So Bad It's Horrible Cleanup

Maybe it's bad enough to warrant being listed twice?

It repeats, like the stages do with no memory card.

I would cut the entry on Horrible.Video Games Other because it's mostly the same as the other entry and it's the only game listed for its developer (Neko Entertainment) under the Companies/Developers folder.

Alright, Neko Entertainment and its duplicate Charlie's Angels entry has been cut.

About that Charlie's Angels GC/PS2 game, how does a developer screw up something as simple as level progression without memory cards!?

Edited by RobowilOFFICIAL on May 4th 2021 at 8:36:40 AM

Does this entry on the Horrible: Live Action Films 0-F page qualify for inclusion?

• The 1974 slasher film Black Christmas has been remade twice. The first remake was poorly recieved and bombed at the box office, but it has its fans and developed a cult following in years after its release. The second remake, Black Christmas (2019), is a film that managed to be hated by even fans of the first remake. For a start, the film's title is a complete lie, as only the first act of the film is anywhere close to being a remake of the original film, and even those scenes are loosely inspired at best. Then there's a fact that the film was made purely as an angry feminist diatribe who seems to hate men. While the original 1974 film had a political feminist subplot, said subplot only took up 10 minutes of that film. The whole movie's plot is that a year after main character Riley was sexually assaulted by a member of a fraternity, they stumble upon a conspiracy that said maternity are members of a cult trying to kill people on campus. Saying the film is Anvilicious is an understatement; the film drops an entire factory of anvils on the viewer; the most blatant example happens halfway through when the film stops completely in its tracks to have its characters engage in a screaming match at each other over whether or not all men are rapists, a scene that doesn't even tie in very well with the film's core message, especially since the film goes back to the way it was like nothing happened. And as if this wasn't bad enough, the movie can't even get its own moral values right. The film's twist is that the fraternity are a cult being mind controlled by a humanoid alien. So for all we know, the men themselves may not have raped anyone knowingly, and taking this a step further, it also turns out that Riley accused the wrong guy of sexual assault, yet the film still acts as if she was right to do that. Because remember, kids! false rape accusations are completely okay!
  
  On top of all this, the movie's production was clearly rushed and it completely shows. The film is very obnoxiously shot, with every shot looking as if has the YouTube stabilization feature used to get around copyright claims, and the film's colour scheme looks like vomit. The film even blatantly rips off other classic slasher movie moments, with one scene in particular being a complete ripoff of the infamous "corridor scene from The Exorcist III''. When even the film's director has stated that she "only made the movie for the message", you know you're in for a shit show. The film was hated by even the very feminists it was pandering to, and the film currently enjoys a 2.6/10 rating on IMDb and a 38% on Rotten Tomatoes. Watch Chris Stuckmann gloriously rip into the movie and give it an F here, Zack Cherry tear it a new asshole here, and Flicks With Nick call it the worst Christmas movie ever made here.

At the very least, the anti-feminism really needs to be toned down. This isn't an MRA forum, after all. Incidentally, the user who added it has a history of questionable SBIH entries.

We were just talking about that a page or two ago; someone did try to trim it down.

Wondering how this entry sounds? It might need to be trimmed down a bit since I was unsure what to say

Songbird, a 2020 exploitation thriller produced by Michael Bay, takes place in an alternate universe four years into the COVID-19 Pandemic, which has mutated in Los Angeles to the point that anyone infected with it are sent to concentration camps called "Q-zones". When the grandmother of artist Sara Garcia (Sofia Carson, whose acting is considered to actually be decent) falls ill to the virus, her boyfriend, immune contraband courier Nico Price (KJ Apa), has to save her before the L.A. sanitation department takes her away. Audience-Alienating Premise aside, the film suffers from a Romantic Plot Tumor due to neither Nico or Sara having much development, with Nico's attempt to bring a highly-contagious person to a remote community coming off as dangerous and selfish rather than romantic, and since the two other subplots involving the contraband and another romantic plotline distract from the main one. The rest of the cast also suffer from being uninteresting or undeveloped, such as the governor Emmet Harland being an evil politician hell-bent on capturing Sara and her grandmother, and Nico's main client being an overprivileged rich couple selling illegal immunity bracelets simply to profit from the situation. The setting and plotline leave many questions unanswered, such as how Los Angeles came to be a dystopia, how the government has the technology to make a phone app that can check if a person has COVID-23, or how the Big Sur isn't affected by the pandemic. The film was immediately panned by critics, with some saying it didn't handle pandemic plotline well or found its premise to be fear-mongering, receiving a 9% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 27/100 on Metacritic, and only made back just over $400,000 in the box office.

Edited by SkylaNoivern on May 5th 2021 at 11:05:34 AM

Sorry if I don't understand sarcasm, but one of the entries caught my attention:

• The broken English in the title of Cosprayers (short for The Cosmopolitan Prayers) is the least of the show's problems. The characters are incredibly idiotic, inconsistent, and one-dimensional. The girl who loves the male lead makes out with the main (female) protagonist, and the other girl also likes the guy, and there is no motivation for the Triang Relations. There is random, unnecessary Fanservice alongside loads of rape imagery, which makes anything potentially titillating just plain creepy. There are no transitions—one minute, everyone's chained up in a cave; the next, they're on a pier fighting with tennis rackets (a power upgrade, by the way). It has a plot that must have been thrown together between rounds, and the conflict and characters never give the audience any reason to care. It heavily rips off Super Sentai and is much less entertaining. It culminates in an extremely lazy Gainax Ending with singing and rainbows. The whole thing was created by the company MOE (Masters of Entertainment), but they don't show their mastery here. To add insult to injury, there's two spinoff shows which portray this as bad in-universe in the Recursive Canon, to the point where in the second series, it turns out the identity of Cosprayers's writer is kept secret.

Yet April's Trope Report describes the series as this:

• CosPrayers is a 64-episode Magical Girl anime by Masters of Entertainment. It's about Koto Hoshino, an Ordinary High-School Student who gets sucked by a tentacle monster... er, into a parallel world. She is then recruited by the titular team of magical girls, who are able to Charm Up and transform to fight monsters and spread tolerance about different cultures and religions, like Japanese Shinto, European Catholicism, and Indian Buddhism. The series shows those guys' mastery with stunning animation, memorable characters with deep personalities, and an interesting story.

Is this entry meant to be sarcastic or not?

Edited by Siegfried1337 on May 6th 2021 at 2:04:17 AM

The reference to the series on April’s Trope Report is just one of many April Fools’ jokes.

Found this in the Live Action TV section:

• The Baseball Network is one of the biggest examples of "bad idea, worse execution" in the history of TV. Going into the 1994 season, Major League Baseball needed a new network TV contract after CBS, who had lost roughly $500 million off of a four-year billion-dollar contract, refused to renew theirs. The league higher-ups got the admittedly-novel idea of actually producing the telecasts themselves and then brokering them to the networks. The league made a deal with ABC and NBC to show select regular-season games (after the All-Star Break) in primetime, under the title Baseball Night in America, along with coverage of the postseason. Where the concept fell apart, though, was that there was no national game of the week, only multiple regional broadcasts. Even worse, BNiA had an exclusive coverage window over each market, meaning that no other channels could show MLB games at the same time.
  
  What this meant, essentially, was that once a week the affiliates in New York had to choose between either the Yankees or the Mets, royally pissing off fans either way. The same problem affected Chicago (Cubs/White Sox), Los Angeles (Dodgers/Angels), and even the San Francisco Bay Area (Giants/A's). Making matters even worse, affiliates couldn't show the local team if they weren't playing in the right time zone. For instance, if you were a Mariners fan in Seattle and you wanted to see your team play on the East Coast... tough shit, you were stuck with the early game of the night.
  
  Ultimately, ABC and NBC decided to end the Baseball Network arrangement early after a player's strike cancelled the 1994 postseason. However, it went on for one more season, including the 1995 postseason... and that's when the problems really reared their ugly head. MLB, like all major pro sports, had long televised all playoff games nationally. With The Baseball Network, that wasn't the case for the 1995 Division Series. Fans in Cleveland were watching the Indians make a serious run at the World Series (ABC and NBC wound up erratically splitting coverage of the '95 postseason, including the World Series) championship for the first time in generations, but if you lived outside Cleveland's coverage area... tough, you were stuck with watching the Reds. The '95 postseason is remembered even today as one of sports' greatest playoff tournaments, but thanks to the Baseball Network it happened in relative secrecy. Fan hatred of the idea of "America's regional pastime" is part of what paved the way for MLB's current arrangement with Fox.

Yes, the decision to regionally broadcast games was a stupid one, and I still don't know why they thought it was a good idea, but unless somebody provides proof that isn't footage of Yankees-Mariners Game 5, that doesn't mean the broadcasts themselves are also terrible. Brent Musberger isn't Dave Neihaus by any means, but I believe Musberger's call of Martinez's double is right up there with that of Neihaus' as one of the best in baseball history.

This is the same problem I had with Brightspark - something that has nothing to do with the actual product itself somehow makes it horrible. Regional broadcasting does not single-handedly and inherently make a sporting event broadcast horrible. For this reason, I've decided to cut it.

(Side note: I'm not going to be active as often as I used to be. Don't want to start any more drama and flamewars.)

Edited by JHD on May 7th 2021 at 7:01:37 AM

The CosPrayers entry on TR is a joke (courtesy of Piterpicher). I had a feeling that entry wasn't going to be an obvious enough joke entry, though.

Edited by mightymewtron on May 6th 2021 at 1:43:11 PM

I found this entry on Literature that has quite a few problems with it:

• America's Most Dangerous Nazi, according to A.J. Weberman, is libertarian Congressman Ron Paul. Even if you don't agree with Paul's politics, that's hardly fair. The book is a bias-ridden, hateful piece of nonfiction that borders on libel (and apparently the book's subjects agreed, hence all the lawsuits). It's a disservice to everyone, even Paul's actual detractors. There's no attempt at neutrality or objectivity; Weberman simply Strawmans Paul, his supporters, and indeed anyone who may have ever said anything nice about him (like journalist Glenn Greenwald), and then just throws cheap insults at them. Not even the covers (either of them) can resist Godwinning, thanks to liberal use of Photoshop.

Politics aside, the entry doesn't really describe why the book is bad or biased beyond "it insults Paul's supporters and compares him to a Nazi". I did a Google search and found a few things - The book's Amazon reviews are entirely 1 stars (which could be a case of review bombing, as all of them were no very short and didn't get into specifics about why the book was bad), and while the Goodreads rating is 2.9, the reviews there didn't give much detail either (one was a slur-ridden tirade insulting the author). I couldn't find any evidence that Paul's detractors hated it, nor of the lawsuits claimed in the entry or any proper reviews of the book.

The original entry was added by the troper xie323 way back in 2013, whose edit description suggests they added it because they simply didn't like the book. Said troper had two ATT queries the same year for politically-biased editing.

All of that suggests that the entry was added not because its horrible, but because the person who added it disliked its message. Given the circumstances, would it be safe to cut the entry?

Edited by SkylaNoivern on May 6th 2021 at 7:12:27 PM

I agree, it sounds too one-sided and not enough details on what makes it Horrible. The author was sued for libel... in 1976 and 2002, over different books.

Any other thoughts? Two people in favor of cutting so far.

If anyone feels up for a rewrite, give them a chance; otherwise, it should probably be cut.

Not sure if this Lifetime Movie of the Week counts but:

• I Me Wed from 2007 features the protagonist married... to herself! Starring Erica Durance of Smallville fame, this had a fairly ludicrous plot (long before celebrities said about self-love in the New Tens) and had unlikeable characters, wooden acting, limited SFX and laggardly plotline, along with a Cliché Storm of a plot and an Esoteric Happy Ending. User reviews on IMDB were not kindand it got negative reviews. Although borderline So Bad, It's Good, it was still horrible.
• Over Her Dead Body was a 2008 movie which starred Eva Longoria as a woman who tries to haunt her fiance's new relationship from beyond the grave. It was said to be a mediocre picture you're likely to find in a multiplex this season by Reel Views, and Radio Times in the United Kingdom gave it 1/5. A weird plotline, horrid SFX and wooden acting shot down any chances of this film being popular at the box office.
• 21, a 2008 movie about teens in Las Vegas planning a heist was on the top 10 worst movies of 2008 list. Melodramatic in tone, it was more like a Lifetime Movie of the Week heist movie than a proper film and got mixed reviews.

Those all feel lacking in context, especially the last one.

The first two, maybe, but the last one has zero proof of being widely disliked.

I'm only vaguely familiar with the first two, they do need more context, but it's to provide a basic outline. Obviously they're near-ZCE but can be fixed.

Haven't seen the film, but I know that the entry for 21 is wrong. They are not planning a heist, they are Card Counting, and of course, trying to hide this fact from the casinos, who do object to someone using strategy to defeat their table games.

I really want to know whose top ten list 21 is on. Are we talking Roger Ebert, WatchMojo, or some random blogger? And if it has "mixed reviews", then it's not an example. The reviews need to be negative to qualify.

I Me Wed has IMDB ratings of 5.1/10 and Over Her Dead Body has IMDB ratings of 5.2/10 — it has a low Rotten Tomatoes score but other reviews rate it as around a C, according to Wikipedia. I would say neither counts as Horrible either. The entry for Over Her Dead Body even admits it was called mediocre.

Edited by mightymewtron on May 6th 2021 at 7:16:13 AM

The movie 21 was on this worst movies of 2008 list on comingsoon.net; not sure if that's a reliable source or not.

Edited by Merseyuser1 on May 7th 2021 at 10:02:31 AM

One review does not a Horrible entry make. Mixed reviews = not Horrible.