Discussion Horrible / LiveActionTV

I wonder if Top Gear America, BBC America's adaptation of Top Gear (the second US adaptation of Top Gear after the History Channel version, but before the Motor Trend version), would qualify here? I've heard nothing but bad things about it, with mismatched hosts, awkward interviews with guests, poor jokes and moments that felt scripted. This adaptation of Top Gear only lasted one season before getting cancelled and BBC America subsequently scrubbing all traces of the show. It has a 20% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.

Would HBO's The Idol qualify? Everyone from critics to audiences have highlighted how the show not only has awful dialogue and a confusing story, but comes across as little more than gross torture porn and glorification of abusive relationships. Multiple crew members also came out about uncomfortable they felt on set after the direction of the show radically changed mid-production. It currently sits at 19% with critics and 41% with audiences on Rotten Tomatoes.

So does the new Netflix Cleopatra show belong here? It has abysmal rotten tomatoes rankings on both Critc (15%) and Audience (3%) rattings,is filled to brim with pseudohistory, and the people behind this "documentary" reacted to criticsm from actual egyptians in a way that many considered racist?

With several scathing reviews, the lack of a second season, a 4.6/10 on IMDb and a 8% on Rotten Tomatoes, does The I-Land qualify?

A 4.1/10 on IMDb. No actual release beyond the pilot. Wooden acting. Blatant knockoff scenes from its British source, particularly "The Hotel Inspectors" and "The Germans," while at the same time providing a figurative "Blind Idiot" Translation for Manuel. All this describes the atrocity of 1978's Snavely, one of the decade's worst transatlantic translations. Is it truly horrible given all that?

It's too soon to judge right now, as the show has been out for more than a week as of this writing, but do you think The Fairly OddParents: Fairly Odder, a live-action sequel/reboot of The Fairly OddParents! could be added here? It has a 3.1 rating on IMDB and has lots of complaints, besides the fact that Butch Hartman returned to the series after being outed as a controversial person years prior.

One question, where do reality shows fit in this page?

For Nickelodeon could we add "Tyler Perry's Young Dylan" it has 3.1 on IMDB and there are plenty of complaints. Unlikable characters, playing the laugh track after every single line, rehashing the Fresh Prince of Bel Air plotline, and the fact many plots were so incohesive that scripts often felt like they were missing scenes.

Alright, so there's this show called Player Select on Disney XD featuring a bunch of popular youtubers, and judging by the reviews for it (among other things) I think it's worthy of a spot on one of the Horrible subpages. Before I start making my case for it, however, I need to find out where it would go; since it features said Youtubers, would it fall under here or Let's Play/Horrible?

I think we should add Tarbosaurus: The Mightiest Ever/Koreanosaurus. The CG is terrible and inconsistant, many of the designs and sounds are plagiarised from other media like Jurassic Park, Chased By Dinosaurs, and Dinosaur Planet, and has terrible inaccuracies. In addition, its supposedly a prequel to Speckles: The Tarbosaurus, but the designs have nothing in common.

See it here:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ro-Qyatyhk
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oG_n1zggOA

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiysNox8kf0
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie_7ayTBNYE

If anyone says no, please explain why, and I'm fine.

Why isn't Batwoman on here? It's been decried numerous times as one of the worst shows ever made by Mau Ler and others like him.

Should ReBoot: The Guardian Code be listed here? It was slammed by the fanbase as soon as the first trailer dropped, it has a 3.7 user rating on IMDb and a boatload of negative reviews, and what few positive reviews read like marketing copy or trolling attempts. Additionally, should the show be listed under a Netflix folder as they distributed the show worldwide or under Creator/YTV as they aired it in Canada?

tennessean: I'm noticing a pattern in the quality (or lack thereof) of Fox reality shows. But then again, they've had a habit of churning out shows and specials of varying quality (the much-parodied When Animals Attack comes to mind), so it must be nothing new to them by now.

Would "Cousins For Life" from Nickelodeon be on here? It's an absolute abomination to the creator Kevin Kopelow and the reviews I've seen are all terrible

I think Almost Family might soon be added to this category, but it just came out and we should wait a bit before we do anything. After all, opinions can change.

Should The I-Land be added on the category?? (It has a 0% on RT & 4.3/10 on IMDB)

I suggest we might add Another Life given it's 6% on rotten tomatoes. [[youtube.com/watch?v=Uau W Dak H Qo 0 Here's]] a review by Jay Exci

I think Doctor Who Live: The Afterparty definitely needs to be added here. It was broadcast on BBC 3 after "Day of the Doctor" aired, and it was remembered by all who saw it as a cringeworthy debacle plagued by technical difficulties and unbelievably cack-handed (and disinterested) presenting. The absolute nadir (which caused Steven Moffat to bury his head in his hands) was probably the inexplicable live link-up with One Direction, which, of course, was hit with technical difficulties.

You could start the entry with something like: 'The Doctor Who 50th Anniversary special, "Day of the Doctor" was a resounding success, acclaimed for its high-stakes action, emotional depth, wonderful character moments and terrific performances all round. How do you celebrate after an hour and a half of some of the finest television the BBC has to offer? However you answer that question, Doctor Who Live: The Afterparty objectively shows how not do it. Broadcast right after "Day of the Doctor" aired, it was remembered by all who saw it as a tooth-grindingly cringeworthy debacle marred by incompetent execution. The programme's failure was down to several factors. A host of companions from both the classic and revived series were present, but precious few were given anything to do, and they were later wasted in an embarrassing and patronising "elimination game" (quote: "Sit down if you didn't say, 'What is it, Doctor?'") that understandably caused Mark Gatiss to lose his temper. The presenters appeared uninterested and even slightly drunk at times, with their questioning coming across as disrespectful to the people who contributed to the show's enduring legacy. However, the absolute nadir of the whole thing came with the baffling decision to have a live link-up with One Direction, which had no justification beyond that fact that the band had also declared 23 November to be "1D Day". Having not seen "Day of the Doctor" themselves, the band couldn't provide any meaningful input, and myriad technical problems prevented the link from lasting for more than a few minutes. The sight of Steven Moffat's reaction to this (hunched forward with his head in his hands) came to symbolise the indefensible car crash that unfolded over an excruciating hour."

Something like that. Please add other things if you can. I expect someone more talented than me could write a better entry.

More about it here: http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-live-the-afterparty-review-56231.htm https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Doctor_Who_Live:_The_Afterparty

Should we add Marvin Marvin? I have heard nothing good about it.

Does Insatiable qualify?

Pulled this from the "Dimensions in Time" entry: >On top of all this, its production shitcanned a much more promising-sounding 30th Anniversary Special, "Dark Dimension", that would have centered on a decrepit Fourth Doctor (Still alive in an alternate dimension after never having regenerated at the end of "Logopolis") teaming up with the Seventh Doctor to battle skeletal Cybermen and a redesigned Special Weapons Dalek in a Gothic church.

I am in no way here to defend "Dimensions in Time" (although I understand it does have its fans). But to say "the BBC canned a much more promising special" misses a couple of points. Firstly, the BBC itself was never actually making "Dark Dimension"; it was going to be the first production by BBC Worldwide, the distribution arm. Secondly, they didn't can it; it spontaneously collapsed on multiple points when it suddenly turned out that making TV shows was much more complicated than BBC Worldwide thought. If anything, you could probably blame "Dimensions in Time"'s cheapness and lack of storyline on the fact they had to make it as quickly as possible once it became clear "Dark Dimension" wasn't happening.

how come so many links on this page show in red, leading you to think they're broken and to try and fix them - when they're not? Confusingly, a scattering appear in blue which add to the confusion.

When would be a safe time for us to add the 2018 remake of Heathers on here? Because I think that there's no way it can't end up here unless you agree with its politics (which is very concerning).

Would Inhumans qualify? It's been very poorly received, with a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Pulled this example:

Before the show was officially cancelled it received a petition hoping for a renewal, and more recently a twitter campaign to get the show uncancelled. Which seems to indicate that the show has some sort of following, meaning it might not qualify for here.

I tought of dividing the TV shows in a better way:

- Scripted Series - TV Movies - Documentaries - Talk Shows/Comedy Shows - TV Specials - Sports

Who's with me?

I would like to suggest Peppermint Park to be added. It was an educational show made in the 1980s that blatantly rips off Sesame Street. It's filled with disturbing out-of-proportion puppets and looks like it was made on a low to non-existent budget. It also has poorly written songs and the show has a 3.8/10 on IMDB.

Would ABC'S TV movie remake of Dirty Dancing count? It currently has a 3.2/10 rating on IMDB, and garnered very negative reviews and reaction on Twitter.

I've removed the My Mother the Car example — it might've been lambasted by critics and general audiences, but the show was actually rather popular in the younger demographics, which our own page mentions.

In 2013, the BBC launched a game show called "I Love My Country", which was so bad as to be newsworthy. Just an idea for an entry. I don't quite know enough about it to write it myself though.

Is there someone from Italy? Because nowadays my country (Italy) Is largely criticized for its low quality shows and TV programs that have been aired lately.

I think we have a new entry on our hands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Briefcase

Took this out:

• Buckwild, to put it simply it was like if you mix Jackass & Jersey Shore then set it in Charleston, West Virginia (to the point were it was nicknamed "Rednack Jersey Shore"), it got more criticism then Jersey Shore did, add the unfortunate impaction of depicting all southerner as slack-Jawed morons, but the most damming has to be the constant controversy & incidents, most notably; 2 cast members being getting arrested (Salwa "Bengali in Boots" Amin's drug related charges & Michael "Bluefoot" Burford' arrest for aggravated DUI), & Shain "Gandee Candy" Gandee's death after attempting to go "Mud Bogging" in the middle of night.

For one thing, half the example cites incidents that aren't part of the production itself. Secondly, from what information I've seen, public opinion is split down the middle on it. If it has a fanbase, it doesn't qualify. Just being criticized isn't enough, especially if the show is/was popular enough to warrant continued seasons. After all, it was successful enough in the ratings to warrant a second season.

The only reason it was canceled (that we know of, anyway) was because of the death of a main cast member.

It looks like all the links to blip.tv TV Trash reviews are now 404. I guess they need to be deleted unless somebody finds an archive.

Pulled this entry, because of the disagreeing third subbullet.

• Life With Lucy. No, not I Love Lucy — Life With Lucy. This 1986 Lucille Ball comedy series was supposed to be a smash success, but instead became one of the biggest critical and commercial flops of the 1980s. Why? ABC gave complete creative control to Ball, who was 75 years old at the time of production — a risky move because A) advertisers prefer viewers under 49, and B) in a deep risk, the show led off the night against The Golden Girls on NBC (which was probably one of the reasons ABC went after the show). The plot, with Ball's character helping out at a California hardware store, was painfully slow and not funny. The show finished almost dead-last in the season's rankings, and Ball was reportedly so devastated by its failure that she gave up production on any more television projects. Pity.
  • As pointed out by the book What Were They Thinking?: The 100 Dumbest Events in Television History, part of the reason for the series' failure is that it tried to recreate the physical stunts of I Love Lucy when Ball was in her seventies. Watching her try to do those stunts didn't so much inspire laughter as it did fear for her safety. Supposedly, the idea of incorporating slapstick was made by an executive that firmly believed that fans would want some of the classic gags I Love Lucy was known for.
    • Over time, it has become a cult favorite among hardcore Lucille Ball fans who've been pleading for a DVD release to no avail.

Much like when Bad Dog! was removed from Western Animation, Co-Ed Fever's entry doesn't explain the content of the show itself that makes it bad enough to warrant a spot on here. It just talks about how it's a Follow the Leader series and that it was cancelled after only one episode.

The UK show the Royal Bodyguard. It was promoted as David Jason's return to comedy after the success of Only fools and horses. However, after its premier it was lambasted on twitter and by critics http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/david-jasons-the-royal-bodyguard-slammed-98803 the show was mainly a rip off of Johnny English with Jason, well into his 70's, doing physical comedy, appearing in drag and childish writing. It was cancelled after one series and frequently appears on 'Worst of' Lists.

Proposing dads:

• dads. Despite the popularity of Seth Green and Brenda Song, this 2013 series filmed before a Studio Audience was a huge flop. Everyone in the series overacts horribly (leaving space between shouted lines for the canned laughter). Jokes were impressively weak, and multiple characters are simply one-note characters repeating the same jokes (Eli is small, his father's a crotchety miserly Jew, Edna's hispanic, etc). IMDB gave the series a user rating of 5.5, but Metacritic is at 1.5 for critics, and 3.8 for users. The series was cancelled before the first season finished, and while later episodes were eventually aired online, fan response was so nonexistent that news of such things weren't posted on the episode listing on The Other Wiki or IMDB for weeks.

I now propose AwesomenessTV. The show has a 4.1 rating on IM Db and a 1 rating on TV.com with the vast majority of reviews negitive and with ratings never surpassing 2 million views.

My entry:

AwesomenessTV, if you haven't heard of it (and no one blames you if you didn't), is basically a skit show based on a You Tube channel. Because Nick taking videos from the internet and turning them into shows worked so well in the past. The skits are terrible, the characters are annoying and stereotypical, the acting is bad, and the jokes are stupid and dated. They also bring in guest hosts from like Smosh or Cody Simpson in a desperate and pitiful attempt to boost ratings. Despite poor ratings, Nickelodeon thought that it would be a good idea to give the show a second season and the "Terry the Tomboy" skit it's OWN MOVIE.

I propose Fred The Show. It has 2.1 on IM Db, 2.7 on TV.com, 1 star on Common Sense Media, and ratings declined since the 8th episode.

should we add Out Of Jimmys Head?

I have to ask, does "Dads" really deserve to be on this list?

Sure critics hated it, but it actually does have a fairly decent rating of 5.4 on IMDB, which is higher then any other show on this page. Also there do seem to be a decent amount of people that actually do like the show, at the very least it's not universally hated on the same level as a show like "Work It"

Plus there are rumors going around that it may actually get renewed, and if that does happen, it certainly wouldn't qualify to be on this page. Getting renewed would indicate that the show does have a fanbase of some sort, and really the ratings while not great are at about the same level as most other sitcoms.

Also the example for the show comes across as poorly written, just cause Macfarlane is an exec producer dosen't mean one should expect the show to have the same type of humor as Family Guy or one of Seth's other shows, as he didn't actually create or write "Dads". Also I disagree that the show is racist or offensive, I just don't get that accusation. True there are some racial jokes, but it's no worse then anything you've heard Carlos Mencia say in his stand-up.

I like the show and I for one hope that it does get renewed and that Almost Human deservedly gets cancelled.

I have two questions:

• Personally, I feel the description for Turn-On is too vague, as it does not adequately explain why it's SBIH. Should it stay on, or should it go?
• Would Fred: the Show fall under So Bad, It's Horrible? I feel that it has gotten scathing reviews, and the show was canned after only one season.

Could Fred The Movie qualfiy under TV Movies on here? It has a 2.1 on IMDB and a 0% on rotten tomatoes. True, it's out of very few reviews, but coupled with the other people who consider one of the worst things ever, makes it qualified IMO.

Just thought of something. If Emeril is considered a lost series, then how can it be proven as terrible? I mean, yes, it flopped on its ass and audiences and critics hated it... at the time the show aired that is. who is to say that that mentality hasn't changed in the last 12 years? With the series being impossible to find online, this entry presents itself as potential trouble.

Though I am not defending Dads (as I've never watched it), there were actually a pair of logical reasons why it was given the back nine. First, the show does well with the 18-49 crowd (and its rating are actually about mid-range for the new series this season). And second, Fox has very little hope with its mid-season sitcoms (and had already stopped production on one of them). So it's less of a case of "What An Idiot" and more of Fox knowing there are people watching it.

TLC had a reality/gameshow competition show in 2008 called Master of Dance. Hosted by Joey Lawrence (currently on Melissa And Joey), the show featured ordinary people perform their moves to a wide variety of music. In each episode, five contestants are evaluated by a panel of three judges and were progressively eliminated until one is declared a winner and moved on into the Tournament of Champions. Unfortunately, the show has committed the following crimes:

• The show reeked of No Budget production values.
• The judges were horrendous and out of the three judges, only one (Tyce Diorio) was a person who still works as a professional choreographer and dancer. (The other two judges? A dancer-turned actress who was retired for over 18 years and a stand-up comedian.)
• People who were extremely talented were the ones who got eliminated. To put this into context, one of the winners was an obese woman who did nothing but move around in circles, while an extremely talented breakdancer finished runners-up.
• Extremely low-ratings meant no more than six episodes before TLC cancelled the show. It is an Old Shame for the network nowadays, as there is only one preview clip on its website and nothing else. Moreover, the show doesn't appear on the network's list of shows on The Other Wiki.
• A lot of hatred can be found in boards, especially in its IMDb page and a board dedicated to reality shows.

So, Master Of Dance as an entry: Yay or Nay?

• The Sci-Fi Channel (now Syfy) made an "adaptation" of A Wizard of Earthsea that was blasted and disowned by Ursula K. Le Guin herself. The Sci-Fi production killed much of the subtle cultural stuff LeGuin had tried to put in her original work. Talk about wasting Isabella Rossellini. Worse, SyFy then used the fact that they had the American rights to produce Earthsea media to keep Studio Ghibli's Tales From Earthsea movie from coming out in America for some time (which eventually saw a limited theatrical release in August 2010).

I'm removing this, while the author and most fans of the novel series hated it. People who didn't read the book actually thought it was a decent or mediocre movie. It's IMDB is 5.6/10. So it's crap but it should be in Adaptation Decay instead of So Badits Horrible.

If Restaurant Stakeout is still on the air, please remove the listing.

If not — okay, so having an openly unreal Reality Show is a bad thing. Still, most reality TV has some fakery in it, if only because cameras and "helpful" producers are present...

To the point. If we assume that this is every bit as real as, say, Clean House, then will it still be horrible, or just mediocre? How bad a violation of the social contract or Necessary Weasel is this?

Okay, Studio 60 is bad. I am aware of this despite being one of the few regular viewers during the show's run. But there are two problems:

1. The pilot of the show was considered good at the time, which is why it sneaked onto the schedule in the first place. We had better make a note about the Early-Installment Weirdness.
2. "Nevada Day" (a two-part episode) had both an Emmy in a guest-actor's performance and an unofficially listed Awesome Moment from Jack Rudolph (the toothless hardboiled exec). Would that be enough to remove this show from this list?

Folks, we may have to add Lindsey Lohan's alleged comeback vehicle, the Lifetime movie "Liz & Dick", to this list soon.

http://gawker.com/5963250/here-are-the-highlights-of-lindsay-lohans-atrocious-acting-in-liz--dick http://www.metacritic.com/tv/liz-dick/critic-reviews

Sorry for not making this a reply to the Incredible Crew-related post below, but...I don't like the show either. In my opinion, it has most of the aspects of being on this page (although admittedly I think "Running Errands with My Mom" is catchy, and the show has the high point of having Jeremy Shada in its cast). But it has a 5-star rating on iTunes, and so does the two online-only soundtracks. What should we do?

Another ratings issue—Superstar USA has a 6.7 rating on IM Db and the reviews for the soundtrack on iTunes are mostly positive. (NOTE: For some strange reason the soundtracks to the musicals Flower Drum Song and Oil City Symphony, as well as a compilation of spaghetti western tunes, are listed as being by them, even though they don't relate. And I can prove to you that they are not by them. I listened to a song from Flower Drum Song and it sounded genuinely good) And I've gone through a short Archive Binge of reviews of the show and they range from lots of positive to lots of negative.

So. TV Series/Animorphs was deleted from here. I'd like to debate the reasons why. The show was actually not a career launcher for Shawn Ashmore; that can be credited to the X-Men movie. It did indeed last more than a season, but ratings were awful the entire time, so awful that it had to switch channels for the short-lived second season. And lastly... the show has a fanbase? Because I haven't talked to or even heard of a single person that liked it. I may be wrong, but I think it belongs here.

Incredible Crew has literally aired only TWO EPISODES. Can we at least wait for it to run whatever course it's going to run (and, you know, actual critical drubbing) before calling it a failure this early?

What about the American version of the Inbetweeners?

They took a popular British show and turned it into a cheap 'American Pie' rip-off, derailed the character of Jay (Turning him from a lovable sex maniac to an annoying douche-bag, obsessed with winning 'class clown') and used cheap sparkle effects whenever Will's mum or Charlotte Henchcliffe showed up to illustrate their attractiveness (Because, y'know, their appearance or other character's dialouge doesn't make it obvious enough...). Fortunately, it was canned after only ten episodes.

Anybody got any more info on that Emeril show? I mean it sounds like a bad idea but I'm not really finding it anywhere on "Worst Ever" lists...

Musing on My Mother the Car:

I read somewhere that, while this was the lowest-rated show in its timeslot overall, it was not the lowest-rated one in the 21-49-year-old demographic. In other words, it is possible that this show, awful as it is, was a Cult Classic when it was still on the air.

Am not touching the entry right now, but someone might want to investigate.

Would Bridalplasty count? It was a reality show about engaged women getting plastic surgery before their weddings. It was poorly received by critics and viewers alike, and plastic surgeons thought it sent a bad message.

Does the cut-down version of Australia's Naughtiest Home Videos qualify?

If not, I propose that we remove the entry altogether, since odds are no one not directly involved in making it has seen the version that is listed.

Should the Wonder Woman pilot really be included? After all, it's just a pilot, not something that ever made it to air, and it's also the only pilot included on the page. It also seems like a lot of the hate in the entry simply comes from the Adaptation Decay, not necessarily actual problems (although I haven't seen it).

We're going to have to add Work It at some point to this list in the future. IGN gave the pilot a 0/10, only the second time in the site's history that they did so.

http://tv.ign.com/articles/121/1214220p1.html

As soon as someone takes the time to explain why the show is terrible, and how it caused an uproar amongst the LGBT community (I really don't have the time to do so myself), it has to be added.

Is there any way to determine how bad Supertrain as a show was? Everything listed on that one so far is related to the implausible setting or to external factors.

Was that train that bad? Was the show worse than The Love Boat otherwise? If not, this show doesn't necessarily go here... But I think it would be kinda hard to find out.

Cut this and put it here for now. Between this being "well-thought-out" on the writing end and the existence of the Follow the Leader trope, this isn't necessarily Horrible — just mistimed.

• Egy rém rendes család Budapesten, AKA MarriedWithChildren...in Budapest, the Hungarian remake of the original American Sitcom, debuted in late 2006 and ran for one season. This was not a mere ripoff or nameslap: it was a properly licensed, thoroughly-researched, and well-thought-out Cultural Translation made in collaboration with a helpful crew of American execs. Yet, despite all this it failed — after the fourth episode it got pushed to a late-night timeslot, and went through a hiatus after its third month of being on the air, only to return to face a similar disinterest among the viewers. The reasons for its failure are easy to understand, even taking the work that went into making it "work" into consideration — mainly, just why should a two-decade-old cult American sitcom be repackaged as a modern Hungarian TV series? The show was basically a straight retelling of the original, only with a few minor changes in detail so the intended audience would feel more familiar with the characters, and some European-oriented jokes in the place of hard-to-understand American gags. Oh, and with far less wit and worse timing. Even the actor who portrayed Al Bundy (called Bándi Sanyi here) claimed that at the time of its making, there were simply no Hungarian writers who would've been fit for the concept, which is why they attempted to obtain the rights of an already well-known and famous television series, being afraid that any original concept would only lead to a disaster. Well, their plan didn't quite work out, and this reimagining quickly faded into obscurity. The fact that competitor TV stations aired the original series with a perfectly fine local dub at the time didn't help matters either.

I'm pretty sure the main page was cut by mistake.

Narm Charm is something that, while it should be Narm, works for the intended drama anyway. If this work has that, then it cannot be Horrible.

• The Anvilicious anti-porn Lifetime movie, Cyber-Seduction, His Secret Life is basically a movie detailing how it is completely evil and disgusting to look at porn. Good point? Maybe slightly. Obviously, some may have a point in arguing that pornography isn't the best thing in the world, but it's so ridiculously unrealistic, not in circumstance, but reaction. It was apparently porn that first introduced this likely 15 or 16 year old to the female anatomy, because he apparently never noticed before despite that being completely impossible. He's treated like he has some sort of hardcore drug addiction, like the type that needs rehab to live a functional life. The limitations they could show on TV are understandable, but the things he's shown looking at are probably cleaner than a lot of advertisements these days, and hell, cleaner than some of the things he was shown doing with his girlfriend. Because of how ridiculous the Narm Charm, it's the same things done in a parody, except played absolutely straight.

Removed Hole in the Wall. I haven't found any evidence of this getting bashed by the critics. At worst, most seemed ambivalent toward it.

Someone listed the TV movie Blood Monkey but indicated it would just be So Okay, It's Average except for a Kill Them All ending. That's not enough of a reason to list it; some works have used that kind of ending for Oscar Bait.

"Ever since MTV has abandoned the "music" part of their programming, they have had no shortage of bad reality shows that glorify either excess & materialism or stupidity. Jersey Shore combines them both, which features such horrible examples of human beings that Italian-American groups have demanded that it be taken off the air for being so offensive."

Cut this and put it here for now. I know one person liking it isn't supposed to redeem a work, but the entry — even without the justification — makes it sound like it would be interesting to watch even if it's a lousy place to get info. Remember, we like Roland Emmerich on some levels even if we want to clobber him on others.

• Surviving Disaster. No, not the BBC one — the Spike TV one. How to describe this? Imagine if someone decided to make a series based around the Worst Case Scenario Handbook. Then add tons of CGI Special Effects Failure; Anvilicious scare tactics, including throwing around paranoia-fueled stats and the names of highly sensitive well-known disasters like Columbine, and an unhealthy obsession with terrorist attacks; people Too Dumb to Live used specifically to show you what not to do, or to get a debilitating or life-threatening injury just to show how to treat it, or to slow the focus group down and keep them in the disaster for longer than necessary — the worst example is a passer-by who calmly and silently walks up to a car tangled up in downed power lines and gets electrocuted trying to open up the driver's-side door; annoying babytalk by the host treating the audience as if they're participating in the disaster recreation without the audience-surrogate (in this case, the cameraman) doing anything or interacting with the focus group or the scenario at any time — when they used such interactions convincingly in their promos;, and survival tips that are marginally useful at best and either inaccurate or illegal at worst, all with just a token warning that the tips should be used "under those life-threatening conditions and at your own risk". It could have been So Bad, It's Good, if only for the Roland Emmerich feel of it all, were it not stepping on way too many hot-button-topic toes for its own good and treating itself as something far more serious and informative than the cheesy Edutainment show it is.
  • Cheesy, filled with stupid moments and horribly cheap-looking effects? It is, but does it really belong here? Most of the opinions I've read about it weren't all that harsh — what more, they were actually very positive opinions. That said, I haven't watched all of its episodes, and did find some questionable moments in the ones I caught (like, besides the one already mentioned, engaging in a gunfight with the terrorists), but even then, I found some charm in it.

Cut this and put it here because it was genuinely popular, which automatically rules it out. We only hate it now because of Values Dissonance — in absolute terms, it's still more uplifting than Survivor.

Or, for a more direct comparison, think of The Biggest Loser. The Biggest Loser isn't All or Nothing, but many of the things that make Queen For A Day chilling in hindsight — most specifically, the game requiring people to withhold a prize from someone who is known to need it — is in that game in spades. But The Biggest Loser is compelling and popular television; Queen For A Day likely was also.

The syndicated version may be reinstated at leisure. Given that it was using ringers, I'm not sure which section to put it in.

• Queen For A Day. This 1945-64 precursor to modern reality shows featured a group of four (occasionally five) females that were selected for their absolutely miserable lives. Host Jack Bailey interviewed each woman and openly snickered as she described how her husband had died, or she'd lost her house and had to move into a tiny apartment which was too small for her family, or some other thing had gone horribly wrong. Then the studio audience voted on who they felt the most sorry for; she got to be "Queen For a Day", which meant she got a cheap costume robe and crown, got seated on a plastic throne, and given a modest prize of her choice (for example, a wheelchair for her son who was crippled with polio — and that may be one of the more generous examples) along with a bunch of other prizes. The other contestants? They got nothing at all. Further, in several of the existing episodes, Bailey appears to be inebriated...although one wonders if anyone could do that show sober.
  • A 1984 BBC documentary on American game shows included a segment on this show, with footage of a club started by some of the winners — "Queen For A Day, Queen Forever".
  • It Got Worse when it came back in syndication from 1969-70, hosted by Dick Curtis — apparently, each "winner" was a paid actress chosen to "win" before each taping.

O.K., I finally added one of those note that only editors can read to not add the The Star Wars Holiday Special. Here it is.

• Do not add the Star Wars Holiday Special. Most everyone that saw it liked the cartoon with Bobba Fett and another scene or two. Also, some people think that the whole thing is So Bad Its Good. It is also considered a collectors item, so people odiously want it.

I have to take umbrage with that Megan Wants A Millionaire example. The "horrible" part has nothing to do with the show itself, but with the actions of a contestant after filming had already completed.

Re "Hair Battle Spectacular": While nearly every reviews I've seen are somewhat negative or middling, the current entry is just an extended and rambling rant on the voting of the contestants ('the moment the show became completely unwatchable was in the second-to-last episode, where they tossed out the last remaining Caucasian in the running' ... yeah). If anyone who watched this could write something better, then go ahead.

Could we please elaborate on Iron Chef UK? I can imagine why that might be awful — British chefs seem to be either great or terrible — but we need more details. Is it awful in the same way the UPN Iron Chef was, or in a different way?

O.K, the Star Wars Holiday special doesn't belong here (I love it for it's cheesiness), but if it did, would it go here of on the Film page?

Should we put individual episodes or seasons on here since TV goes on forever? Like the "Beer Bad" episode of Buffy, or any episode of Heroes following and including the season 1 finale?

Are we sure Freddy's Nightmares qualifies? I think that one was an anthology show. If it had any good episodes, it doesn't really belong here.

Re Out of Jimmys Head: Honestly, I am doubtfull about this. I can tell it's popular here in Canada, and the entry posted here doesn't give any reasons for its badness: It complains about weird characterization, that the live-action elements are more cartoony than the animation and that there was contreversy over some casting choice... but none of it actually tell anything about the quality of the show.

Removed the following:

• Did nobody mention The Star Wars Christmas Special? Creator George Lucas himself, hates the movie so much, that he's prevented anyone from seeing it!

This example was removed from the Holiday Special page (where it had been listed) by Ethereal Mutation, who noted that there were parts of the special that people actually liked. Coupled with the excessive amount of Narm and the fact that it still continues to be a prized item for collectors, there's no way to accurately claim that this was so bad it alienated the fanbase.

• Back in 1995, there was a pilot filmed for a Clerks sitcom. It changed... everything. This is the best source of info on this incredibly obscure pilot. It's just... terrible.
  • Jeff Anderson, who played Randall in the films, auditioned for this — but not for Randall, who was already cast. He auditioned for Dante. He didn't get the part. Just as well.

Doesn't give any information about what didn't work in the pilot, aside from a mention on the linked page that states Randall and Dante were changed from cashiers who despised their customers to lovable losers (Adaptation Decay, maybe?). That, and it's never been officially released, so there's no way to gauge how the fanbase would have viewed it.