NaNo 4328 / 50,000
Yep. Now So Bad, It's Horrible is curated fairly strictly to keep it on-point, so it's not a free-for-all page.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Lost in Space
We used to have a problem with people dueling over whether a "bad" work fit into SBIG or SBIH. After all, if even one person defends it, it's not SBIH, right? (Wrong.) Ideally, including a work in one of these classifications would be based on a preponderance of opinion that can be proven.
For example, the existence of a "cult" following for a reviled work should automatically mean it can't go in SBIH. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a perfect example of this.
edited 11th Jun '14 6:39:32 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I'm not sure if The Rocky Horror Picture Show is horrible though, it is rated 7.4/10 by IM Db, 7/10 by Metacritic, and a 78% on Rotten Tomatoes. Many personal reviews state that it has catchy music and it's hilarious. There's the note "Merely being offensive in its subject matter isn't enough to justify a work as Horrible. Hard as it is to imagine at times, there's a market for all types of deviancy (no matter how small a niche it is). It has to fail to appeal even to that niche to qualify here."
Works that are horrible that are over a hundred years old are all but non-existent. There are very few horrible symphonies, classical forms of literature, paintings, etc. Any exceptions are primarily known for their negative criticism.
Rocky Horror Picture Show is an example of a movie aiming for the appeal of So Bad, It's Good, but catches people off guard with some genuinely good humor, music and dance sequences. Most other examples are entirely accidental and the only appeal is the shoddy production value of the work as a whole.
There is a lot of YMMV, but generally if the work is terribly dull or extraordinarily offensive that can kick it out of So Bad, It's Good.
I know that the primary difference is the amount of entertainment derived from the work, where a bad production simply makes you want to cringe or fall asleep, a So Bad It's Good piece is laughable and campy for all the wrong reasons whereas a So Bad it's Horrible work is just depressing on multiple levels. However some of the horrible works actually make me laugh but I wouldn't watch them again.
Is the deciding factor between two works the fact that a So Bad it's Good will have a cult following and remain memorable in some form whereas So Bad it's Horrible is forgetful? I say this because I've noticed that there are very few old works in So Bad It's Horrible (most of them are derived from Wikipedia), they had to fade into obscurity as they have very little value. Any attention given to these works is the result of negative criticism.