So Bad It's Horrible Cleanup

I think sexism is fine to list as a criticism of a Horrible work. I agree with removing the parenthetical because the way it's written reads like a conspiracy theory. Reading the rest of the entry I would probably agree that the game objectified women and without the parentheses people can still draw their own conclusion. But saying "possibly to objectify women" sounds ludicrous, as if it was insidiously trying to be sexist rather than being sexist due to unconscious biases. The part in parentheses doesn't even accurately reflect what objectification or sexism are So it has no value. So mentioning sexism is fine but not when the way it's written is ridiculous or fails to mention other flaws.

Yeah, I agree. I would say the game is biased, but the parenthetical part is just silly and awkward at best.

My thoughts are, in order: cut both Sonic things and that bit of parentheses, unsure about the smartphone game.

Nostalgia Critic's The Wall is now on Albums. Should I move it to Soundtracks?

It would indeed fit better there.

To be honest, Horrible.Advertising seems to be quite more open to what is considered "horrible", because a badly-received ad would fail at its purpose. An advertisement with good quality would automatically trip into "So Bad It's Horrible" if the reaction was negative.

Just my penny.

Edited by PrincessPandaTrope on Sep 30th 2019 at 5:47:24 AM

Yeah, for advertisements I think it's a combination of things. A technically well-made ad that still pisses everyone off would be horrible.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 30th 2019 at 6:51:31 AM

Yeah, that's why we shouldn't include stuff like the Gillette "toxic masculinity" commercial, even though it pissed a lot of people off.

I agree (though my above response is worded badly).

Our basic agreement with political subjects seems to be that an example should be bad for reasons beyond the political stuff, otherwise it's just political or social bias. Holy Terror has generally awful writing, Racial Holy War is unplayable, and the much discussed "Tuck Frump" is obnoxious.

The Gillette ad is hateable, but I wouldn't call it horrible necessarily, as the issue is purely about the message presented.

This all being said, if this is the way we all agree to treat advertisements, there are several other ones we need to discuss.

like what? I'm happy to discuss.

Such as the Superbowl Pepsi ad. You know the one. It's stupid and nobody likes it, but could it be called bad without taking the political aspect into account?

Hmmm... I really don't know.

The Super Bowl Pepsi ad alienated everyone: pro-BLM people felt Pepsi was trivializing the issue to sell drinks, while anti-BLM people simply didn't like it being brought up.

Edited by rjd1922 on Sep 30th 2019 at 10:37:13 AM

Right, the question I'm asking is if being politically alienating is enough to be considered SBIH.

If I'm thinking about the right ad, the Pepsi ad is hated by pretty much everyone for being pretty vapid. The Gillette ad wouldn't qualify because it has defenders even though it had a strong backlash. So I think the Pepsi ad could qualify potentially, I haven't seen anyone defend it. It's hated regardless of politics from what I've seen. If it completely failed to appeal to anyone due to its baldness then I can't think of a more basic example of So Bad Its Horrible.

Edited by TommyFresh on Sep 30th 2019 at 8:48:05 AM

Okay, universal hatred is a good argument for keeping. Gillette's ad has defenders, while the Pepsi ad is just hated all around the board. I get that. That makes sense.

I guess it would be apt to say that every example should be taken as it's own individual thing, as every work either stays or goes on it's own merits or lack thereof, and what keeps one ad around might not necessarily save another.

I think I'm gonna be the first to say this. It may be controversial.

Rambo: Last Blood doesn't qualify. 6.8 on Imdb is too high. The YMMV page for it also lists Critical Dissonance and a lot of positive tropes.

Edited by TheAlmightyKingPrawn on Oct 4th 2019 at 3:20:49 PM

I have to agree with Prawn. Even the critic’s score of 27% on Rotten Tomatoes seems too high to qualify as So Bad, It’s Horrible, especially when the vast majority of SBIH films have significantly lower scores.

Edited by Pemulis_128 on Oct 4th 2019 at 2:26:59 PM

It has a 86% on rotten tomatoes for the audience score. Thats way too high. The entry was added way too soon and is just a shoe horn at this point.

Yeah, pull the entry.

Done. Entry for reference:

• Rambo: Last Blood is a misguided Grand Finale to the Rambo franchise that blows its chance to take the series out with a bang in every conceivable way and demonstrates how not to end a legendary action film franchise. While the other sequels to First Blood have their detractors, they have their fans, especially among highly patriotic Americans. Last Blood, on the other hand, manages to alienate even that sector, with reviewers calling it a "MAGA fever dream" and a "radicalizing recruitment video". Given the stereotypical depiction of Hispanics and Latinos as criminals and Mexico itself as a Wretched Hive, plus the fact that the one good Mexican character with any plot significance feels shoehorned and doesn't make it to the end, it's pretty hard to rebut their arguments, which is especially unfortunate since the film was released at the height of the Trump administration's power, which led to the MAGA comparisons in the first place. All political considerations aside, the film also reads more like a slasher film with a heroic murderer than just another cliche action film like its three predecessors, and the whole film feels like a ripoff of Trackdown, with its climax lifted directly from Home Alone. Additionally, the film suffers from Continuity Lockout to an absurd degree, making the assumption that its audience knows everything there is to know about Rambo, treating Rambo himself like a cipher, and leaving anyone under 40 wondering what the hell is going on. First Blood author David Morrell, who had at least some real appreciation for the first four films despite their diverging heavily from his creation and even wrote official novelizations for the first two sequels, went on record as disliking this one, calling it "a mess" and feeling "embarrassed to have my name associated with it", also telling Newsweek he felt degraded and dehumanized by just having seen it. And keep in mind, he had a similar opinion of Rambo III, but even that one he thought could've been improved. And even the alleged aforementioned alt-right slant fails, as it doesn't even take advantage of Trump's constant demonization of "the other", as Morrell bluntly told one fan. Morrell even went so far as to denounce the politics for even existing within the film, claiming that a lack of politics is why his novel remains in print to this day. With all these elements thrown together, this film thoroughly deserves its 26% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, its 26 score on Metacritic, and its close failure to beat Rambo: First Blood Part II's opening weekend, grossing just under $19 million in its own opening weekend.

This was way too Wall of Text anyway.

Im always suspicious on entries that go on for that long.

Does the Pokémon Sword and Shield Glimwood Tangle live stream qualify, or does the fact it eventually ends on an adorable reveal (The Galarian Ponyta playing) disqualify it?

Never mind, definitely doesn't qualify. Enough people are fawning over Ponyta to justify staring at a screensaver for 24 hours.

Vegan Art Book is currently listed on Webcomics, but the comic's YMMV page (specifically, Audience-Alienating Premise and Creator Worship) mentions that it has non ironic fans. The Horrible example itself is also based solely on the views the comic promotes (which is not a legitimate reason, especially since, as mentioned above, the comic does have fans that agree with it) and the author's reactions to criticism.