Discussion Horrible / LiveActionFilmsGToM

It's already listed on the main Live-Action films page with Vince Offer's other movie The Underground Comedy Movie.

I think it should belong in here, given its 7% by critics on Rotten Tomatoes and 63% by Google audiences.

It's got nothing on Metascore.

I'll guess I have to do it myself.

18% and 4.2 are low scores, but they don't seem, at least to me, low enough to count as SBIH.

Agreed; it's close but not quite Horrible.

If the IM Db score was more along the lines of 2.9 or even 3.0, I would say sure. As it is, maybe we could hold off on that until it's seen as a worthwhile addition properly.

If it is so bad that most conservatives think it is bad even if they agree with the film then I think it can probably stay.

You can hate a film that you agree with if it completely fails at its delivering its message.

^Agreed. Unless people are actually trying to defend it, I think it's safe to keep, since it's panned so hard and its issues lie with more than just politics. We still have political ads in Advertising after all.

Seconded. Don't know why it was removed now out of all times. Maybe if it was because Dinesh D'Souza can be added as a repeat offender as a director for basically pandering to the modern-day conservative point of views (and not even in a good way), I can see why. However, I don't see Dinesh D'Souza as a repeat offender as of the date of this writing. Plus, it's possible any positive audience crazes for his films are more a result of astroturfing than it is genuine adoration for his films like Hillary's America.

Well, Home Alone 4 is listed and its score isn't that much worse. It's been over a month since its release so it might be safe to add if it's really hated, and not just for They Changed It, Now It Sucks!-type reasons.

(ignore)

Yeah. It absolutely qualifies, but is in desperate need of a rewrite.

Well, The Emoji Movie was submitted to the Oscars for nomination before it was released and it still ended up being poorly received.

As for the movie Music itself, I would probably hold off on putting it on the list until after it's actually released. Though Sia's response to the backlash certainly has not helped.

Pia Zadora won both a Golden Globe for Best New Actress thanks to her husband making the organizers of the Golden Globes watch her sing (it wasn't her first role, that was in Santa Claus Conquers the Martians) and two Razzies in the same year. It's likely that Sia used Maddie the same way.

I wasn't planning on adding the movie myself, especially since literally everything I hear about it makes me want to not see it. My post was more of a "I can see this possibly leading to an edit war if someone adds it when it comes out, might be nice to lay down some ground rules before that happens."

You mean the documentary with the 98% with critics on Rotten Tomatoes? I dislike it too, but it definitely has enough supporters to not qualify.

And using the audience score on that particular documentary is obviously a flawed metric because it's an extremely contentious subject matter; anything dealing with serious accusations against a celebrity is bound to have people whose ratings aren't based on the documentary's strengths or flaws, but their existing opinion of the celebrity. The fact it caused many people to turn against Jackson is a point against it being Horrible, because it means the documentary successfully conveyed the point it was trying to convey.

That's the point I'm trying to make: that documentary has so many accusations that have 0% evidence to back them up, and some of the facts are straight up false, bordering on Critical Research Failure. If anything, it shows how gullible people are nowadays to documentaries with false facts. If Rock: It's Your Decision can be on here for making up facts about rock being satanic without any legitimate evidence, then why can't Leaving Neverland? The high critical score is not an excuse to keep it from being on the "Horrible" spectrum.

Maybe you should consider reading up on Michael Jackson's history sometime, at least, before this documentary came to light.

Dude, the point is people liked and believed it. It achieved its goal as a documentary. By that logic I have the rights to add Blackfish for it similarly containing many lies about animals sentience and attempts to appeal to emotion despite it being immensely successful to the point of new laws being made (this coming from someone who doesn't like orcas in captivity). Like I said, I dislike Leaving Neverland too, but if the majority believe it, it doesn't qualify.

So Bad, It's Horrible is about things that have a poor reception by critics and audiences and poor writing quality. It seems like the film had a decent reception and there is no evidence that the quality of the filmmaking is poor, so it's not an example. Whether the claims in the film are accurate or not is irrelevant in this context.

Also, moderator speaking: Condescending comments like "Maybe you should consider reading up on Michael Jackson's history sometime, at least, before this documentary came to light. " are not welcome on this website. Keep it civil.

^^^ "The high critical score is not an excuse to keep it from being on the "Horrible" spectrum." No, it quite literally is, because critical scores are a big part of judging whether something is SBIH rather than just being your personal opinion. See the description: "Merely being offensive in its subject matter, a Box Office Bomb, or a film you personally don't like is not sufficient. Hard as it is to imagine at times, there is 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 as this." We have films like Rock: It's Your Decision and Vaxxed on here because on top of being poor documentaries, they didn't have a very strong critical reception and/or are poorly made not just as documentaries but as films in general.

Also, I think you need to read up on the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment, given how much you seem to want to use this page to fight over an extremely controversial subject.

The main problem with that propaganda film disguised as a documentary is that it was made by people who defended Michael Jackson in the past. That's like the equivalent of being best friends with another person for years and then just suddenly stabbing your best friend in the back and tell horrible things about them that were never confirmed as true, or starting your own show and making a rule of having no spin-offs, and once you leave the show, the network decides to go against your rule and make a spin-off to it.

It was somewhat successful at the box office everywhere. This didn't stop everyone from hating it. If we're keeping The Devil Inside we're keeping this.

Looks like it qualifies. Needs to be mentioned that it created fake award laurels for itself.

There's also the producer's cut of London Fields. It has a goose egg on RT and a 16 on Metacritic. IMDb lists it as a merely below-average 4.3, but this is because both the producer's cut and the apparently So OK, It's Average directors cut have the same page.