Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Kriegsmesser: Whoever removed the Natter in the Transmorphers entry... *sigh* I'm tempted to tell you to add any future removals to the discussion page, but you probably some newbie who just came and left.
Why alphabetical order? It makes it much harder to check the list for new examples.

Caswin: Agreed. Why is it that way?
Trogga: Isn't Ready to Rumble based on a video game?

Redkun: You're thinking of something completely different. Ready to Rumble had nothing to do with the video game franchise of the same name. If it had, it might have been marginally better.

((Were Josh Peck Prince): I just don't get it. Why do so many Disney channel stars think they can sing? None of them are particually good at it. They're all dreadful. Corbin Bleu is hardly the next Michael Jackson or the next Prince. So why are they still doing it? To paraphrase the late Bill Hicks: "Here's the deal you do something on tv, you're off the artistic role call forever, end of story. You're another corporate shill, you're another nobody at the capitalist gang bang, there's a price on your head, everything you say is suspect, and every word that comes out of your mouth is like a piece of poo faling into my drink."

Peteman: I disagree Ghostbusters 2 deserves to be here. It was definitely mediocre, a subpar experience, but I never felt shame for watching it or wanted to strangulate the people who made it for wasting my time.

Prfnoff: Removed these, as critics don't seem to agree that they're bad:
  • Blues Brothers 2000 the sequel to the megahit 80's film Blues Brothers.
  • Any and all of the comedies with Arnold Schwarzenegger in them including Kindergarten Cop, Junior and Twins.
    • This troper disagrees Kindergarten Cop was So Bad, It's Good.* The John Belushi biopic Wired.

Great Limmick: Does Wagons East need to be on here? I rather enjoyed it (that is, I thought it was actually good), and the entry only mentions production difficulties, not low-quality results.

Seanette: I liked Wagons East myself. Not exactly the height of brilliant cinema, but amusing entertainment, which is what it was intended to be.

Werejoshpeckprince: It was rather funny in some parts, but it's not one of John Candy's best - because that's a tie between Uncle Buck, P.T.A, and Only The Lonely.

CodeMan38: Gaahhh, Friedberg and Seltzer doing a disaster-movie spoof? What a shame; that idea could've been hilarious in the hands of writers and directors that are actually funny, too. Though to be fair, even classic screenwriters of the genre like David Zucker have started to lose their steam recently...

Bob: Is there a reason for the removal of:

  • The 2008 "documentary" Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which got a lower Rotten Tomatoes rating than Catwoman, used deliberate deception in order to gain interviews with scientists, and basically said that the theory of evolution was somehow responsible for the Nazis.

Coolnut: Didn't remove it, but as a (biased) documentary, it's because it's too opinionated one way or another to really count. I know people who love it, I know people who hate it. In the end, it's more or less Preaching to the Choir rather than something that's, as a consensus, flat-out bad. The reviewers happen to disagree (or agree) with the stance rather than grade the merits of the film itself.

Nevertheless, I could logically throw the "used deliberate deception" tag onto almost any other politically-charged documentary and add that to the SBIH page, but let's not go there.

Twin Bird: Not to mention that I've actually had some hard-left professors who did blame the theory of evolution for the Nazis, and even the modern idea of racism in general, calling Darwin a "bourgeois apologist."

Kriegsmesser: Those people are called Reagan Democrats, at least in the States.

Twin Bird: Removed Southland Tales since despite its poor box office performance, the critical reception was mixed at worst, and it's got a small but vocal following among those who think True Art Is Incomprehensible.

DieHard: I went ahead and removed the Time Bandits example. I don't think even the absolute worst review it got ever approached the level this trope requires, with most reviews being more around the 3 out of 4 star mark.
Vampire Buddha takes pruning shears to the natter:
*** The MST3K version proved so popular, that the director is actually making a sequel.
*** Considering the director himself suggested they view the film, I'm not sure it was entirely seriously done.

** In this troper's opinion, as time goes by, and Uwe Boll's technical prowess actually start getting better (though not by much), they get less funny. House of The Dead and Alone in the Dark were fairly fun to watch with friends, but Bloodrayne was painful.

**Just to make it clear... it wasn't hated merely because it wasn't the Catwoman from Batman. It was a genuinely poor movie.

** The novel on which the film was based is full of Marty Stu and Writer on Board, but can be entertaining in the right mindset; but, in making the movie, so much was cut, trimmed, or just plain screwed up, that the good novel became a terrible movie.

** This troper and his friend once innocently hired out said movie, purely on the basis of its cover. We didn't know! We didn't know!

** Yes, it truly didn't live up to the source material. Which is really saying something when the source material is Eragon.

** When this troper was home sick one day and going through a childhood phase of fascination with werewolves, he asked his mom to get The Howling. She got this film instead, which the troper can attest from personal experience is 40% country music, 30% exposition, 20% dick and fart jokes, and 10% actual werewolf-related stuff.

Twin Bird: Removed Plan Nine since it's basically the gold standard for So Bad, It's Good.

Kinitawowi: Looks like we're supposed to discuss things here before going after the page, so... Van Wilder is an exception to the "all National Lampoons post-Vacation". And Starship Troopers... one of the most controversial and disputed movies of the last several years, but So Bad, It's Horrible fodder? Nah.

Mr Onimusha: Seconded on the Starship Troopers point. It comes off as one person hating it, and that's not the point of these things. Cut with a vengeance.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here. First rule of So Bad, It's Horrible: no good movies.
  • 2005's HPLHS-produced The Call of Cthulhu, one of the few Lovecraft movies to not suck, evaded this problem by making no attempt at verisimilitude whatsoever; rather, it was made in a style typical of the year the original story was published (1926); that is to say, it is silent, filmed in black-and-white, with cardboard sets and a stop-motion Cthulhu.

[Much later] Cut this and put it here, for now. I thought Purple Rain got good reviews when it came out—it's Under The Cherry Moon that's the despised Prince film. But even if Purple Rain is bad, can it be So Bad, It's Horrible if it has as a soundtrack the songs on one of Prince's greatest albums? (If the answer is "yes," put it back.)
  • Prince's Purple Rain. Has about all the good writing of a porno. Alright music, though.

deleted: "* The remake of The Stepford Wives tops off an unfunny comedy with a series of increasingly implausible plot twists, which further muddle the question of whether the wives are robots or just have mind-control implants."

At leeast two reviews I've read were positive. IMDb raiting is 5.1, which is lower then average, but not low enough. Some people I know actually enjoyed it. The film may not be great, but it's definitely not that horrible.

Trouser Wearing Barbarian: Deleted Zardoz, as it's a prime example of So Bad, It's Good (with a sizeable cult following to vouch for this), and there are enough people who like it for it to have a 5.5 rating on IMDb.

Crazyrabbits: This example:

"* The 2001 film Raptor . With terrible acting, a disgusting, droll five-minuite sex scene , and (men in rubber raptor suits covered in tomato puree "blood" . This troper just simply cannot convey how terrible this film really is."

DTV movies are generally shot on the cheap, with carbon-copy plots and bad acting. If you were to list all of them on this list (and there are many, including all the Sci-Fi Channel movies-of-the-week), the page would triple in size. This page is about films that people actually spent money to see in the theatre. Raptor isn't even much of a movie, because most of it consists of footage from the "Carnosaur" trilogy.
Morgan Wick: If it's So Bad, It's Good, it doesn't belong here:

BOBD: It should be on there because the remake of Godzilla ISN'T on the So Bad, It's Good list anymore. The film was awful and I'm not the only one who feels that way. It was panned by both critics and fans of the original Japanese franchise and is considered to be one of the worst remakes of all time. For some reason, someone keeps removing it from the So Bad, It's Horrible category...even though it CLEARLY belongs there and it's starting to tick me off. I'm getting really REALLY sick of having to add something to a category when it CLEARLY belongs there only to find out less then a day later that some asshat removed it.

triassicranger: You are blatantly ignoring the fact that there are people who enjoy the film due to how bad it is and also enjoy it as a film in its own right. There are other films that are panned their fandoms such as Star Trek V The Final Frontier and Batman And Robin but are not listed here due to the same reason. I would also suggest you refrain from your usage of capitalising words in the middle of sentences and also from calling people "asshats". And removing the American film from the So Bad, It's Good page to attempt to justify your point won't get you anywhere.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here. This is television, not film, and I refuse to believe that as many Sci Fi Channel films are So Bad, It's Horrible as this. (There actually are a few Sci Fi Channel films listed under Horrible/Television.)
  • Virtually any of the Sci Fi Channel's original movies, be they Disaster Movies or monster flicks; This troper, in one day, suffered through a movie about solar flares burning the methane in the atmosphere and suffocating the Earth in the firestorm wake, one about a superstorm created by Ba'al, and one where the whole of the MOON was breaking up like a cheap jawbreaker. And all three dealt with nukes as the solution to the problem.

Ethereal Mutation: Does Batman and Robin really belong here? It might be Canon Defilement of the highest order, but outside of the cyclic hatedom (just like Jar-Jar Binks, people that have never seen it are more than happy to talk about how much they hate it), it's really just another really expensive (125 million dollars!) turkey without anything really noteworthy (positive or extremely negative) about it. Most of the reviews for it are around the 2 out of 4 star range (which is technically in the "rotten" threshold of Rotten Tomatoes, but not this bad). The huge amount of hatred piled on the movie is more directed at the politics behind it rather than what's really on screen.

triassicranger: Just checked the recent history where someone removed it, but for those who can't be bothered to look (that and it'll vanish off the recent changes page eventually) Batman and Robin is an example of Accentuate the Negative (whatever that means) and not on the level of "Horrible". I would also like to groan that seemingly no one cares to explain why the film is so bad.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here. If many people think it's So Bad, It's Good, it isn't So Bad, It's Horrible.

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here, for now. If it has genuine Narm, there is a chance that it may end up Vindicated by Cable into So Bad, It's Good. Yes, even something like this.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Comparing Battlefield Earth to Plan 9 from Outer Space is not an argument for Battlefield Earth being here: Plan Nine is So Bad, It's Good. Forgive me for this, but I am unsure how we can safely list Battlefield Earth here. My understanding (courtesy of Jabootu) is that the biggest problem of the many problems with this film is that it was a non-Pragmatic Adaptation: John Travolta, the producer and auteur, was a Scientologist, and believed that in translating the script not one word of L. Ron Hubbard's writing should be changed. (Well, one word - apparently, a character name got changed from "Chink" to "Clink" - though the Unfortunate Implications that tend to go with "chink" were left in.) That's hard enough to do with Shakespeare; with L. Ron Hubbard, and adding Science Marches On in, it was disastrous. But, since the script problems are deeper than that, how can we list the film without listing the book?
Ethereal Mutation: More cuts.

  • Straight-to-DVD movie Back Woods (not to be confused with Uwe Boll's Blackwoods). Involves a recently-born, thirty years old, corpulent cross-dressing maniac named Luther (after Gene Hackman) influenced by the malevolent forest spirit Mangina to...y'know what? I'm going to stop there.
  • Bio-Dome, though many people think this way about Pauly Shore's movies in general. Some, like Encino Man and Jury Duty, can be classified as Guilty Pleasures...but not Bio-Dome. His career hasn't been the same since.
  • Christmas in Wonderland. Patrick Swayze, Carmen Electra, Chris Kattan, Tim Curry and more join forces to create a holiday movie so ineffably awful that it scars the mind. Never mention this to anyone from Edmonton, Alberta, unless you want to watch a grown man cry.
  • There's a movie called A Crack in the Floor, with Mario Lopez, Gary Busey, and Bo Hopkins. It's a crime against film.
  • Sex Lives of the Potato Men is universally considered the worst film of a spate of bad recent British comedies.
  • Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot. Sylvester Stallone and Estelle Getty (who most know as the cantankerous Sophia on The Golden Girls) in an "action" film. Stallone actually said it was "maybe one of the worst films in the entire solar system, including alien productions we’ve never seen".
  • Bo Derek in Tarzan. This editor once reflected that at least it had Bo Derek naked... the editor's next moment of awareness was that he had been asleep for nearly half an hour. Leonard Maltin (film critic) said it nearly convinced him to write a rating in his book lower than BOMB.


  • The Jenny McCarthy vehicle Dirty Love. It grossed $58,000. Plus, to show you just how discriminating the French are, it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival. All for a movie where a two-week heavy-flow period is a big part of the story.
  • From Justin To Kelly, a "musical" (and that term is used very loosely) chronicling the fictional lives of Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini, the two finalists in the first American Idol contest. Suicide is too good a deterrent for this movie. It's a wonder Clarkson even had a career after this nightmarish and painfully cliched piece of garbage. It bombed, and rightfully so. Clarkson did point out, though, that she was contractually obligated to do this movie.
  • Nothing but Trouble was a horrendous "comedy" with an all-star cast who all seemed vaguely embarrassed to be on screen (except for writer/director Dan Aykroyd, who came off as disturbingly pleased with himself underneath all those disgusting prosthetics).

Non-explanatory, but at least the IMDb agrees on these ones. Describe them better and place them back in.

  • Freddy Got Fingered in the words of Roger Ebert:
    This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels... The day may come when Freddy Got Fingered is seen as a milestone of neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny.

Beyond the contested comment, there actually is a small fanbase (even professional critics) that see it as being a revival of the Cinema of Transgression, which is based around the concept of art through extreme offensiveness. I'm not part of it, but it was large enough for Roger Ebert to comment on all the good reviews the film got in one of his Answer Man articles.

  • I Stand Alone, a French "art film," and the only film that Cold Fusion Video Reviews has given four "Cold" marks (no other film has received more than one "Cold" for poor quality; CFVR has changed its format since this troper last visited, and I Stand Alone has been switched to simply "Cold"). The narrator provides constant Exposition with a heaping dose of Wangst, scene cuts are rare, and camera moves rarer. Before the first twenty minutes pass, the narrator treats the viewer to a show at a hardcore porn theater. The rest of the film is a parade of misogyny, Wangst, homophobia, and violence.

There's nothing here that suggests it's bad outside of a single review site (which is hardly indicative of a majority opinion). Only that it's offensive, which is not enough to qualify.

  • Night of the Ghouls, Ed Wood's pseudo-follow-up to Plan 9 from Outer Space, has all of the previous film's Bad aspects and very few of its So Bad, It's Good aspects. The pacing is so horrible that the movie can't be considered entertaining on any level; it's just a long, boring mess with the occasional unintentionally funny moment. This one is best left to quotes and die-hard bad movie fans.

If it has unintentional funny moments and is enjoyable by "die-hard bad movie fans", it just isn't bad enough for this trope, now is it?

  • Movies based on wrestling or - in the case of the WWE - funded by pro wrestling companies, tend to fit under this category. Granted, there are one or two exceptions, but ventures such as See No Evil and The Marine aren't exactly bucking the trend, to say the least.

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here. This film is bad, but the synopsis implies genuinely good acting (a good The Other Darrin), which would normally rule out its being here. Perhaps Son of The Mask can be reinstated separately.

  • Dumb and Dumberer, the 2003 prequel to 1994's Dumb and Dumber. As this review shows, the cast and crew from the original film wanted nothing to do with it, although Eric Christian Olsen did a pretty good job taking over Jim Carrey's role as Lloyd. We can extend this to any non-Jim Carrey sequel to any Jim Carrey movie (Son of the Mask and possibly Evan Almighty)

Werejoshpeckprince: As I recall Jim Carrey is never a do the same thing twice kind of guy with the exception of Ace Ventura. Which is probably why he didn't want to do a "sequel" of sorts to Lemony Snicket or The Grinch.

Feeping Creature: Eragon has 5/10 on IMDB, and I quite enjoyed it. I don't think it belongs here.

Bob: A movie needs more than just Adaptation Decay to qualify as So Bad It's Horrible.

  • Eragon, the movie. It can be argued that The Inheritance Cycle books float somewhere between Guilty Pleasures and So Bad, It's Good, but most fans of the trilogy won't defend the many mistakes made in the film of Eragon.

  • Mortal Kombat: Annihilation could've been a Uwe Boll flick; an ungodly number of cameos shoehorned in, the revelation of Raiden and Shao Kahn being brothers, some of the crappiest acting this side of Catwoman, really crappy fight scenes, and so much bad CG, you have to wonder what the hell they were thinking when they were making it. In addition, they killed Johnny Cage (now a Joke Character) in the first five minutes. What the hell?
    • The sad part is, if you actually kept up with the storyline in the games, you can actually tell exactly which plotlines they're bumbling. Since Mortal Kombat 3 was out at the time of the film, for example, Johnny Cage had been killed off in the games (HeGotBetter), the Sub-Zero in the movie really *is* the brother of the first Sub-Zero, and Sindel is Kitana's dead mother brought back to life by Shao Kahn. Not that any of this was necessarily better handled in the games, but at least you didn't have to sit through 90 minutes of it. It's just rather sad that to watch the movie display basic awareness of its source material for the entire purpose of bungling it beyond recognition.

Trouser Wearing Barbarian: Showgirls has a sizeable cult following due to how unintentionally hilarious it is. I'd say that it's So Bad, It's Good, not So Bad, It's Horrible.
Caswin: This may sound strange, but Norbit has me on the fence. Not as to whether or not it's a good movie, mind, but whether it belongs here. I came in halfway through, and I'm certain that I honestly laughed a few times.

So you actually laughed at it. The movie is a box-office hit, and yup, it's funny despite its poor reviews, so no, it's not So Bad, It's Horrible.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here. Someone noted that the original, Italian vs. of this film was not Horrible; only the English vs. was. Someone else cut the note.
  • Pinocchio, as directed by Roberto Benigni, who cast himself in the title role! Yes, we do see the irony/ridiculousness of a 50-something-year-old Italian wanting to star as a puppet who wanted to Become a Real Boy. This film gave Benigni a dubious honor. He went from winning the Oscar for Best Actor in Life Is Beautiful to winning the Razzie for Worst Actor over the course of five years.

triassicranger: I cut this from the page earlier today:

  • Bratz: The Movie. A superficial, highly hypocritical, poorly written mess that takes the stereotype of how teenage girls act, amps it up, and then makes it into our protagonists.

Now I removed it because Bratz has a fanbase. But the trouble is, today I'm going to need a better explanation than "it has a fanbase". The Seltzer and Friedberg movies are included due to their objective problems, despite having a very small fanbase. As we see above, Bratz encourages teahces that dressing like a whore is the only way to get through life, among things. It is detrimental to girls of today's society. So - I'm putting it back.

Ethereal Mutation: The Seltzer and Friedberg bash-fest is tiresome in and of itself, but at least the "fanbase" for it can be explained away by just being kids who just go to any vaguely comedic movie so they can spend the entire time texting friends and generally not giving a shit about what's on the screen. Hell, the "fanbase" probably don't even know who the hell they are. Pretty much all of the commentary I've seen about them is extremely one-sided to a point where it doesn't seem like anybody is willing to defend them.

Anyway, your entry is politically motivated and that, in itself, is reason enough to disqualify it. As mentioned, Bratz does have a sizable fanbase and just because some people find it to be against their views of how society should go is not only extremely subjective, but also very offensive to many. Just as how we've cut politically motivated examples like Pleasantville, the Michael Moore films, and other such entries because they have genuine fanbases, so, too, we shall cut Bratz. As the main So Bad, It's Horrible page that seemingly nobody reads states, it both has to not have any genuine fanbase whatsoever and all contested examples are flat out banned so as to prevent Edit Wars and Flame Wars.

trissicranger: I understand. But the Bratz entry wasn't mine, it was someone else's I saw, removed, then put it back because I thought he had a point.

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: The Seltzer and Friedberg entries are spreading controversy throughout the Horrible index because of their box office totals. (Even bad films can often get good box office in the first week, when most modern films make most of their money.) Maybe all of them are all truly Horrible, but I've a proposition: cut all of them but Disaster Movie. Even the entry notes that it's the worst of the lot, and that film bombed.

Ethereal Mutation: It doesn't help that the person who wrote the entry doesn't seem to have even seen anything but the preview... which is actually kind of funny in a meta sense, but not very professional. I'll see what I can do.

Whatever: Oh crap, I wrote the recent entry. I hadn't found any fanbase, sorry, just people who hated it and about three people total who didn't. Could someone link me? I want to go see the fans.

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: A film doesn't have to have a fanbase to have good box-office in the modern era; most of a film's gross comes in on the first weekend, before word of mouth can kick in. (There are times when a film is recognized as genuinely good by word of mouth, but since the studio didn't put any weight behind it, it's been pushed out of the theaters before most of the public gets to see it.) And there are entire genres which are considered mostly disposable but still have people turn out to watch. Before Seltzer and Friedberg got a rep of their own, people thought Date Movie and Epic Movie were kinda like the Scary Movie franchise in spirit - there were a lot of films along that line at one point. And to be honest, judging by trailers alone, Date Movie and Epic Movie don't look much worse than Scary Movie 4. Meet The Spartans (also judging by trailer alone) looked kind of charming. (If that one gets reinstated, please use more than critic one-liners to describe it!) But Disaster Movie did look disastrous; what is more, we already have the ultimate disaster movie parodies - Airplane!! and Airplane! 2.

triassicranger: There are plenty of little girls out there who like Bratz dolls who don't use the internet. I can't link to that.

Whatever: Okay, wait, but are you saying there's just a fanbase for the dolls or maybe the cartoons? Because I don't know a lot about those, but I put Bratz in specifically referring to the torture that is the live-action movie, and if it was deleted just because the rest of the franchise has a fanbase, rather than the movie itself, I think it should go back in. Otherwise it'd be like saying Catwoman and Batman & Robin have fanbases because the rest of the Batman franchise is so popular.

triassicranger: I will admit that when I was thinking of the entry I was thinking of Bratz in terms of the dolls. Remember, it wasn't just because of fanbase the entry got removed, it was because the entry was politically motivated. Urgh, I don't actually want to give this movie another thought. Help.

Whatever: Well, personally, I didn't put it on this page for political reasons. I just think it was an incredibly painful experience to sit through. And even in the original entry, I don't see any political motivation. It just complains about bad writing, hypocrisy, and irritaiting stereotypes. It doesn't mention the "Encourages little girls to dress like whores," stuff, which I assume is what Anonymous Mc Cartney Fan was talking about with the political motivation. So I still think Bratz should go back in.

Whatever: There's been no more objections or replies, so unless someone voices something by the end of the month, I'm going to put Bratz back in, okay? 'Cause it seems to me that both reasons for taking it out will be invalid, if the writer is talking about only the movie and is not politically motivated.

Ethereal Mutation: The original entry looked very political because all it mentioned is the stereotyping without anything about the rest of the work. About the only thing someone can get out of it is "I find it deeply offensive because I strongly disagree with its portrayal of teenage girls and its endorsement of such activity". Even without the political looking slant, it was a one and a half sentence wonder I would have deleted for not describing jack.

Anyway, the film is targeted at the narrow demographic of young girls already into the line of dolls and seems to have done pretty well with a 26 million dollar gross. That might seem small, but keep in mind that it was filmed at a smaller scale and made no attempt to appeal outside its already existing fanbase. Inclusion on this list requires that it fail to appeal even to its targeted demographic and there just isn't any evidence of that.

Antigone: I'd like to nominate Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter for this page. Yes, I've watched it.

triassicranger: If it has fans, it doesn't deserve a placement here.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: This most recent entry to the page (the homemade film on YouTube) is another argument for Horrible/WebOriginal.
triassicranger: The reason I removed Thomas and The Magic Railroad was because despite the fact it defies Thomas's continuity so much and other such, some Thomas fans actually have it as one of their favourite movies. Still there are members of fandom who agree the movie could have been better... so I'm moving it to So Bad, It's Good. Reason: because it has plenty problems, but is still enojyable to some. Screw that last bit, I don't know how to put it there with the entry being so negative.
Antwan: Somebody said my addition was too soon. I'll agree with it, but I'll leave it here so I can repost it if nothing has changed.

Emperordaein: Who is going to bet that we will see Dragonball Evolution on this list soon? Personally, I don't think it is bad enough to be on the list. Don't get me wrong, the movie is a cliche, plot hole ridden mess that craps over everything from the original series (And is still a bad movie on it's own), but it's not bad enough to be on the list.

triassicranger: Dragonball Evolution actually did well in some countries such as China. And also, there are actually some people who find it watchable, though the fanboys would have you believe otherwise. In fact someone put a link to So Bad, It's Horrible on the Dragonball Evolution page, though I removed it on the grounds of doing well in China (and other parts of Asia, just so you know). As far as I know, doing well in the box office, So Bad Its Horrible it does not make.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here for now. I just discovered that this film has a page (with its complete title) and that it's listed on that page as So Bad, It's Good. So Bad, It's Good always takes precedence...
  • Shark Attack 3: Megalodon: Even John Barrowman could not stop the narminess of this film. Much of the movie revolved around people running in terror from stock footage of the same. Damn. Shark. That shark wasn't a giant Megalodon. No, it's a regular old great white shark. Swimming. There are no good biting scenes. It takes about 45 minutes for the shark to do more than menace some underwater cable ties. It takes an hour and a half before the megalodon shows up. Even's the same. Damn. CGI. Effect: the shark's head pops out of the water and swallows something whole. Boat. Lifeboat. People. Hmm, it's curious how there's no blood or gore. Most of the supporting characters appear to be played by people who had no acting experience; perhaps the crew happened to find them on the day of shooting and said "Why not?". And with all the bad science in the film...Somewhere, a Paleontologist Is Crying.

Caswin: I'm still hesitant to make a call against Norbit's placement until I see the whole thing — although I think it says something that even after seeing the second half of it, I'm willing to watch more — but I have to protest Master of Disguise. It's been a while, but I am certain that I remember some funny scenes. (Maybe the editor left before the credits? That's where some of the funniest material was. See: Slapping Dummy.)

Antwan: Actually, I saw it when it came out and I never remembered laughing at it. Some of the jokes flew over my head and others...well...come on, I know I was a 13-year-old boy at the time, but even I had limits to laughing at farts.

Caswin: I'm not sure what it says about me (or the movie) that I don't even remember the fart jokes. Or most of the disguises. Actually, for a movie theoretically based around disguises, I found the most humor in the open-palmed fighting style, accompanying Slapping Dummy, and finally-and-most-importantly, "Slapping Dummy Man" from the credits. I have a hard time completely denouncing anything that made me crack up even while realizing how predictable it was.

triassicranger: Will IP address get over the fact that there are people out there who enjoy the American remake (be it for Snark Bait or whatever reason) and stop trying to add it to this page please! The fact that people enjoy it and that it did relatively well in thge box office means it DOES NOT fit the criterea of So Bad Its Horrible.

triassicranger: Right, clearly the above IP address is only seeking an Edit War and shows no sign of stopping. Can someone who can do it arrange an IP block, please.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here. It appears that someone severely objects to I Know Who Killed Me being listed. I need to know if this is an isolated case.
  • It's far from the truly interminable, it's closer to something like Plan Nine from Outer Space, being so laughably inept that it makes for a great midnight movie with a bunch of friends ready to mock, something that isn't true about, say, Monster a-Go-Go.

Ethereal Mutation: Cursory search reveals people that just find it So Bad, It's Good. Going to remove it.

Antwan: Really? My results show it wasn't that well received either. Something that receives eight Razzies and gets pulled off from theaters rather quickly doesn't seem So Bad, It's Good to me. Besides that, I tried watching as many clips as I could find and it barely seems enjoyable by a long shot. I put it back for now, but I think this movie needs a lot more thorough research because the opinions on this film are all over the place...

Ethereal Mutation: If they're "all over the place", it doesn't belong. As shown above, the entry even got natter and that's as good a sign that there are people that care about it as any. The general rule for the lists is to remove genuinely contested entries. The whole section is controversial enough without having constant Flame Wars and Edit Wars over the validity of an entry and it's not the end of the world for something not to be listed here.

Antwan: ...whoa, calm down, buddy. I'm aware of how volatile this article is, but you don't have to be so rash. I was only stating my points. Okay, let me just pull up what I found and you be the judge. IMDB's user reviews have about eight pages of reviews with 6 or more stars and 12 pages of reviews with 5 or less stars. It has an 8 rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes, there's 8 razzies (which makes it the record holder), and a 16 out of 100 on Metacritic. The bad seems to outweigh the good, but it's your call.

Antwan: I'd really like a reply to this or even your evidence on how people find it so bad it's good please.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Okay. It should be noted that most people have not drawn the line between So Bad, It's Good and So Bad, It's Horrible where we do yet, thinking it's a difference of simple degree, not of kind. Thus, a normal reviewer claiming a work is "horrible" could mean either a truly Horrible work or a So Bad, It's Good work. Pollard compares this to Plan 9 from Outer Space and thinks it's wacky: ergo, he thinks it's So Bad, It's Good deep down.
  • The Clones of Bruce Lee. Dear lord, where to begin? To paraphrase Mark Pollard's review of the film... it is the epitome of terrible kung fu cinema. It was filmed shortly after Bruce Lee's death, on the premise of cloning the recently-deceased Bruce Lee (to the point of hiring a trio of lookalike actors just for the job) for... government operations? It's not made terribly clear. The fights are samey, the plot is ridiculous and murky, the pseudoscience is headache-inducing (men get injected with a bronze alloy and gain the strength and durability of solid bronze, somehow without dying in the process, for example), and lots of times, fights are set up for pretty much no logical reason at all, even by Hong Kong standards. This is to say nothing of the extremely gratuitous scene about halfway through involving naked women frolicking on a beach that has no bearing on the plot. All these factors combine with an 87 minute runtime to create a film experience so bad, that it is actually capable of destroying your will to live.

Firelegend- "* Borat is essentially a racist stereotype whose sole purpose seems to be infuriating everyone within a 100-mile radius of his presense. You sit there for the entire run waiting for someone, anyone to brutally beat this twit, and it never happens. His next 'film', Brüno, seems to be more of the same, only now he's a gay foreigner model."

Hate to break it to you, but Borat was far to popular and well regarded for this trope. It has a 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so somebody must like it.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here. I can tell by the description that it probably isn't bad enough.


Crazyrabbits: Cut the following:

  • Alien Vs. Hunter by Asylum Pictures. It has awful special effects - the alien and hunter are People in Rubber Suits - completely unlikeable characters, and a pointless twist ending.
  • Anthropophagous 2000. Shaky thrift-store-camerawork, inaudible dialogue, a non-existent plot, gratuitous (and unappetizing) nudity, acting that makes glaciers seem emotional, and the most obvious cardboard puppet ever stabbed. Oh, and the title was misspelled on the DVD.
  • The Corpse-Grinders 2. The original Corpse-Grinders was about two unscrupulous cat food manufacturers chopping up corpses for cat food, which drives the cats to try and eat their owners. It was bad, sure, but not on the rung of its sequel, which was produced 28 years after the original. Here, there are cat aliens coming to Earth looking for a new source of food. Characters have incoherent, rambling conversations, and they aren't so much carrying Idiot Balls as carrying idiot planets. There is also a Random Events Plot to the extreme, filled with Plot Holes. It makes a good drinking game: every time the plot begins to make sense, drink a whole bottle. There is also Special Effects Failure: the first comes just minutes into the movie when the power box of the cat food machine is clearly labeled "Hitachi". Seriously, they even have bad grammar and spelling in the opening crawl. And it has No Ending.
  • Dark Harvest. What sounds like an awesome scarecrow-killer movie turns out to be a giant piece of bad acting and unconvincing death scenes that make this movie utterly crap! The only redeeming quality of this movie is its cover; then again...
    • Oh, and get this: It has sequels.
  • Days of Darkness. There was exactly one character in the entire movie who was likable, and he was the Designated Villain because he suggested things that were logical. He was supposed to be a douche, but he came off as a normal guy who was angry to be stuck in a bunker surrounded by zombies with a bunch of idiots. Every other character was completely insane; that is not hyperbole. They were all either literal whores, morons, or colossal Mary Sues whose only goal seemed to be to annoy the viewer as much as possible. The "monsters" were rip-offs of Aliens, Dawn of the Dead "Fast Zombies," and your regular garden variety cannibals. There was more talk than horror and no menace. The acting was so bad that it made you want to buy Trump Towers just so the DVD will fall farther when you hurl it out the window. Long story short: it was Plan 9 from Outer Space without any of the charm, wit, or unintentional humor.
  • Existo is supposed to be political commentary...I say supposed to be, because the movie consists of "politicians" riding bouncy balls and playing wih squirt guns, one song with the lyrics "Oh, pfft, yeah right!" and nothing else, a sequence where a guy rides a giant dick pogo stick, and the line "So Belly-up comrades! It's high noon and the atomic clock has an erection the size of the Washington Monument!" Basically, take everything that was wrong with Disaster Movie, and then strip away even the pretense of parody and make it smug political bullshit: that's Existo. Oh and Jim "Ernest" Varney was it in...covered in oatmeal and sining about getting a "wiff" of "rabbid pussy". That's Existo everybody.
  • The Return of the Musketeers, a painful attempt to milk the 30-year-old cash-cow of a remarkable Soviet adaptation of The Three Musketeers. Aramis had a magical ring created by the Templar Knights that grants immortality to the wearer but can melt from body heat. Also, there's pop music and a wrestling nun.
  • Ride or Die (not to be confused in any way with the better-than-it-sounds anime series Read or Die). The gadget-laden, superfly, sassy-mouthed protagonist manages to be the most insultingly stereotypical Black character to ever exist. If he wasn't drawling the stupidest one-liners and flaunting his awesome ghettoness, then he was acting like a completely smug, self-fellating Mary Sue. The storyline is flimsy at best and has a twist that surprises no one. There's also an exploding tampon weapon that saves the day. Guess what? Even that wasn't funny.
  • Ring of Darkness. An immortal vampiric/zombie Boy Band searches for a fifth member, attempting to induct him into their undead posse (seriously) to the most annoying and inappropriate background music ever. Featuring non-existent make-up and costume work, props which obviously don't work, horribly unlikable characters, and more cliches than any poor script ever deserved to be raped with.
  • The Singing Forest, a film about a man who meets his daughter's fiance, realizes that they are reincarnated lovers killed during World War II, and proceeds to marry him. Much of the dialogue is drowned out by background noise; most reviewers see that as a blessing.
  • David DeCouteau's The Sisterhood. Fetish Retardant (nobody in this film gets out of their skivvies), mixed with a ludicrous plot, bad special effects (decent for something you could hammer out on Adobe AfterEffects, but not the best for a professional movie), and horrible writing (the evil Lesbian Vampire runs a sorority called Beta Alpha Tau) make this a must-miss.
  • Snakes on a Train by Asylum Pictures. The special effects are routinely-awful. The train carriages change their design. The plot that makes no sense: a woman has to travel on a train to remove a Mayan curse that makes snakes spawn from her body, but then she turns into a giant snake and swallows the train whole. And there is a subplot that has nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

All of these films are low-budget DTV releases that are genuinely contested by users on the IMDB (hell, the comments for Existo indicate that it's it on par with the Rocky Horror Picture Show). It's also known that most of these are viewed as So Bad, It's Good by DTV collectors, which defeats the purpose of these entries. Looks like someone had a bone to pick and Did Not Do The Research.

  • Hercules in New York. If the idea of Arnold Schwarzenegger (billed as "Arnold Strong") wearing a toga and being dubbed over because of his accent isn't bad enough, then the movie's plot is dismal at best, and the movie's budget was nonexistent. Zeus, when mad, would throw lightning bolts made of aluminum foil. Oh, and the voice acting for the dub job on Schwarzenegger was so bad, his actual voice at that time might well have been be an improvement. The DVD version does feature Schwarzenegger's original voice, but that doesn't help the plot or FX.

Really? This is listed in So Bad, It's Good. Hell, when the DVD was announced, the press release billed it as a comedy! Don't put it here.

  • The Marine. John Cena stars in the most cheesy-awful (as opposed to cheesy-good) action movie ever made, loaded with forced one-liners, cheap gags, and one of the most ineffectual cast of "villains" in cinematic history. Not even Robert Patrick's presence can save this movie. The filmmakers overuse explosions until they become boring and use Rape Is The New Dead Parents to characterize a mook who dies five minutes later.

Yet this film made money, and has a fairly good rating on the IMDB. Cut.

Even the author of this entry admits there are people who find camp value in it, which makes it contested.

There really are some parts where it seemed they knew what they were doing, and it wasn't a miserable experience. This is the perfect movie to watch at a party, with plenty of quotable lines and silly moments.

From the review listed on its page at the IMDB:

"There really are some parts where it seemed they knew what they were doing, and it wasn't a miserable experience. This is the perfect movie to watch at a party, with plenty of quotable lines and silly moments."

  • Transmorphers. No, not Transformers- Transmorphers. It was made by a studio called The Asylum, which is infamous for their familiar-sounding Mockbusters. It's painfully boring, the writing is bad, but the worst things about it by far are the special effects and audio. The robots start out like something out of a PlayStation (1) cutscene and only get worse as the movie goes on. There are missing sound effects, which lead to sensory-screwing scenes where things explode silently. Also, the first round of DVDs had the audio sync slowly get worse as the movie went on. Towards the end, it was off by over a second. They Just Didn't Care.

This film made enough money to have a sequel, "Transmorphers 2: Fall of Man" released this year. Apparently a lot of people watched it and liked it enough for the demand to be there.


Someguy: I contest the removal of Transmorpher. It currently has a 1.7 overall rating out of 2. 7000+ votes on IMDB, and the fact it had a sequel means nothing: It's quite obvious it was released to get some quick money out of the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen train.

Crazyrabbits: Again, any B-movie can be silly and stupid. Transmorphers looks like (and was released as) a cheap cash-in on the Transformers name. It may be stupid, but the fact is that its a corny, hastily made film that somehow made enough money to warrant more installments. No doubt you'll see more Transmorphers sequels in the future.

I won't contest it, but the SBIH Film page should not be opened up to every two-bit B-movie DTV release. Those releases fill the needs of a very specific market, and most of them aren't well known enough to warrant any sort of hate.

Someguy: I remmember Transmorpher generated more outrage than the average Mockbuster. Thought that may only be just me...

Antwan: Sequel =/= So Bad, It's Good. There are reviews that say this is hard to sit through. Then again, some people say the sequel is worse...Felix Vasquez Jr. thought it wasn't very good and he actually liked the first.

Caswin: I haven't actually seen The Omega Code, but the plot summary itself doesn't sound horrible, and bad special effects alone do not a movie kill. I can also attest that the sequel is at least redeemable, albeit arguably for all the wrong reasons.

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: I'll remove the sequel from the listing. And yes, Please Elaborate on the original The Omega Code.

Great Pikmin Fan: Not saying it should be cut, but The Underground Comedy Movie... What? That sounds like something that doesn't even exist! By Vince Offer? Vince Offer made that?

Yes, 10 years ago.
Nohbody: Okay, I'll admit that as a big Wing Commander fan (there's a reason a full listing of the WC page edits, vice the truncated version that TV Tropes does, would list me as being one of the more active contributors), I'm biased, but I'm not sure the WC movie really belongs here. No, I'm not saying it's great cinema, nor that it's free of technical faults as far as movie making goes, but even with that, it does have some fans outside of some of the hardcore fandom of the games. Granted, many of the IMDb reviews are damning of it with faint praise ("it's okay" and the like), but its current (as of this post) 3.7/10 rating doesn't quite paint a picture of So Bad, It's Horrible, nor does informal poling done at previous Dragon*Cons of con attendees, many of whom cited the movie as their introduction to the game series.

I already threw in an admitted Justifying Edit of the "sonar" thing, but given the minor edit war that occurred, not that long ago, regarding the movie section of the Wing Commander page, I'm not ready to just outright nuke the movie entry here (especially given my acknowledgement, above, that I am biased on the subject).

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: That there are fans of this film as serious as you are indicates that there is a chance that this could get Vindicated by History or Vindicated by Cable. That the negative reviews still say "it's okay" are also an indication that the film isn't horrible. And that it's a common gateway indicates that the film isn't horrible. I'm a fan of Give My Regards to Broad Street — I should know. So, Wing Commander the film has been cut...

Nohbody: It does actually get aired on cable pretty regularly, and while box office sucked, DVD sales did result in a net profit (if not a spectacular one). Anyway, appreciated. :)
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Are we sure The Beast of Yucca Flats is Horrible? Its page lists it as So Bad, It's Good, and the So Bad It's Good Film page lists it.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: I am wondering about our "Cannes cut of The Brown Bunny" listing. I'm not going to pull it, but I have had my confidence shaken... I am reasonably certain none of us have seen that cut. The difference between it and the theatrical cut is, if I read Roger Ebert correctly, about 26 minutes of Padding. Now, if the theatrical cut is still bad, then we have no problem. But if it's good (Ebert thought it was, but he may be in the minority), then — can you turn a Horrible film into a good film by simply removing neutral, pointless footage? Less bad, yes; but good? (The stuff that made it a hard NC-17 is apparently in both versions — it's just less Mood Whiplash in the shorter one for obvious reasons.)
Antwan: I did some research on Tank Girl, but I'm still not positive if it's truly So Bad, It's Horrible just yet. It seems to have a slight cult following, but it still bombed and caused the magazine that carried Tank Girl to go out of business. If anybody can find any more information to seal the deal, please let me know. Here's my addition:

  • Tank Girl. This movie tries to copy the insane and reality-breaking style of the comics, but fails spectaurly as unnecessary montages, animation, and dances were crammed into the movie. Moreover, the creators of the comic were not involved in the making until the last minute to write more jokes and pad the film with comic pages. This movie tanked in theaters with only 4 million dollars compared to its 25 million dollar budget and actually caused the magizine Deadline, which supported the film and comic, to cease production.

WookMuff In my life, I have only turned off like 4 films in disgust (two of which are, incedentally, already on this list). However, there are a few movies on the list that I, and people in my circle of friends, actively enjoy, such as Tank Girl, American Werewolf in Paris, and Zoom. I think that ya'll are just being overly critical :)

Heh Man: GTFO. Your poor taste in movies is so disturbing it nearly made me vomit.

Kuruni I do like American Werewolf in Paris as well, although that might because I never watch the American Werewolf in London.

Antwan: So much for "proof". Don't be rude, it doesn't help. Seriously, if anybody can assist me with this, it would a be a pleasure.
I don't get Anonymous Mc Cartney Fan's habit of Wiki Wording movies that has no page yet. It clearly has no page yet, so Wiki Wording it only makes red text, and a page doesn't look nice with red text. So if a movie title that has no page yet is left un-WikiWorded, let it be.

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: <sigh> It's just that, on occasion, someone will see red text and spontaneously decide to create the page. That's how the Time Changer page got created, for instance. (I was there.) And WikiWording the title of a work that does not yet have an entry indicates that there is a desire for that page. Redlinking the higher-profile films on this page might be the best way to ensure they get true pages. (It is strongly suspected that the Sonichu page was launched from a redlink on Horrible/WebComics; and Operation Body Count, while it might have been created anyway, had a link on Horrible/VideoGames before it had a page.)... That, and I can't be certain there is no page until I've already made the redlink. New works pages get created all the time. Still, maybe I should check the Film index more often... <sigh> Sorry.
Mike Rosoft: Removed:
  • Eragon. Dear sweet lord, where to begin? The plot was ripped to shreds, mixed with human feces in a blender, fed to a dog, and the resulting shit burned. Not only were great swaths of the story cut out (which could have been acceptable, considering the length of the book, if they did it better), but things that weren't in the book were added (Durza does NOT summon a smoke dragon), and much of what remained from the original story was horribly butchered and mashed together in ways that didn't fit (Angela does NOT live in Yazuac, and Saphira does not magically fly into the sky and grow up). And all this from a book series that gets bad press as it is.
I did watch the movie, and it doesn't belong here - it's passable fantasy entertainment. Apparently, the only reasons this entry gives are "they changed the plot" and "I didn't like it" (and "the original book received unfavourable reviews") - this is WAY insufficient to make a horrible movie.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here. It's a sketch-comedy film, so even one sketch of CMOA quality means it isn't Horrible. Even if it's for the wrong reasons.

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: On another note: Are we sure that Dana Delaney's presence in Exit to Eden doesn't disqualify the film? (Narm usually does. Genuine Fanservice often would, but I suspect she isn't the lead because of the same Executive Meddling that added the caper plot in the first place.)

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: This is what I was trying to cut:

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Just outta curiosity, did this Ax 'Em film get a theatrical release?

Crazyrabbits: As I understand it, the film was released theatrically for a couple of weeks under the name "The Weekend It Lives". I will edit the entry to reflect this.

Werejoshpeckprince: Wagon's East was okay, but it had too many dirty jokes in it. And where has Nothing But Trouble gone to? I've seen that movie, it's not as bad as the critics say it is.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Re The Howling III — what kind of extinct marsupials were used? Australians did used to hunt thylacine (aka Tasmanian wolf), so if that film has were-thylacine, then we need to edit the description.
Yongary: I removed

It was a bad movie, but it wasn't anywhere near So Bad, It's Horrible.