am removing the NPOV dispute tag, since lately the editing has conformed to prior discussions of what list entries should contain, i.e. a citation to some critical source which affirms the movie's "badness". Ellsworth 20:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let me state it another way, so all the supporters of this rotten page have no reason to censor me away. The citations made are subjective. Quoting subjective findings and compiling them, doesn't make them objective. The encyclopedial value of this kind of article, is 0.0 and yes, this stinks and a lot!! Has there ever been a poll about this? 83.134.129.26 08:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been two votes, and in both voters decided to keep the article.  It is unlikely the subject will be revisited again.  This article is here to stay. Gamaliel 20:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But, 83.134...,  we invite your contributions if you think certain entries don't belong, or if there is a way we can change the criteria to improve the article. That's why we have the meta-list on this talk page. Ellsworth 22:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it isn't solid. This is a list of "worst", not "bad" or even "extremely bad" movies. We'll eventually end up with a list of everyone's personal disfavorites if such weak provisos are allowed. Maybe we can keep the movie with the worst score, though, if there is a clear winner (loser). Fredrik | talk 08:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a disgrace 

message: ===Short list===
What happened with the slimmed down list here? Is there a process for getting films on the list? Mark Richards 00:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We decided that all films listed needed a citation i.e. who considered that the worst ever. The article was turning into a dumping ground for any movie some editor didn't like. See VfD above, and my comments below it. Pcb21| Pete 00:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks! Mark Richards 04:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Come on, guys. This article is hardly a serious academic work, and it says so in the introduction; we needn't have any kind of strict, arbitrary guidelines (i.e., "at least the bottom 10 or 20 at IMDB, 10% or less at Rotten Tomatoes", etc.)for inclusion. If somebody puts one up that's way out of left field, we can deliberate its deletion on this page, but to have somebody (no offense intended, Dannybu2001, but please!) come in and delete over half of the entries because he, by himself, didn't feel they deserved to be on the list... that's not right, either. Many of the movies you removed had met their burden to be considered on this list, and, what's more, some of the ones you added seemed to fall short of your self-expressed standards! While I don't agree that every film on the list should (or even could) be considered the "Worst of All Time", it's really a gathering place for the truly bad movies, the universally panned films, that have graced the big screen. I mean, you removed Heaven's Gate?!! Because it didn't meet your narrow criteria? We're talking about perhaps the mother of all flops, the original "unmitigated disaster"... it must be on this list. Otherwise, what's the point of the list? We'll just have a collection of low scores from the post-Razzie/post-RottenTomatoes era. Contrary to popular belief, life did not begin with the advent of the "Information Age"... yet, that will be the list we'll have: "If it didn't score low on MetaCritic, well, by God, it's not one of the worst films ever!" So let's consider our deletions and revisions, discussing them in this forum, rather than unilaterally picking and choosing the films whose presence here we don't agree with and then deleting them, okay? Davis21Wylie 3:26, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I want to say for the record that the only one I added was "Envy" and it IS quite universally hated, so where does "some of the ones you added" come from?  The rest of my 'additions' were existing write-ups I reinforced with more info (case in point, Jury Duty had one slim cite and I checked up and found more).  And I didn't have 'narrow' criteria, many of the ones I deleted (and moved to this talk page for later review) had such convincing cites as "it appeared on MST 3000", and that was it. A couple only had one bad review from Ebert, and if he doesn't like it, then on the list it goes? I know some are famous for being bad (Heaven's Gate and Howard the Duck) and certainly 'deserve' to be on here by reputation, but as they are written, there's not much proof, and without proof, it's POV.  As far as Internet info, some were on here with the cite of "appeared low on the IMDB Bottom 100", well, wow, that says it all don't it?  I actually tried to be as 'un-Internet' focused as possible with this, and the only one I really trusted was Rotten Tomatoes since it's a combination of reviews from real-live reptubale critics.  I don't even use/read Metacritic.  I know I was pushing it on a couple of them (Batman and Robin did suck), but the majority of the ones I removed didn't follow any kind of standard but finding one cite (or, as I like to call it, "excuse") to put it on, and with that as a rule, Titanic would officially be allowed.  I mean, The Book of Lists?  I looked that one up and the last updated publication I could find was 1993!  Add some back if you like, but don't blanket revert the list just because I removed 'too many' in you opinion. Dannybu2001 20:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think we have to get so picky about having all information in the total. A title of "List of worst films" with a lead section that makes clearly that the films in the list have to be cited is perfectly neutral. Pcb21| Pete 12:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would like to point out that "List of worst X" or "List of best X", where X is a noun, is a simply horrible title for an article, being non-grammatical, inherently POV, and a surprisingly large multitude of lesser sins; and that "List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made" has the advantage of putting "cite" right there in the title, so that when we remove uncited entries, we can point to the article title as the reason why. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 14:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be titling our articles for the benefit of readers, not for writers who don't read a lead section before trying to contribute to an article. Pcb21| Pete 15:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've changed most of 'em so that they're not double redirects. I'm too lazy to fix the articles they link to, though. Anybody care to volunteer for this quite thankless task? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 15:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Format Discussion/Suggestions

message: What happened with the slimmed down list here? Is there a process for getting films on the list? Mark Richards 00:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We decided that all films listed needed a citation i.e. who considered that the worst ever. The article was turning into a dumping ground for any movie some editor didn't like. See VfD above, and my comments below it. Pcb21| Pete 00:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks! Mark Richards 04:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Short list

message: Or maybe I should say "lower standards". I'd like to propose some standards for IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes based inclusions. This is what I would suggest:
*0 positive reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes. (Maybe permit just one or two, or some low percentage. 5%? I'll have to poke around and see what that would mean in practical terms.)
*Documentable appearance at the very bottom of an IMDb list.
If we're going to claim that someone considered these the "worst ever" (or even "among the worst ever", which I think is unnecessary here), we should pick the ones that are truly shining examples of bad ratings. Being somewhere on the IMDb "worst" lists or having somewhat low reviews at Rotten Tomatoes is not particularly notable. Lots of bad—but not awful—films meet that dubious distinction.
If, of course, a film had only five positive reviews at Rottem Tomatoes, then there's a good chance that some notable film critic said something sufficiently scathing to merit inclusion. I'm just saying that the Rotten Tomatoes (or IMDb) rating alone should be not sufficient. 
Comments? Concerns? Better suggestions? -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, guys. This article is hardly a serious academic work, and it says so in the introduction; we needn't have any kind of strict, arbitrary guidelines (i.e., "at least the bottom 10 or 20 at IMDB, 10% or less at Rotten Tomatoes", etc.)for inclusion. If somebody puts one up that's way out of left field, we can deliberate its deletion on this page, but to have somebody (no offense intended, Dannybu2001, but please!) come in and delete over half of the entries because he, by himself, didn't feel they deserved to be on the list... that's not right, either. Many of the movies you removed had met their burden to be considered on this list, and, what's more, some of the ones you added seemed to fall short of your self-expressed standards! While I don't agree that every film on the list should (or even could) be considered the "Worst of All Time", it's really a gathering place for the truly bad movies, the universally panned films, that have graced the big screen. I mean, you removed Heaven's Gate?!! Because it didn't meet your narrow criteria? We're talking about perhaps the mother of all flops, the original "unmitigated disaster"... it must be on this list. Otherwise, what's the point of the list? We'll just have a collection of low scores from the post-Razzie/post-RottenTomatoes era. Contrary to popular belief, life did not begin with the advent of the "Information Age"... yet, that will be the list we'll have: "If it didn't score low on MetaCritic, well, by God, it's not one of the worst films ever!" So let's consider our deletions and revisions, discussing them in this forum, rather than unilaterally picking and choosing the films whose presence here we don't agree with and then deleting them, okay? Davis21Wylie 3:26, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I want to say for the record that the only one I added was "Envy" and it IS quite universally hated, so where does "some of the ones you added" come from?  The rest of my 'additions' were existing write-ups I reinforced with more info (case in point, Jury Duty had one slim cite and I checked up and found more).  And I didn't have 'narrow' criteria, many of the ones I deleted (and moved to this talk page for later review) had such convincing cites as "it appeared on MST 3000", and that was it. A couple only had one bad review from Ebert, and if he doesn't like it, then on the list it goes? I know some are famous for being bad (Heaven's Gate and Howard the Duck) and certainly 'deserve' to be on here by reputation, but as they are written, there's not much proof, and without proof, it's POV.  As far as Internet info, some were on here with the cite of "appeared low on the IMDB Bottom 100", well, wow, that says it all don't it?  I actually tried to be as 'un-Internet' focused as possible with this, and the only one I really trusted was Rotten Tomatoes since it's a combination of reviews from real-live reptubale critics.  I don't even use/read Metacritic.  I know I was pushing it on a couple of them (Batman and Robin did suck), but the majority of the ones I removed didn't follow any kind of standard but finding one cite (or, as I like to call it, "excuse") to put it on, and with that as a rule, Titanic would officially be allowed.  I mean, The Book of Lists?  I looked that one up and the last updated publication I could find was 1993!  Add some back if you like, but don't blanket revert the list just because I removed 'too many' in you opinion. Dannybu2001 20:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Higher standards

message: If you're going to move this page, please realize that this list is, by nature of Wikipedia, required to be NPOV, so any page title is going to have to satisfy the following:
# NPOV by it's very nature. The current title (as of this writing), "List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made", conveys the requirements for inclusion in this list; i.e., a cite, and preferablly several.
# Shortness. While not exactly short, "List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made" conveys all the information about the nature of the list in as short a space as possible.
Anybody got any other requirements? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 07:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we have to get so picky about having all information in the total. A title of "List of worst films" with a lead section that makes clearly that the films in the list have to be cited is perfectly neutral. Pcb21| Pete 12:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would like to point out that "List of worst X" or "List of best X", where X is a noun, is a simply horrible title for an article, being non-grammatical, inherently POV, and a surprisingly large multitude of lesser sins; and that "List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made" has the advantage of putting "cite" right there in the title, so that when we remove uncited entries, we can point to the article title as the reason why. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 14:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be titling our articles for the benefit of readers, not for writers who don't read a lead section before trying to contribute to an article. Pcb21| Pete 15:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've changed most of 'em so that they're not double redirects. I'm too lazy to fix the articles they link to, though. Anybody care to volunteer for this quite thankless task? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 15:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Title (Read before moving)

message: I think this article is truly one of the best sources on awful movies, anywhere. But it's getting outside the scope of its title; very few of the movies on the list could truly be considered the worst of All-Time. And I think people (myself included) know that, but put the movies up anyway. If we were earnestly doing an article on the "Single Worst Movie of All Time", and being honest with ourselves, it would be quite a short list. Like I said, most of the movies currently up (even with the recent housecleaning) are bad movies, no doubt, but not the worst ever by any stretch. But that's okay, because we all know that, and we treat it as simply a list of "really, really bad movies". So why don't we just rename it? Call it "List of films that have been considered among the worst ever". I mean, that's the way we're treating it anyway, right? So why kid ourselves? Call a spade a spade. That way, you don't get people coming in and deleting a ton of movies because they didn't meet some arbitrary standard for "the Worst Ever", because we're no longer claiming that they're the single worst movie ever, but simply a "really, really bad movie". The burden of proof would be much lighter as well. I'd like to rename it, then revert some recent deletions to form a master list of any movie anybody’s put up on the "Movies removed from main article for lacking in citations". This whole thing is blatantly POV anyway, because movie analysis (other than raw box office numbers, which in no way represent a film's quality) is by definition qualitative! Anybody coming in on their high horse saying, "well, that one didn't have enough sources... I'm just gonna delete it without consulting anyone else" has to be joking, because it's all opinions anyway! I just wanted to get some feedback on the idea, though, since this article seems to arouse deep proprietary feelings in people (I have no clue why!). Davis21Wylie 15:26, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the title is fine how it is - we already have one weasel word ("considered") we don't need a second one ("among"). I don't think the size of the list is wrong in respect to listing the "worst ever." While you or I might have 10 movies that we consider the worst ever, there will be some overlap. Add a lot of people and soon you have a large list. But not too large. :) Although, as you point out, movie ratings are by definition qualitative, we can (and should) still measure somehow. I think we are actually fairly close to a consensus, reading through some of the talk page here. However, I strongly disagree with consideration of how much money a movie has made - as we all know, that in now way correlates to how "good" the film is. Plenty of good movies ("Wizard of Oz") failed at the box office, and plenty of bad movies ("Men in Black 2", "Godzilla") did well. I'll start a new section below on a set of criteria. Turnstep 20:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming 

message: Just wanted to say, this article is coming along nicely. And no angry edits by anonymous users in over a week! :) Good job with the pictures, Dannybu2001. Turnstep 23:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I wanted to note that the list as it is right now seems to live up to its name (IMO), all the movies listed right now seem to have been proven 'worst' and I am officially done removing titles (any one's added or re-added without new or convincing cites after this writing are fair game though, lol.) Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes, but I honestly don't think this is a listing of just 'bad' movies, and nearly all of the ones I took off were only that, 'bad'.  Like I said, a lot of movies are considered 'bad', and many 'good' movies are considered 'bad' by someone somewhere. I think it's takes a little something extra to be considered 'worst'. Also, I'm not sure how it should be updated/formatted, but another idea would be to change the way this article categorizes the movies. Instead of alphabetical, we could have sections like "Big Budget Flops", "Cult Favorites" and the "The Worst of the 'Worst'". Alphabetical is nice and to the point, but it seems like things could be listed more creatively. Any ideas? Dannybu2001 00:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alphabetical seems the most NPOV. And "worst of the worst" would almost certainly reignite this page's umm....activity. :) Turnstep 01:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes

message: No time to do this myself, but the link to Ishtar at the top should be removed, and a better example used, since Ishtar is not on our list! Alternatively, someone could add Ishtar. Also, the examples at the top should link to the reviews on this page, not the movies themselves. I made a quick edit for a couple, but ideally they should link to the review itself, not the letter. Turnstep 01:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually couldn't find a reasonable cite to re-add Ishtar, so I updated the link with Wild Wild West, lol.  Same goes for Heaven's Gate, can't find a real reason right now.  I know these movies had their time in the spotlight for being bad, and flopping financially, but in retrospect were possibly unfairly judged and over-hyped by bad press. Some of the RT reviews even state this (ironically, I remember reading articles where Titanic was compared to these films during its pre-release 'most expensive film ever' days, it just got lucky is the only difference, really lucky; though arguably a better film.)Dannybu2001 22:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick requests

message: I made a lot of cleanups today, including starting to make some references, particularly to Rotten Tomato pages. Feel free to jump in: I only got through the first few letters. :) Turnstep 01:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent cleanups

message: :The following are a list of movies removed from this list that were succesful financially and/or critically, thus negating any bad reviews/scores that would otherwise make them list-worthy.  Despite the ability to find negative reviews, if a movie's a success by any definition of the word, then it disqualifies them from the list with rare exceptions.  Case in point, Titanic, despite personal opinions and real criticism, it is still the most successful movie ever when it comes to earnings.
I completely disagree with this criteria. You can't judge and much less remove a movie from the list because it managed to be a box office hit despite overwhelming critical panning. A movie has to be judged on its own artistic merits, not by the amount of box office receipts. The Titanic example is flawed as well. Sure, there were people that hated this movie, but so have there been regarding films considered classics like Citizen Kane, Dances With Wolves, The English Patient, This is Spinal Tap, etc. Titanic does have its flaws and it's far from being a perfect movie, but it's also far from being a bad movie; at the most its a 4-5 star movie. It maybe a tad overrated (As it is the case with several great movies) but it isn't a bad film at all. However, editing out of the list such films like Batman and Robin, Pearl Harbor and Rambo First Blood Part II, simply because it made a profit in the box office is simply absurd. These films have been critically panned and are considered amongst the worst movies ever (I myself had the unfortunate pleasure of enduring these three piles of trash) and yet they aren't in the list because they managed to rip off millions of dollars from unsuspecting people? I'm sorry, but this list cannot and will never be an objective list if it takes into account commercial success, despite a movie's overwhelming critical evidence to the contrary. I strongly urge the webmaster or whomever is in charge of this list to remove this criteria since its completely without merit. Respectfully; catrevilla (11-11-05) (moved by --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have sworn I've read the above essay before - where was this moved from? Turnstep 02:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it from the removed list, I didn't think it was appropriate to have his comments at the "reasons for removal".  When I compiled the list of removed movies, I tried to retain as many appropriate comments as possible to respect their contributions.  Perhaps it may need to be rewritten/restructured.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to popular movies removed from list 

message: Ironically, after getting tired of seeing the red link for the movie, and taking the time to create the page Yes, Giorgio, I've realized that it probably does not warrant a listing here. Not only was it merely only nominated for three Razzies (not won, as the article said), but I could not find any reviews citing it as one of the worst ever. Thus, I am removing it. Which is kind of unfortunate as I just spent an hour making the page it linked to! :) Turnstep 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, I've almost removed it several times since it was such a short listing, which often means folks couldn't elaborate on why it belongs here. But I was under the impression it "won" three Razzies, and while a weak reasoning, seemed to still warrant a listing.  But since it was only nominated, it certainly does not belong here.  At least it got its own article out of the deal.Dannybu2001 18:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, Giorgio

message: This article's sister article, List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever, is currently in the middle of a VfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever. If it is deleted, I expect that this one will be shortly as well, since I don't see any significant difference in topic between the two articles. As such, some editors and other frequenters of this page may be interested in participating in the ongoing discussion there, and in casting your votes if you have an opinion on the matter. The vote will also likely affect Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever and Films that have been considered the greatest ever. -Silence 21:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the AfD mentioned above ended with a keep consensus. Turnstep 02:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Important: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever|Vote for Deletion]] underway

message: Whilst reading the section on movies starring musicians attempting to make a cross-over into film I was repeatedly reminded of the move 'Honest' which starred the group 'All Saints' (who were massively succesful in the UK and europe for several years) The film was universally panned and pulled from cinema screens after less than a week it also essentially marked the end of the group. Although the band's fame was primarily European, given that the two people from American Idol's movie is included in this article (and no-one outside of the U.S. has heard of them) I feel that the film really warrents inclusion in this article as a text-book example of such movies.
:Actually, Kelly Clarkson is played quite often here in Sweden, so people outside U.S have really heard of them.
Another film which immediately occured is the 'Hip Hop Witch', which I seem to recall being constantly at the near-bottom of the IMDB's worst films list. It used brief cameos by various famous rappers to sell itself and is, from what i've heard, truly awful. 82.20.58.97 18:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find some good references, we will be happy to add them. Films that disappear very quickly, however, rarely build up much infamy, however, unless they were over-hyped to begin with. Turnstep 23:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hip Hop Witch was on here before but was removed due to the fact it wasn't a widely released movie (in fact, any sources I could find claim it was direct-to-video only and those don't 'count' here), and it sounded like more of a 'special' anyway.  This is similar reasoning why the likes of the 'original' Fantastic 4 and the Star Wars Christmas Special are not on here anymore; either they weren't widely theatrically released (if at all), or they aren't even a 'film' by the standards of this article.Dannybu2001 18:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Query about the 'musical' section 

message: This is really just a continuance of my old proposal but I'm renewing it here since things have changed so much.  I believe that given the new format of the article it appears to be more about the worst films ever, rather than just a 'list'; comparable to the 'greatest films' article which is not considered a 'list' anymore.  As such, I believe Films considered the worst ever would be an exceptable title.  More on my previous reasonings that the "that have been" line is not only unnecessary, but is implied by the word 'considered' in the first place, are located within Proposal for name change November 2005 above.  Please indicate if you think the title should Change or Not Change, plus add comments if you think the title should be something different entirely or if you have reasoning why it should retain the 'that have been' in its title. Dannybu2001 18:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure myself why Swept Away isn't listed in remakes.  I'm not positive, but I think it was before, but someone moved it to musicals.  I guess it works in either category if one wants it to, but perhaps remakes would be more appropriate?  Was Howard the Duck considered a comedy?  It seems more like a sci-fi movie that merely contained comedy (supposedly) than a comedy in and of itself. I think the main cite is that Lucas himself hates it, probably second only to the Star Wars Holiday Special, lol, so 'Disowned by the makers' seems the best place unless we add a 'sci-fi' section; but then, where would most of the B-movies go?  I think maybe citing the categories with other academic sources on the subject may be in order so it can't be considered original research, and an overhaul on the particular categories isn't out of the question, but for now, I think the article is acceptable.  Just a note that I'll be updating the article title momentarily. Dannybu2001 17:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for name change December 2005

message: * In The Gratuitousness section should that movie "Striptease" with Demi Moore be added? I'm sure that was considered a flop with reviewers at least maybe someone could look into it? Mike 21:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was on here before but was removed due to unsubstantial reasoning. Dannybu2001 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Can we look into it again, I think it was not liked by critics if we can find more info maybe we could vote or just add it. Mike 01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read this: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/striptease/ it lists many critical reviews of the movie all bad. The movie should be listed if you have read this. Please consider for addition. Mike 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the big picture, 13% isn't actually all that bad when compared to the most of the movies listed.  Regardless, RT rating isn't really considered enough by itself: Add at least two Razzie 'wins' (preferably more), its IMDb rating, and maybe a couple other substantial cites and maybe it could go back on. Dannybu2001 06:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is substantial your just picking at straws with the other stuff. Some website with some people voting I dont think is that reliable but harsh reviews is a better source. Mike 06:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, I personally don't care for using IMDb as a source, but since it can sometimes be a good indicator of what everyday people think of a movie, it is sometimes a neccessary evil. Let me clarify that what I said before was "more like guidelines than actual rules", but I was trying to bring across that one should not basically cherry-pick several bad reviews solely from Rotten Tomatoes and use that as a basis for addition.  By that criteria, this list would be huge (and it used to be!) and virtually any movie could be added; good ones even.  This isn't a listing of 'bad' or 'crappy' movies, if it was, most of last year's movies would need to be on here (I've said it in other discussions that we would have almost as many movies listed per year as we have on the whole list if we opened the door to merely 'mediocre' or 'blah' movies.) I'm not saying Striptease couldn't/doesn't qualify, but using RT as the sole source will probably get it deleted quickly. If you find something more substantial (mainly proving cites from more than one source) then by all means add it, the other sources I mentioned are simply some of the most common ones used in this article and are a good place to start finding cites. Dannybu2001 17:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair Enough Mike 19:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is more than ready to be added: it won *six* Razzies in 1996, including Worst Picture.  Turnstep 18:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Would Staying Alive be considered for addition?  It was recently voted the Worst Sequel of all time by Entertainment Weekly, and it has a 0% rating at Rotten Tomatoes .  I want to add it, but fear it might get deleted. Cubs Fan 01:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition?

message: Should the movie Super Mario Bros be added to the list? I've found several sources citing it as a pretty bad movie... --I mean, Daisy's father was a giant pile of snot
:Well, we need more than "pretty bad", we are going for "worst ever" after all :). But post the links here, by all means. I recall it being a bomb, but no idea if it was considered one of the worst ever. Turnstep 05:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Mario Bros? 

message: This movie was only released yesterday, but it already has a 14% at RottenTomatoes and a 1.4/10 at IMDb (making it IMDb's lowest ranking film).
:I am by no means a Dan Whitney fan, but this entry is dubious. Being on IMDB's bottom 100 is nothing special nowadays (IMDB voting in general is rediculously polarized with "1" and "10" votes, mass voting by people who haven't seen each film but dislike the lead actor(s) or filmmaker, very bias toward newer movies, similar to the point made above), it only has 20 rottentomatoes reviews, and the movie didn't flop at the BO (7m is middle-of-the-road). Crumbsucker 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far it's made about $11.5 million, and it cost only $3.5 million to produce, according to this article.  I saw the movie and thought it was pretty funny, so I don't think it belongs on the list, but then again I am a Larry the Cable Guy fan.  It's down to 4% on Rotten Tomatoes now, though, and it's already out of the top 10 in theaters. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Larry the Cable guy: Health Inspector

message: The statement "The movies listed here are not simply box office bombs, although many of them are; rather, they are films which spectacularly failed to meet critical and commercial standards set by advance publicity or the weight of expectations." included in the intrro section would seem to exclude some of the included movies in this article.  I don't think critical and commercial standards are always set by advance publicity or the weight of expectations.  This seems to imply that if a film's expectations are very low to begin with then it is not a cadidate for one of the worst films ever which would seem to exclude films like Plan 9 From Outer Space. --Cab88 22:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro paragraph issue 

message: I was just wondering if this film really deserves to be on the list. On IMDB it currently has a 4.4 rating,  a 25% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, and a total gross of $22,762,571 from Box Office Mojo along with a "C" rating, from a $20,000,000 budget. Not brilliant figures to be sure, but I wouldn't consider them to count as "the worst ever." In addition, it has only 'won' one award from it's seven Razzie nominations (six in 1981 and one in 2004.) Although some may claim that the nominations themselves should count against Xanadu, when you consider how the Razzies have nominated several actors/films over the years which are questionable to say the least, (most notably Tom Cruise for War of the Worlds and Kevin Costner for Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Wyatt Earp) I do not know if they can be weighted against Xanadu quite so strongly. I also note that the Kelly claim about admitting it was a terrible film still needs to be sourced. Finally, Xanadu has developed into quite a cult film,  over the years, especially due it's soundtrack, and in a positive manner compared to other cult films such as Showgirls.
Anyway, that is my case for Xanadu. What do you guys think?
--220.239.152.150 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you gave for it being a cult film is 404. The Razzies are important I think, and should not be discounted just because they sometimes nominate people who have been otherwise good (case in point: Catwoman). I'm inclined to keep it - there are some good cites in the listing. Certainly stronger than some other entries on the page. Turnstep 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like they have a real annoying javascript script to try and force you to use their frames. One less site I'll ever visit. Turnstep 21:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xanadu 

message: This page has gotten fairly busy lately, but I'd like to ask everyone to slow down a little bit and keep this article at a high quality. I'm very tempted to remove "Basic Instinct 2" - while it may be a bad movie, it's still in theaters as I type this, and it is entirely too early to label it as a "worst ever." Same goes for some of the other recent entries. Also, please keep the listing as NPOV as possible - you can quote other people describing how bad the movies are, but the article itself must stay strictly nuetral. Finally, please make an effort to make links to the actual reviews, not just a link to the name of the newspaper the reviewer comes from. Every link in this article should be a citation of a fact used, or a link to a closely-related page that adds context. Thanks. Turnstep 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing guidelines

message: Do you think he needs his own subsection here as he seems to excell at making bad films. I know the tax loop hole is covered on his own entry but it might be worth featuring him here - there can't be many other directors who have all their mainstream films in IMDB's bottom 100. At the time of writing: House of the Dead (#15), Alone in the Dark (#21) and Bloodrayne (#22) and the rest are doomed to follow. (Emperor 03:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if there were an article on directors considered the worst ever.  I don't know how useful that might be, since it could just end up being redundant with bio pages.  I somehow have avoided seeing any of Boll's movies, though I've caught parts of HotD. Шизомби 16:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just add links to the wiki-bios of exceptionally bad directors to the 'see also' section (we're talking Ed Wood and Co., not people like George Lucas, as tempting as it is.) If we start a sub-section, this article could lose its focus.  And as said, a separate article about worst directors would probably just end up repeating the same info as the bios. Dannybu2001 17:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Uwe Boll]]

message: Every year, Razzie Awards will be given out. That doesn't mean every recipient should be listed here. At least one citation should be available for every film in here, I'd say, of someone saying that film was "the worst of all time". I'm planning to take out "Crossroads" and "Wild Wild West", for instance, unless someone objects. Korny O'Near 19:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Howard the Duck is spectacularly bad (at least the part I could bring myself to watch, and it's a shame, as I liked the comic), but how can something that was made relatively recently be one of the "first big bombs" when there had been almost a century of narrative filmmaking (and six decades of talking film) when it was relased?  This is another example of the point made by the previous editor above – that the list is too long and too heavily biased toward more recent films.  Rlquall 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many movies in this list 

message: By far, this is the worst film i have ever seen.  'tis absolutely horrendous.  It deserves a place on this list.
Motor.on 00:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hercules in New York 

message: The movie which helped seal the fate of United Artists. Bwithh 19:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard any one claim it was the worst ever, just an expensive flop. Night Gyr 07:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It was actually a pretty good movie.68.197.74.95 00:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no [[Heaven's Gate (film)]]?

message: Being somewhat of a bad-movie connoisseur, I was surprised to find that starcrash is not on this list... this may be due to its relative obscurity, but it truly is a horrible movie. --Schuyler s. 03:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How About Starcrash?

message: Why was this film moved to the "Stars" category?  It is definitely a musical, and no one can call either of the leads "stars".
:I've moved it into a sub section. As to the "musical" section, I think this page would work better if the films are categorized based on why they failed so disastrously. In this case, I don't think it failed because it was a musical, but because of the hype they were attempting to cash in on and misjudged. 68.39.174.238 00:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Justin to Kelly 

message: I saw number 3 a few weeks ago. First quarter was just average, but the rest of the film was terrible. Poor Christopher Reeve man, stuck in that role of Superman even if the films have been given up on. Dissapointing. Sequels that aren't planned through story line in Hollywood are always a let down. Never fails. They never seem to beat the original.
But I also saw that new Superman Returns Movie and WOW! What a cool movie! Very happy with that one! I just hope that the future sequels wont crash and burn like the other ones did before that.
::I agree, those were truly bad movies Dr Aaron 07:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anyone seen Superman 3 and 4? 

message: Someone has added a couple of times a comment saying that George Clooney played batman gay. I deleted it (twice!) because i think this is unnecessary and somewhat offensive (that playing someone gay makes something a bad movie) and that the "citation" seemed shaky and unreliable. Feel free to argue with me if you think i'm being unfair.68.197.74.95 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search seemed to turn up pretty solid evidence that this isn't just a BS reference, although a better source could probably be found. I added it back in, though I removed the "and" so that it flows a bit better. EVula 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batman and Robin 

message: I'm surprised this didn't make the list, nor made the list of rejected worst movies. I certainly consider it the worst superhero movie of all time. While Batman & Robin is undeniably poor, I rate it the third worst superhero movie, followed by League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Daredevil is still the worst though by a wide margin.
I'll do the research and see what sort of critical acclaim (or lack thereof) it has received.
Dr Aaron 07:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daredevil 

message: Someone's re-added Caligula, added "Honest" (Which doesn't even have a page on it yet), and a few others. Not having seen any of these, anyone else know if they belong here? 68.39.174.238 07:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions 

message: Toward the end of the credits of Clerks II, director Kevin Smith thanks his previous film Jersey Girl for "taking it up the ass so hard and not complaining once". Given this and its generally lackluster critical reception, should it be added to the list of "disowned" films? Ubernostrum 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kevin Smith "disowning" "Jersey Girl"

message: What about "Mars Attacks!"? That's one hell of a formulaic, dumb comedy movie, lol....68.32.48.42 05:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * No, it's far worse than mediocre. However, it's not generally considered to be among the worst movies ever made. Mark Grant 17:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mars Attacks!]] 

message: Caligula is one of the most famous debacles ever, disowned by just about everyone who worked on it--and what a crew it had!
There is no question it ought to be included, along with other seventies disasters such as Heaven's Gate and One from the Heart--TallulahBelle 16:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caligula