So Bad It's Horrible Cleanup

The linked video for "Sirens" is called "Feminist Scream Singing", so there probably was a political motive for adding it. Even ignoring that, it looks more like a case of True Art Is Incomprehensible.

Okay, your point that an acceptable like-to-dislike ratio does not necessarily disqualify a work is fair. Some people may hit "like" on a video even though they dislike the song itself. I've seen other songs with a higher-than-50% like rate even though the highly upvoted comments agree that the song is terrible. If extremely few people actually like "I'm Horny", it can stay.

I don't know if whoever added the example had a political motive, but it seems likely that the YouTube uploader did. Either way, I don't think the song qualifies. Some of the reviews do find the singing unpleasant, but they seem to think it is that way for legitimate artistic reasons — it's supposed to be uncomfortable and unsettling. (True Art Is Incomprehensible may also play a role.) The play and the song were supposed to appeal to artsy types, who seem to like it. Therefore the song appeals to a niche, which disqualifies it from SBIH status.

I dunno, I find "I'm Horny" too catchy and amusing to be horrible, in my eyes. I'm pretty sure, though, that Narm is misued since the song was never meant to be dramatic.

Would Tom and Jerry: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory count as Horrible? I mean, it did result in the Roald Dahl estate moving the rights from Warner Bros. to Netflix, along with those of the other books WB had the rights to (the last Dahl adaptation slated to come from WB is The Witches with a possible Complete Monster from Anne Hathaway).

A Disowned Adaptation or creator disapproval in general doesn't make a work horrible- remember, Dahl also hated the widely beloved 1971 version of the film, which is anything but horrible.

We're gonna need more to go on.

already brought up by me, already decided not horrible.

It's basically just Tom and Jerry messing around in the 1971 film Willy Wonka And The Chcolate Factory, with no attempt whatsoever at being cohesive, and you could take Tom and Jerry out and get a much better animated remake of that film than with them in it.

Sounds like a personal opinion. We don't care about those.

Apparently it was already discussed, so you'll need to give us more than that to change the consensus.

I have removed the Sirens example because it seems to appeal to a niche. I've also removed the misused Narm from the "I'm Horny" example while letting the example itself stay. Even though I kind of agree with Brainulator9 that the song is somewhat catchy and amusing (which pushes it closer to So Bad, It's Good), the song qualifies as SBIH if the overwhelming majority thinks it's just terrible.

This is on Western Animation:

• Fil-Cartoons was a studio that was founded in the late 1980's and shut down in 2001, and for good reason. According to Sick Little Monkeys: The Unauthorized Ren & Stimpy Story, the place was essentially a sweatshop, in that the pay was so low you would have to sleep in or outside the studio. There was also the fact that employees were overworked there, as well as that there was no toilet paper in the studio whatsoever. Even moving that out of the way, the studio was well-known for an extreme amount of Off-Model animation no matter what they worked on. This is evident in Season 1 of The Ren and Stimpy Show, where the studio handled ink, paint, and camerawork for the season, and it shows with several coloring/drawing errors and cel layering errors too. Thankfully, they were fired after Season 1.

Even if the studio does unethical stuff, it doesn't matter if people like the shows they produced. Adding examples purely on the creator's lack of morals is Righting Great Wrongs, And That's Terrible Cut.

Edited by Someoneman on May 27th 2020 at 4:22:06 AM

I agree. In some cases bad conditions can add to something being "horrible", but that's if it's an event of some sort. Background issues doesn't make a piece of media horrible- it makes the conditions horrible, but that's not what we're troping.

• The Atlas Shrugged three-part adaptation, directed by John Aglialoro, is a confusing mess that zigzags between barely resembling the source material and sticking too much to the book's messages and delivering them heavier than an anvil (even considering the book's 70-page expository speech). Not only that, but the three films suffer from sterile writing, confusing directing, a cast of C-list actors that phone in their lines (none of whom return for the sequels), and the fact that you need to know a lot of politics and philosophy to even grasp what the heck it's all about, but even then such an audience would fall asleep halfway through. Each film's production values (and reviews) worsen every time, with the third film having a caustic 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. In Roger Ebert's review of the first film, he freely admitted that he completely disagrees with Ayn Rand's Objectivism and expected to hate the movie for that reason alone, but his review mainly focuses on how the film is so incredibly boring, it's objectively bad.

Thing about this is despite the atrocious reviews critics gave it, IM Db and RT users seem to be far more forgiving of it.

The first part has a 69% on RT users and a 5.6 on IM Db.

I assumed maybe the others parts could have counted but part 2 has a 5.4 IM Db and 60% RT users and part 3 has a 4.3 and 40% user rating.

I don’t know if Part 3 could count, and I don’t know if the scores are influenced by Objectivists pushing the score up or not, but parts 1 And 2 sound like they don’t belong here.

Honestly, jumping back to that MTM logo example, I think having an entire list of ANIMATED LOGOS on that page is just silly. Frankly, I'd call most logos considered "horrible" So Bad, It's Good instead, at best.

It’s a bit weird that vanity plates are considered tropable enough to be covered by SBIH, but not enough to be covered by Nightmare Fuel.

That page was IMO also a long-time mess, honestly (even if I did edit it frequently in the past). Lots of subjectivity all over the place, but to me, while some of them could be scary by some, there was a lot listed on that page aren't even the slightest bit scary.

Edited by FromtheWordsofBR on May 28th 2020 at 5:36:54 AM

Probably because So Bad, It's Horrible relates to the quality of a thing, while Nightmare Fuel relates to a moment in a thing that causes an emotion. Vanity plates are too basic to be Nightmare Fuel (there's the infamous Viacom "V of Doom", but that wasn't intentionally scary), but quality can apply to anything, so thus vanity plates can be considered so bad, they're horrible.

Edited by jandn2014 on May 28th 2020 at 6:34:45 AM

I suppose I see what you mean. And you make a good example regarding the NF page.

I think the logos should stay on Horrible. About the NF page.....my edits there are a major Old Shame of mine (as is basically everything I did here before 2019, those weren't good editing years for me), but the THX logo was actually the biggest Nightmare Fuel of my childhood. It actually still isn't something I want to watch at night and/or alone......

Happily N'Ever After is free on You Tube Movies, with likes outweighing dislikes 10:1. Permission to cut? https://youtu.be/pyYYF8mImEc

What about that Lifetime movie, The Pregnancy Pact? Could that be a qualifier?

I've heard it sucks, but my sister finds it hilarious and fun to watch (in the SBIG sense). She could be a fringe opinion, but it's just something to consider- Lifetime in general seems to be more ironically enjoyed than anything.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 31st 2020 at 8:40:58 AM

Should probably look up some review scores to help us out.

This was added to Literature:

• From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Freedom and Global Justice by Madhavi Sunder, J.D. would barely even be a blip on the radar if not for YourMovieSucks.org and his multiple features on it, and it really isn't hard to see why. While its premise is somewhat admirable (making arguments for acknowledgement of intellectual property), it ultimately ends up being a case of "Good intentions can only get you so far" when one reads through the thing and finds out just how insultingly poorly written and researched it all is, littered with liberal amounts of Bias Steamroller and Cowboy BeBop at His Computer- even more insulting and reprehensible when its author is a law professor. For one, Sunder barely even hides her bias towards Bollywood features, often times coming across as a xenophobic twit who hates Hollywood- for example, one entire chapter is devoted to how Steven Spelberg allegedly stole the premise for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial from a 1963 Bollywood movie titled Alien , but never once provides any evidence to back up her claims. But the biggest offender come when she devotes a large chunk of the book to the controversy surrounding allegations of plagiarism by The Lion King from Jungle Emperor Leo, better known by its Western title "Kimba The White Lion." Her comparisons are not just garden variety comparisons based on a few measly shots, but also make it very clear that she very clearly hasn't seen either licence. For one, she notes the similarities in the names "Simba" and " Kimba", despite the fact that the word "Simba" is Swahili for "Lion". For another, her lack of Kimba experiences made even more painfully clear when she delves into the details- she makes comparisons between Polly from Kimba and Zazu from The Lion King on the basis that they're both parrots... except only Polly is an actual Parrot, and Zazu is a Blue Macaw. She also states that both pieces of material take place on "Rocky terrain" , despite the fact that Kimba takes place mostly in the jungle, and accuses Scar of being a ripoff of Claw, on the basis that they're darker skinned lions with a scar over their left eye, despite the fact that Claw appears literally in only one episode of Kimba. And things take an even more reprehensible turn in her footnotes, where her sources for these claims include a very amateurishly made You Tube video from 2008, and the Jungle Emperor Leo film... which came out in 1997, three years after The Lion King came out. And if that wasn't bad enough, the majority of the claims she makes about this are VERY clearly plagiarized from a segment of a book that Fred Patten released in 2004. Think about it... a law professor accusing Disney of plagiarizing while plagiarizing herself. And if all that wasn't bad enough, this book is obscenely expensive, with the Kindle edition costing $50 in Canadian dollars, and its hardcover edition costing $93... for 272 pages''. But you don't have to take our word for it. Rather, [https://youtu.be/FzyRQXMbOro take his]].

That reads like an ad for "YourMovieSucks.org".

Edited by nrjxll on Jun 2nd 2020 at 7:12:45 AM