Talk:List of films considered the worst

Zobacz też:

This article is frequently the subject of strong objections to its existence or naming. If you wish to comment on it, you are welcome to do so. Note, however, that rants, soapboxing, diatribes, insults or empty or needlessly heated oratory violate multiple policies and guidelines and are NOT welcome.

Before adding a movie to the list: Ensure that it is widely considered one of the worst films by a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics. There are hundreds of "bad" or even "crappy" films, this page is for the worst. Cite at least one of those sources (Preferably the most reliable one(s)) that explicitly calls it "one of the worst films ever" Check the list of films removed from this article to see if it has already been considered. If so, ask on this talk page before re-adding it.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination: Deletion discussions: Keep, April 29, 2007, see discussion. Keep, June 4, 2006 Keep, September 4, 2005 Keep, August 23, 2005 Keep, May 30, 2004, see discussion. Keep, August 31, 2003, see discussion.

Archives

/Archive 1. /Archive 2

Battlefield Earth

Battlefield Earth appears twice in the article (with some of the text and references duplicated between the two appearances). It should probably be listed only in whichever section is more appropriate and the content merged. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Think About Deletion?

I love crappy movies as much as anyone, but this page keeps growing, with a bunch of people seemingly of the opinion that any film that they don't like is fine to be included here. It's become worse, even in the last few weeks. I really think it ought to be deleted, or heavily edited because as it is it's just a pointless page. Famous Mortimer (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion is a bit strong. I do agree that the page has gotten out of hand. I'm of the opinion that only, say, ten of these entries have a legitimate claim on "the worst film of all time." Criteria like "scored a 14% at Rotten Tomatoes" just doesn't cut it; this page is not "List of films considered really really bad."

Films that, based on this page, I believe have such a legitimate claim:

• Glen or Glenda

• Plan 9 from Outer Space

• The Beast of Yucca Flats

• "Manos" The Hands of Fate (although this needs a citation of the Amazing Colossal Episode Guide calling it the "worst ever;" I'd do it, but I don't have it handy)

• Zombie! vs. Mardi Gras

• Battlefield Earth

• Gigli (maybe? Hideous weasel wording here: "Some reviewers dubbed the film 'The ultimate turkey of all time'" This is an unsourced quote!)

• I Know Who Killed Me (this is really borderline)

• From Justin to Kelly

• Freddy Got Fingered (maybe... Ebert doesn't explicitly say it's the worst of all time, but it can pretty much be inferred.)

• Staying Alive

Note that this is not personal opinion. Personally, I believe that 'Red Zone Cuba' is the worst film ever, and compared to this Coleman Francis nightmare Battlefield Earth is a masterpiece; however, Rotten Tomatoes has called Battlefield Earth their worst "Drama" of twenty-five years, and no such equivalent honor has been given to Red Zone Cuba, as far as I can tell. Tritium h3 (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's not difficult to find what a bunch of respected film critics have called the worst film ever made. A lot of these films are just some piece of crap that someone saw and decided to edit into the article. I don't think anyone seriously considers "Underground Comedy Movie" the worst film ever made, so it doesn't belong on this page. 144.87.143.3 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I'm proposing a move to the title 'Worst film'. As at least one other editor has remarked above the title reads like an incomplete sentence, and it wouldn't be a stretch to extend this article to cover the topic of 'worst film' in general, it is already far more than the average list. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support as the proposer of the move. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose this is a very bad idea. This page should not, as it is beginning to do, become a list of films the editors consider really bad. That has no place in an encyclopedia. Instead, this page should follow the films considered the best ever page, and attempt to survey critical opinion. Tritium h3 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  But I'm proposing a move away from lists. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't support that either. I think this page, if cleaned up, would make an excellent companion to the "best ever" list. If there are good secondary sources for the concept of a "worst film," that might be worthwhile, but most such sources that I see merely declare this film or that the worst ever, rather than discussing those features that might make a film the worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritium h3 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, this article is a list and whatever the title needs to reflect that. It's not about the concept of worst films... also, we use "considered" to make it clear that it's a normative judgment that they are "worst" and not a fact. gren グレン 13:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  How would you solve the problem of it sounding like an incomplete sentence? A move to 'List of films considered the worst ever'? I would support that. What do people think? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this page in fact named "List of films considered the worst ever" at some point? And actually, now that I think of it, adding "ever" does not make it any more or less of a complete sentence; it's a perfectly valid noun phrase either way. Tritium h3 (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It still reads like a strange sentence, though I can't vouch for its noun veracity. It reads strange, and I strongly doubt this would be the majority title which people would seek on Wikipedia for this topic. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia naming conventions. First, it's a list article, which necessitates a title beginning with "List of...". Second, it moves from an NPOV title to one with POV. B.Wind (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. As stated several times above, this is a list, and the name must be "List of...". Secondly, it is certainly a good idea to clean it up and perhaps to model it off of "List of... best ever", to make it a companion article to that one. I would readily concede to renaming it "List of films considered the worst ever" toward that end. Bottom line: the primary concern of this article right now is clean up for verifiability. Wilhelm meis (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, meets naming conventions now, you already have the redirect. "It reads strange"? The verb's ambiguity is not a real problem; as a sentence the title doesn't resolve, but when you expect a noun phrase as indicated by convention, it does resolve. It does not need to be the majority search title if another title is indicated by naming convention (e.g., redirect adjectives to nouns, redirect verbs to gerunds). Anyway, as to content, would someone mind listing The Wiz (film) for historical value, and looking up how Matt Drudge panned Gigli on a weekly basis on his radio show? JJB 05:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• OK, vote closed. I think we've established people are not in support of this change at this point. If someone finds the close-y templates feel free. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Magic Roundabout

I think that the film The Magic Roundabout should be removed form the list. A film considered the worst ever is poorly recived in all parts the world. In England and France,the film received good reviews.

Laughreach (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the American and British versions were different.Therefore,the article should make it clear that the American version was negatively reviewed whilst the British wasn't so bad. Mr Daw (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to say that Doogal is the one that was panned,and that "Although the original French/British version (titled there as The Magic Roundabout), has a 5.4/10 score on IMDb, the American version has a 2.6/10 score on IMDb,got 7% from Rotten Tomatoes [1],received an F rating from Entertainment Weekly magazine,and is considered to be one of the worst animated films of all-time." This is the link to IMDb's reviews for "Doogal",and proof that it was panned in North America:[2].For more info on "The Magic Roundabout",see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The Magic Roundabout (film).Merci Boucoo.68.220.174.88 (talk) 19:07,30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,it's me again.I just watched this movie for the first time ever on a multi-movie disk that I have because I was bored and had noting to do.So,I thought,"hey,let's watch Doogal.I don't care how bad it is,I want to watch it."And I actually thought that it was pretty good! I suppose this probably might be because I expected it to be terrible,but I found it to be sweet,charming ,and HILARIOUS!(in fake British accent)"Don't mind us,sir.We're just a couple of muggles on our way to Hogwarts here for a pickup from He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.Is that you,governa?" LOL! It was also hilarious when his gum flue out and they're all like:(in slow-motion) "NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"Not to mention the part when he said to the moose,"Back off,I know dog-fu!"Oh,and did I forget the part when the snail went:"Chhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrr...........gggggggggggeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!" P.S:The rabbit reminded me of Br'er Rabbit from "Song of the South". 68.220.174.88(talk)15:49,3 July 2008 (UTC)

New list

This message isn't about this list, but, I want to make a list about the worst comic books ever.

Laughreach (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon World: The Legend Continues

This movie is outlandishly horrible, and I believe it deserves a place on this article.

68.55.33.112 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A plan

Tomorrow night (EST), I plan on combing this article, reorganizing it, and removing those items that are not adequately sourced, or do not make a convincing case for "worst ever:" maybe 9/10 of them. I realize that in doing this, I may remove worthwhile entries, or leave in worthless ones; please do fix my errors. This article has gotten into a terrible state, and needs a really radical cleaning, beyond a single section or entry. Please also let me know if you think this is a horrible idea, or support this action. Tritium h3 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First step: I have run through the B-movie section, and removed some stuff. A do believe that "Monster A-Go-Go" belongs on the list, but without better justification, it shouldn't be there. If someone want to re-add it, please do, but for God's sake add a respected critic who calls it "the worst ever!" Also, someone please add that quote from the Amazing Colossal Episode Guide calling 'Manos' the worst film ever. Tritium h3 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cite sources

Editors who have added or are currently adding material to this article should immediately cite their sources. I understand that this article, judging from previous AfD discussions, elicits an emotional response, both positive and negative; the article should focus on noted critics' opinions and not that of Wikipedia users. (Some of the prose in the movie synopses is florid and/or biased.) Wikipedians won't hesitate to eliminate unsourced, unreferenced material. Cheers, pinotgris 04:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Robot Monster

The entry states that Stephen King positively reviewed Robot Monster in Danse Macabre. While I don't have my copy any more I am all but certain that he mostly talked about the film as unintentionally hilarious through it's awfulness (when he had smoked pot). While he didn;t really slam the film I wouldn't exactly call it a positive review.

Yours,Timber Rattlesnake (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It is exactly as you say. I have fixed it somewhat, and added a reference to "Golden Turkey Awards". Goochelaar (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Justification for removal of Hobgoblins and Strange Wilderness

First, I was under the impression that low-budget B-movies didn't really qualify here, except for stuff that has been covered a lot by movie critics (ie, Plan 9), but the only justification for this film to be on the list is because MST3K reviewed it. It's not that I don't think MST3K is funny, it's just that's not exactly enough for some sort of worst movie of all time award is it? As for Strange Wilderness, it only has 37 reviews by major critics on Rotten Tomatoes, that's pretty low, and none of those critics described the film as the worst movie of all time. Also, the RT community seems to have given it a 44%, and IMDB has it at 5.1/10, that's pretty far away from their bottom 100 isn't it? Just because critics disliked the film (which is totally fair, the film is junk) doesn't qualify it for the worst movie ever. 65.79.52.61 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Kazaam

Why was this movie removed from the list?It has a 0% on RT and is on the Internet Movie Database's "Bottom 100" list!98.211.64.88 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Underdog?

What about Underdog?It has a 15% on RT:[3]and a 4.1/10 rating on IMDb: [4].Is this low enough or does it need lower? Also,does anyone else think it's strange that not only does the article only talk about American films,but that the only animated film on the list is Doogal?65.0.178.81 (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)