So Bad It's Horrible Cleanup

I don't think political ads or works should be removed. It looks like everyone agrees that LTM402 was in the wrong by removing "Tuck Frump", so I see no reason their actions should change anything.

Edited by rjd1922 on Sep 22nd 2019 at 11:00:27 AM

I think it would be fair to say that any political ad, regardless of how dumb, awful, or offensive it is, would have people defending them. That being said, I also don't believe we should take down political ads, proven it's so bad that most on the ad maker's side don't like it either.

I'm not sure I'd really say that claiming that someone would act in exactly the way most everything he'd said indicated he would act, even if he hadn't done it yet, is "lying". That's a pretty big stretch of the word, and TBH probably would qualify most political ads as lying.

Unilateral deletion is inappropriate no matter what, but honestly "Tuck Frump" does seem, as described, much less of a qualifier for SBIH than the other anti-Trump ad on the page - "Dicks Against A Sexist Dick", which has a lot more description of why even people who despise Trump consider it awful.

Edited by nrjxll on Sep 23rd 2019 at 3:06:03 AM

In a literal sense, yes, it's lying. Claiming someone said things they never actually said is lying, intended to make the person look bad, even if it's not OOC for that person to actually do. If it was about how his policies horribly affect the LGBT community and Mexican immigrants, that'd be one thing, but they did lie about his actual position on the matter. Were they the biggest lies in the world? No. Do I think they're generally correct? Yes. But I also feel that we can't just pretend they didn't make shit up.

I mean, seriously, guys. All politics aside, this is literally just a question of "Can their claims be verified?" And the answer is no. It's not about defending Trump or downplaying his actual awfulness in any way— It's literally just about not removing a factual correction simply because we dislike the person involved.

Anyway, the video has over 100k dislikes to this day, comments disabled, and searching the name gave me a lot of people roasting the hell out of it. It's not liked.

I feel like the political part of this has muddled the issue. It's just not a good video. It's a video people hate on all sides. Clearly it did something wrong.

I'll proudly admit I hate Trump, but honestly I think what bugs me is more that the description just sorta makes me go "...so it's an attack ad, then?" The only thing that sounds remotely unusual is the kid swearing.

I dunno, though, maybe I'm just cynical, particularly WRT political ads.

Edited by nrjxll on Sep 23rd 2019 at 5:11:11 AM

I gotta side with War Jay 77 here. A fake quote is a fake quote, no matter how much it might reflect the thoughts of the person to whom it's ascribed.

TuckFrump is really rude, condescending, and obnoxious. Even with the politics aside, it's frustrating to watch. Not helping is that the shirt and bumper sticker ads at the end make me concerned that this is Merchandise-Driven, though it's possible that the merchandise may just be funding the campaign.

Agreed, I hate Trump, but that ad is especially obnoxious. And find someone actually defending the Tories "face ad".

Yes, exactly. All politics aside, the ad just sucks.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 23rd 2019 at 2:30:31 PM

All in favor of keeping the political stuff?

Yea

Edited by rjd1922 on Sep 23rd 2019 at 2:31:49 PM

Aye.

I do think we may want to rewrite the Tuck Frump example, however, to focus more on how obnoxious it is.

Yeah, keep it, and rewrite if necessary.

Keep it. It Sucks.

Taking to the thread so as to not waste valuable edit descriptions on it in the future. The Babe Ruth Story qualifies as SBIH despite having a 64% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and a 5.2 on IMDb, and when I updated the Rotten Tomatoes critical and box office numbers on Last Blood as of 8PM EDT tonight, I said I'd remove the film myself if it failed to come close to either number by Halloween.

*sigh* I really hate to say this, and I'm going to get yelled at for it, but with YouTube becoming more and more important in this world everyday, we should find SOME way to incorperate Web Originals to the site. Perhaps a rule that it must have been made by a company (as opposed to a single creator or group) in order to qualify? With that said, YouTube Rewind 2018 is the one that I feel truly qualifies—it's the most disliked video on YouTube, countless responses by other Youtubers were made at its expense, it became Snark Bait, and people who like it are clearly in the minority. There also could be The Nostalgia Critic's review of The Wall, but not only has that only just come out, it still has slightly more likes than dislikes and could potentially be considered a DMOS rather than horrible.

Edited by TheAlmightyKingPrawn on Sep 26th 2019 at 5:15:27 AM

IIRC a lot of the dislikes of YouTube Rewind 2018 were part of a campaign to dislike it to protest YouTube's copyright and "advertiser friendliness" policies.

Speaking of web originals, I wonder if the soundtrack from the Nostalgia Critic's review for The Wall would be a good candidate for Horrible.Music Soundtracks. I've seen quite a bit of hate for it, but part of me feels there might enough defenders from the critic's fanbase that would keep it from getting an entry here.

So I watched an UNGODLY terrible movie called Zindy, the Swamp-Boy recently that I think may qualify. It has a 2.1 on Imdb. The reason why I'm not adding it yet is because I can't find any critic reviews due its obscurity. Thoughts?

I'm thinking I may have been a bit hasty in removing Final Fantasy All the Bravest, considering it has abysmal scores across websites. Perhaps App Store and Google Play users rated it higher because the bar is lower for mobile games?

On Live-Action Films (0-F):

• From Justin to Kelly features Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini, the winner and runner-up of American Idol Season 1. Texan singing waitress Kelly Taylor meets Pennsylvania college student Justin Bell; they fall in love and spend the rest of the movie being annoying. The dialogue's just as bad as the forgettable musical numbers, and wouldn't even have been passable in old cheap 1950s-vintage flicks. Clarkson once explained in an interview that it was a contractual obligation; this is the only time that Idol winners have been required to do a film. It won the Golden Raspberry Award in 2005 for "Worst 'Musical' of Our First 25 Years". Todd in the Shadows teamed up with The Nostalgia Chick to review it, while Musical Hell also tore it apart here. About the only remotely good thing about the movie was that it was the film debut of Anika Noni Rose, later also known as Lorrell and Tiana. Clarkson, whose singing career was still going strong well into the 2010s, regrets having starred in this movie while Guarini never did anything else of note afterwards.
  • Fun fact - this movie was written by Kim Fuller, whose brother (Simon Fuller) created American Idol. Kim also wrote Spice World and S Club: Seeing Double (S Club was a British pop group that didn't make it in America and didn't survive to its film's release date). It's quite an artistic legacy.

Is this last bullet point worth merging into the main paragraph or is it just natter?

^ Just remove that part.

I stand by my opinion that Tuck Frump's claims are not "fabricated" and that the note reads like someone unwittingly defending Trump. Not to mention that most of the videos that "debunk" the ad come from users with a clear pro-Trump/anti-liberal bias (one such video is even titled the most triggered people ever). I would like to know a mod's opinion on the note. The example can stay on the basis of being "annoying" (IMHO it may be annoying, but had a point and was a well-deserved verbal smackdown to Trump's bigoted comments), but it's the note that troubles me.

I've seen a lot of people on Deviantart, Youtube, and Amazon reviews who seemed to genuinely like the musical adaptation of Lord of the Rings, or at least the soundtrack; I've also seen praise for Laura Michelle Kelly's performance as Galadriel in the London production. Is it possible that the LOTR musical isn't really SBIH, or that only the Toronto production qualifies as such?

Man, consensus is disagreeing with you, and it doesn't matter if you dislike Trump and don't want people to defend him. The video was factually inaccurate. The note is pointing out the inaccuracies. You have yet to explain how pointing out factual inaccuracies, WHICH YOU EVEN ADMITTED WERE INACCURATE IN THE LITERAL SENSE, equates to defending a person.

You at first claimed that the entire example should go because it reads as defending Trump. Once we proved that point wrong, you're now fixated on the note. I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith here, since you seem to have an agenda toward keeping anything that may even slightly support Trump off the wiki, when the rest of us are just interested in keeping things objective and factual.

It doesn't matter what Trump has done in the presidency. What matters is that at the time of the video's creation, these were false accusations, stating he has claimed things he never claimed. When the video was made, those claims were lies, made specifically to make him look worse. They exaggerated his real positions to fabricate a point. You've even admitted yourself that he never said what the video claims he said. So why doesn't that mean the video was wrong about some things?

Let's even say you're right that the note is 100% there to defend Trump. How does that make what the note is saying false?

Hmmm, I guess it depends on how many people actually think that it's good compared to how many people hate it.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 27th 2019 at 3:27:40 PM