So Bad It's Horrible Cleanup

If it was sold for money, it should count.

(ignore)

Edited by AnotherOnlinePersona on Mar 24th 2024 at 12:52:33 PM

The thing is that it technically wasn't, it was released on video streaming platforms with no paywall, and the DV Ds were free minus shipping cost. The OAN airing was technically considered an infomercial due to Mike paying to air it on the channel, so I guess since we have infomericals qualify I guess this sole release would qualify. (Based on how the movie is edited, I think it's safe to consider the OAN release the "main" one since the movie is specifically timed to fit within their timeslot with poor cutting). Mike Lindell himself I don't think would be an amateur either since he is a known figure.

Anything that's aired on television wouldn't qualify as an amateur work. There's a barrier to entry that your average Joe on the street can't exactly overcome. It's not like a fanfiction site where anyone and their mom can submit something that they threw together in their free time.

I think it probably qualifies, but it would have to go under the Television Movies section of the Horrible.LiveActionTV page since its sole commercial appearance was on television. Also, it's now been a full month since the fiasco that was Willy's Chocolate Experience, so if there's a write-up for it, it can be posted to Horrible.Other.

It would be great if Horrible.Western Animation had separate folders for those that aired on television and those that are web animations.

Leo & Layla's History Adventures, yet another conservative Moral Substitute, is in fact a web animation. It too has a devout audience despite it being filled with misinformation.

Edited by Nen_desharu on Mar 24th 2024 at 9:19:45 AM

It's more because the show is a political statement than any merits of the show itself. I think since it spreads intentional misinformation to children to indoctrinate them, I think it should count regardless.

Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Mar 25th 2024 at 8:53:28 AM

Also, children don't like it. It's boring. The only people who "like" it aren't actually watching it.

We need to find examples of conservative parents not liking the show as they are the target audience, despite their children finding it boring and Anvilicious at worst. After all, if it has a devoted fanbase, given its status as The Moral Substitute, it does not count.

By the way, should web animations be put in a separate folder from those that aired on television?

Edited by Nen_desharu on Mar 25th 2024 at 12:27:33 PM

If a substantial amount of conservative parents do like Leo & Layla, then we don't need to find examples of them not liking it to remove it — unfortunately the fact it appeals to those parents can count. Though I'm not sure if they like it genuinely or they just want an alternate edutainment series to show their kids. Either way, 5.1 on IMDB is way too high.

Granted that 5.1 is only with 53 ratings, this show is too obscure to generate much feedback. Compared to something like Chip Chilla, which has a thousand ratings and a 3.8 score. (Actually now I'm curious if Chip qualifies)

Considering Chip Chilla is a pretty naked rip off of Bluey it definitely has potential.

I think Leo & Layla can safely be cut given that its IMDB rating is too high (even with just over 50 ratings) to qualify as horrible and because it is popular with conservative parents looking for a Moral Substitute, regardless of quality or factual accuracy; they just want their worldview confirmed.

In short, Leo & Layla should be cut because it is popular with its intended demographic: conservative parents.

Edited by Nen_desharu on Mar 25th 2024 at 5:11:50 AM

OBJECTION!

Do conservative parents actually like the show enough to sit and watch it themselves, or do they espouse it solely for the fact that it's the Moral Substitute to "liberal" children's programming and that it promotes their own beliefs, allowing them to keep themselves and their children sealed within their political echo chambers? Also, if PragerU explicitly states that the program's target audience is children, regardless of the demographic that may be tuning into it the most, should we not take their word for it if there's little actual evidence to support the contrary?

It should definitely be noted that despite there being 53 ratings for the show, there is only one actual review, and it's a brief 1/10 blurb, which strongly suggests that the few people who bothered going to IMDb to give their stars were at least a little biased, if not possibly outright affiliated with the creators (who have been known to manipulate ratings for their works in the past). I think all of this should be kept in mind before decisively choosing to cut the show, and I personally wish to throw in a keep vote until solid proof can be found that there is a genuine fanbase for this show and not just a small pool of conservative parents that turn it on so their six-year-olds can be kept "entertained."

Isn't the burden of proof be to prove that the example keeps?

Granted honestly I really can't find any posts from conservatives praising Leo and Layla, even when intentionally searching for them. (Compare it to a similar conservative kids show with a time travel siblings premise Tuttle Twins where I CAN find posts of conservatives praising the show). Even the offical Prager U ads for it are mainly filled with people who hate the show and make fun of it.

I'm gonna throw in a vote to keep Leo and Layla on the page as well. In addition to the points already made by other users on this thread, the entry itself states that there isn't anything in the show that would be entertaining to kids. According to the entry, the show primarily just features characters standing around talking about the subject, as well as logic that's difficult for kids to follow — even the less interesting educational videos I watched when I was in school had some content to keep kids engaged, such as visual aids and/or some jokes here and there.

Kids seem to be the intended audience, even if their conservative parents are the ones who are turning on the show for them, and I agree that kids wouldn't seem to find it appealing at all. Some people use "it's for kids" as a counterargument when people criticize works aimed at kids, but kids can usually tell when they're watching something that they don't like — and, as I've previously said, the show sounds like it would just be boring/confusing for its intended viewers.

Keep Leo and Layla.

Anyone wanna weigh in on the possible scouting of Chip Chilla highlighted here?

I’m abstaining on L&L for now, but isn’t a single review (according to Lumberwood) too small a sample size to draw any conclusions from?

I think Chip Chilla could qualify, in part because (as mentioned) it's just meant to be The Moral Substitute to Bluey. I haven't seen anyone really say anything positive about it — in addition, apparently there's an episode that seems to teach the message of "if you don't put your toys away, your family will break them in response", and I've also heard the animators were under terrible working conditions (such as not receiving any proper assets and having to work overtime).

About the only decent quality I can find is that the animation is alright, but it still looks very much like a Bluey knockoff. The main problem is that it's apparently an ongoing show, and I don't know what our policy is on adding ongoing works to SBIH.

Re: L&L, the main deciding factor is whether the "target audience" for our purposes is the children or the parents.

I'm tempted to say it's the parents for the reason that they're the ones actively making the decision on what the children should watch. Children aren't generally going to choose to watch anything primarily educational with little entertainment.

In addition, the 5.1 IMDB score with the only likely review bombs being negative is enough to say cut the example. Sample sizes do not have to be as large as most think.

Re: Chip Chilla, "the animation is average" may be enough to salvage it if true. The IMDB score can't be used because of review bombing (34% tens, 54% ones.)

Chip Chilla is largely seen as mediocre more than anything. Almost every review I've seen says its just mediocre rather than outright bad.

Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Mar 26th 2024 at 6:56:21 AM

Okay, that's valid. From looking at some reviews, I was seeing a lot of mentions that it was "dull", and I wasn't sure if they were trying to say that they hated it or if they thought it was just So Okay, It's Average.

I think the IMDb score can be explained more by the Audience-Alienating Premise rather than just being bad.

The IMDB score for Chipchilla, I think, is from Bluey fans responding to its blatant ripoff status with review-bombing.

I think being a knockoff isn't enough to make something Horrible, there are plenty of works that blatantly steal form others that didn't end up on the Horrible page. I don't want to watch Chip simply because it's made by The Daily Wire (who want people like me dead), but going by the clips Saberspark used in his review, the animation looks decent, and the designs are cute (even if the art style is obviously copying Bluey). The message about toys being broken seems really awful, but unfortunately I knew kids growing up whose parents did stuff like that, and such parents would probably approve of the show. The lack of reviews (positive or negative) from conservative parents doesn't necessarily mean that the target demographic hates it; it could just mean the show is average, not bad, not good, just meh.

TLDR: From my limited research, I don't think Chipchilla counts.