So Bad It's Horrible Cleanup

This isn't the first time that something better fit on Snark Bait inappropriately ended up on SBIH.

Edited by Albert3105 on Oct 25th 2019 at 8:34:29 AM

Deleted it

Is a Metacritic score of 37 low enough to qualify as horrible? Because if so, I think the third Ready 2 Rumble Boxing game might qualify.

I agree that Fallout First doesn't qualify, but there is precedent for listing stuff that isn't entire works. A song can be Horrible even if its parent album isn't. A soundtrack can be Horrible even if the work it comes from isn't. A console accessory can be Horrible even if the console itself isn't. A fan-made game mod or level can be Horrible even if the game itself isn't. I lean towards thinking DLC and subscriptions that are sold separately should be able to qualify. We need to make it clear that only extraordinarily bad DLC/services qualify (to keep the page from becoming "complain about DLC/services you think are overpriced"), but I think it can work.

just found out about this thread and I'm wondering if anyone else feels the Inhumans entry in Live-Action TV needs a serious rewrite? The show seems bad and poorly-received enough to qualify but the current writeup is a rambling, hard-to-read wall of text with pointless asides that spends Way too much time talking about the politics of that one exec

for reference:

• Inhumans was already controversial for being the pet project of Ike Perlmutter (the former CEO of Marvel Entertainment, who made several unpopular decisions regarding the Marvel Cinematic Universe that alienated multiple creators, including The Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron director Joss Whedon, and got so dangerously close to causing a Dork Age that Disney was forced to free Kevin Feige from Perlmutter's "oversight"; held and still holds very right wing political beliefs contrary to those of many of Marvel's creators, a not-insignificant portion of the productions even before Disney told him to stop meddling with the movies, and much of the fanbase that will not be elaborated on here beyond saying they explain not only some of his more... out-of-touch decisions but also a couple of the problems with the series itself; and pushed hard for a movie based on the Inhumans comic in spite of a lack of interest in the property), and at release became the very first entry in the seemingly-untouchable Marvel Cinematic Universe to be declared an absolute disaster by everyone who saw it. Although far from the only person responsible, it's generally agreed that Marvel should not have let Scott "I ran Dexter into the ground" Buck run a project facing such an uphill battle.
  Among the biggest complaints were an abrupt return to a Movie Superheroes Wear Black aesthetic after the MCU had done so much to make comic-accurate visuals acceptable onscreen, regular Special Effect Failure due to the tiny budget (which included robbing Medusa of her Prehensile Hair early on and thus leaving her with nothing to do in fight scenes — a particularly bone-headed move to make in an era where Action Girls were starting to be seen as credible draws in superhero media), and most of all some of the most jaw-droppingly blatant Protagonist-Centered Morality in recent memory. The Designated Heroes are the ruling family of an Inhuman colony on the moon who enforce an oppressive caste system where anyone unlucky enough to not get a flashy enough superpower is condemned to a life of backbreaking labor while the chosen few live in luxury. The Designated Villain Maximus wants to change this so everyone is equal, yet we're supposed to root against him simply because he's played by Iwan Rheon, the same actor who played the villainous Ramsay Bolton in Game of Thrones, and that's pretty much it. Even looking at it from a "Tragic Villain Has a Point but is going about it the wrong way" angle doesn't work, and Black Panther would demonstrate how do that sort of thing properly less than a year later (though it is entirely possible that Perlmutter interfered and, given his politics and a bigoted "you're just a human" jab aimed at Maximus ^note (unlike in Earth-616, where Maximus has telepathic powers, Maximus' Terrigenesis was a complete dud), decide that fighting for equality was villainous in itself). Mix all these weaknesses together, and you've got what is unanimously considered the nadir of an already controversial comic book franchise, which did more than anything else (except maybe the merger of Disney and 20th Century Fox) to render the property commercially untenable.
  The network lost all faith in the show pretty much immediately, openly advertising the season as "the complete series" online and allowing lead actor Anson Mount out of his contract to take the lead role in Star Trek: Discovery months before the official cancellation notice, and the show's failure also appears to have convinced IMAX to not fund any more long-form television projects, after they had given the pilot a limited-release premiere on their screens. Unsurprisingly, the pilot was pointedly not included in the MCU's 10th-Anniversary IMAX marathon, which even covered The Incredible Hulk, a Universal picture, and Spider-Man: Homecoming, a Sony release. Most embarrassingly of all, they'd made some noise early on about a character from the show possibly making a crossover appearance on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., only for that show to quietly drop the entire thing (likely requiring a sizable restructuring of their story plans) once it became clear how much people hated it. It's also telling that the only other MCU property to get anywhere near this bad a reception, Iron Fist, which Marvel also made the mistake of letting Buck run ^note (incidentally, its poor reception got some fans worried about Inhumans in the first place), at least had a small contingent of fans and more people willing to say there was at least potential in it; in fact, Iron Fist, while turning out to be a Franchise Killer for Marvel Netflix, was given the opportunity to grow the beard — sans Buck — that Inhumans never got.
  Eventually, Perlmutter would lose creative control of not only the TV side of the MCU, but TV in general and comics, to Feige. Though it's unknown to what extent Inhumans was responsible for this, his pet project turning out to be a disaster followed by two productions he stonewalled for political reasons turning out to be smash hits cannot have worked in his favor.

When a single entry is multiple paragraphs long, that's when it gets too damn long. I'll see if I can trim it:

Done.

Edited by chasemaddigan on Oct 26th 2019 at 12:27:51 PM

Rewrite, but maybe add "the controversal Marvel executive" right before Ike Perlmutter's name.

Will B Good edited the McDonald's Szechuan Sauce example in the Promotions folder of Horrible.Other, adding potholes to Manchild and Entitled Bastard. These are No Real Life Examples, Please! tropes, so I feel like it should be reverted.

Whoa, somebody had added even more complaining about Perlmutter to the Inhumans example since the last time I saw it. The guy's genuinely a douchebag, but it always struck me as bizarre that the writeup was more focused on him than the show itself. Definitely approve the rewrite.

Real people should not be used as examples of these tropes, so I'm pretty sure the potholes have to go.

, Reverted

Rewrite

I'd like to suggest the the following rewrite of the Vegan Artbook entry on Horrible.Webcomics. The current one is mostly complaining about the author's views and how the comic pushes them, and doesn't explain why VA in particular is Horrible when flaws like these (a lack of nuance, that there's nothing to it except "let's push the author's views and mock people who disagree", frequent use of Straw Characters, etc.) aren't that uncommon in opinionated works that do manage to find an audience (Vegan Artbook does seem to have a few genuine fans, but I'm not sure if that's enough to disqualify it because they're a tiny minority of vegans). I also think the criticism of the comic's portrayal of vegans and non-vegans should be condensed a bit.

• Vegan Artbook is off-putting even by the standards of Author Tract comics. There is no nuance: The "heroes" are all cardboard mouthpieces that do nothing but spout the author's views and occasionally use violence against meat-eaters, which is apparently justified because they're meat-eaters and therefore "wrong". Non-vegans are reduced to blatant Straw Characters who are portrayed as either selfish monsters or ignorant clods who don't understand veganism. At one point, they're even◊ compared to Hitler. Moreover, its creator seems to be averse to criticism, as she has yanked many criticized strips from Tumblr and inserted unflattering caricatures of her critics into her comics for Hate Sink purposes. It doesn't help that the comic forgets to do its research and tends to re-use the same points in multiple strips. The closest it has to a redeeming quality is its cute Sanrio-esque artwork, and even that is questionable — according to various sources, it's stolen/traced. In the end, you get a comic that doesn't really appeal to anyone: non-vegans find it too insulting to be readable, and even vegans tend to find its treatment of non-vegans too extreme. This BWW article and this Honest Trailers homage should tell you everything you need to know.

Vegan Artbook rewrite

That rewrite looks good.

Rewrite.

Thanks for the feedback. I've replaced the Vegan Artbook entry with my rewritten version.

I think a wrestling fan should take a look at the "Dixie Carter" folder on Horrible.Impact Wrestling. It seems to contain multiple real-life examples that need to be removed, or (in some cases) rewritten to be about the performances themselves instead of Dixie Carter's mismanagement.

Horrible.Blazing Larvesta seems to be a horrible page created by....Blazing Larvesta.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Horrible.BlazingLarvesta

EDIT: On closer inspection they made all of the Blazing Larvesta pages. Moving to an ATT thread.

Edited by lalalei2001 on Oct 29th 2019 at 3:22:33 AM

Cut cut cut cuttity cut.

So this is on Wikipedia's List of Films Considered the Worst https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loqueesha

Anybody see it? It seems like a shoe-in, with its 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, controversy arising from the trailer alone, and the award laurels it faked in its marketing.

Edited by AlmightyKingPrawn on Oct 30th 2019 at 12:57:46 PM

I'm down.

Seems to check out.