Discussion Horrible / AnimatedFilms

First of all, it's a series, not a movie. Second, it's been defended by its target audience.

I put it on the animated films list by accident, sorry.

If we're adding any covers other than video game ones, than it's gotta be this.

I vote yes.

As a rule of thumb, something isn't bad solely because a single reviewer said so, and we need independent evidence. The 3.3/10 on imdb checks out, but if it does get an entry, it should be more than Saberspark's points. Just get a second opinion cause I'm not the best at judging this sort of thing.

Yeah, as a late response, I can see it (Silver Circle) working as a mention here. Not only for the fact that it was legit lost media for years (granted, that's not a negative in and of itself, but it does make one think it should have stayed lost media like the Rapsittie Street Kids once were lost), but the fact that it's a political movie that's way too on the nose for itself and feels awkward to view now considered the COVID-19 pandemic occurred literally a year after the film first started itself in 2019... back when the film was first released in 2013. Even without the political stuff in mind, the animation looks unfinished at points, the characters flip around intelligence and stupidity too much, and the plot feels nonsensical in and of itself.

That's a top ten list. Can you tell us the exact point when the film he's talking about comes up?

Adventures of Acela

At 23:13 min.

Does anyone else think The Adventures of Açela should be on there? I've been holding off on this decision for a year now for a reason.

Shockingly, the Imdb for The Adventures of Acela has a 5.5/10, with the positive reviews seeming genuine. Yeah, I'm shocked too. Doesn't seem to qualify.

I mean, it's possible those numbers might have been inflated. You can never count that kind of thing out as a possibility.

I saw a second video talking about it, and Double Toasted also believes it's the worst animated film they've ever seen themselves. (Link for reference.) The main guy that talked about the film felt that there was barely five minutes worth of story for an hour and 10 minute long film, with a secondary guy mentioning that it could be more like 10 minutes instead, but 5 of those 10 minutes were of a story inside a story that went absolutely nowhere with itself. Not only that, but the more footage that was shown from this video, the more I'm thinking that this 5.5/10 score is fake, with it inflated by people that were completely made up just to make it look better than it is to those that don't know. In fact, even the voice actress of two of the characters in this film mentioned in a YouTube comment there that she only got paid $64 for her work on this film. Coincidentally, both Saberspark and Double Toasted mentioned Alien, the Green Alien, was the best part of the movie.

I agree that we should keep an eye on it.

I can definitely see "Marmaduke" ending up here.

Not to mention Phelous reviewed two of their films and they look pretty bad. They also have excessive padding and haphazard direction. I'd at least add their version of Aladdin ...

Late reply, but yeah, agreed.

Late reply back, but I can see Bevanfield's films qualifying for this list. Probably best to list Bevanfield as a company there.

It certainly looks (and sounds) awful, but the film is so obscure that I couldn't even find anything on "Froggy 2000" at all whatsoever on IMDB. In fact, it's so obscure that it seems like it's only found in places like Letterboxd and TMDB instead (and even then, it seems like they were uploaded there by the same person that uploaded the video itself onto YouTube). That being said, it's certainly something that looks like it's up on Saberspark's alley. Maybe someone should mention it as something that exists to him? ;)

Maybe, idk.

Doing research for it, I did find out it was the last theatrical cartoon they ever released for the original Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies run that started back in 1930 before their animation division closed down from that period of time. So if not because of one-note jokes and puns and racist depictions of Native Americans, I say it counts for that sad note for their animated division alone.

I'd wait a bit but so far it seems to add up.

[deleted]

Good

The reason why it was removed was because it's considered more So Bad, It's Good.

(Removed, wrong place)

My apologies, accidentally hit the Reply button instead of the Start New Discussion button.

Disregard this.

Was thinking of proposing it. Go ahead.

I think so. Literally the only thing in the way is that I believe it was trending on Netflix the day it came out.

People have been deleting and readding links to Doug's reviews ever since the #ChangeTheChannel incident. Thought we were finally past these Edit Wars but I guess not.

That's what I was going to ask, because I saw no reason for its deletion. So, does it still apply or not?

minikiss re-deleted it with the edit reason "Too many cooks spoil the broth. The list of reviewers criticizing it is long enough as it is". Honestly, it seems like little more than an excuse to delete NC's review specifically (there are still 14 reviews, and minikiss didn't delete anything else). If they were interested in shortening the review list, why not at least delete the useless "Emer Prevost decided he'd refuse to review it before he was even halfway through the trailer" one too? That's not even a review. You can't judge the actual film based on just the first half of the trailer.

Congratulations, after ages of me having to tell you something doesn't seem to qualify, you've found something that seems to qualify.

The animation is IMHO on par with such infamous movies like Foodfight, if not even worse. These eyes... *shudder*

[deleted]

I think so

It's worth mentioning that it holds the record for worst opening weekend of all time.

Let me handle the write-up:

Arctic Dogs is known for holding the world record for the worst opening weekend of all time, animated or otherwise. This boring, uncanny Cliché Storm of a film managed to have an utterly noxious marketing campaign that spoiled all the awful truths about the movie before it came out, and suffers from painful writing and animation across the board. Not even the cast could save the film. Ani Mat gave the film one of his very rare scores below a 4/10, and the Ani Mat Seal of Garbage.

It was discussed in the cleanup forum. It has fans and doesnt qualify.

Highly doubt. Reception seems more mixed to negative than purely negative. Taking this to the So Bad It's Horrible Cleanup thread in the forums.

Yeah, it’s very obscure, but it seems like basically no one likes it.

The movie is already listed under Asian Animation (under its original title Mustafa and the Magician).

Oh. Thanks.

Carried your message over to the SBIH cleanup forum. We'll come up with a consensus there. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15574101790A64005900&page=6#130 (link doesn't work; copy paste.)

People seem to be in agreement in lifting the ban. Do your magic.

Just googled and Charming has a 33% on RT, bad but a bit too high, so discount what I said. Get Squirrelly has very little info online but it may qualify.

I’ve heard that the Sequel to Never After was not actually made by Vanguard, I don’t know if they were involved in anyway with the production.

I saw Media Hunter's review and he said it wasn't as bad as the first two, so probably not.

Maybe the miscellaneous section of the Other Horrible subpage?

Nowhere. It's a single scene from an unfinished reel that was never meant to be seen by the mass public. Putting it here would be like putting a leaked beta of a video game. It obviously got refined for the final product and it was never sold as its own thing.

I think they should stay. I agree with you, I'm getting sick of this. It's not like we deleted everything on the wiki related to John K because he turned out to be a pedo. Reviews are reviews.

(Because I can see it happening from my response, please don't accuse me of defending Channel Awesome or John K's actions. They are disgusting. It's just that Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement needs to be applied. I think the best way to do it is to just keep them on the page.)

Send this stuff to live action films too. The same thing is happening.

Done. Also took it to Ask The Tropers, as well. (If that's the right place to take this issue.)

What is it? The page keeps saying Not Found.

Copy and paste the link. For some reason, clicking it doesn't work. If copy/paste doesn't work either, search for "Bible Town 2017 animation" and go to 17:19.

I think so. It's sequel should be added as well, as it's even WORSE than first one, which is quite a feat.

It probably has something to do with the whole #ChangeTheChannel drama that's been going on. Long story short, many former contributors to Channel Awesome have spoken up about the upper management of the site mistreating them and put together a Google Doc to compile their grievances.

I'm not sure if that's reason enough to remove Doug's reviews though. I mean, there hasn't been an official consensus to do so.

Should the entry be readded until we reach a consensus over whether Doug's reviews should actually stay linked on here or not?

Hmm, I've seen it and wholeheartedly agree that it's a pretty crummy movie. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Yeah, it seems valid.

Its IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes ratings are low, and it was a flop.

The Emoji movie has been added and has a decent entry. Where the Dead Go To Die doesn't count. We're still waiting on A Troll In Central Park's entry.

I don't think it qualifies. While I'm sure it made a decent amount of money from the bile fascination, I have a couple of cousins that love this movie and apparently a lot of kids their age do too.

Also, if you go onto IMDB and check the user reviews, there's quite a few 10/10's that don't seem to be written by trolls that have a good amount of people agreeing with it. While I hated the movie as well, don't let the huge subculture of internet critics lead you to believe that it doesn't have a decently sized fanbase, because it does.

Are we talking about A Troll in Central Park or The Emoji Movie? The former is a good candidate and I brought up some of its flaws below. The latter seems to have a few fans but could still qualify. The Emoji Movie's entry appears to be very bloated though ...

Culled the Emoji Movie. According to the YMMV page, there are people who find it So Bad Its Good and So Okay Its Average. Unless something's changed since the last time I did any editing on Darth Wiki (it's been years) something can't be listed in So Bad Its Horrible if it's found to be So Bad Its Good or So Okay Its Average.

^ Those people are pretty much in the minority, though. It's widely agreed that the film is awful. Even its target audience hated it.

I could get behind adding it. It looks beyond atrocious, going by what I've seen of it.

It's been removed but had a decent entry on this page a week or two ago. It's a stinker and should be re added until we find a genuine fanbase. Also the Villain Song could be considered So Bad, It's Good but the movie itself really isn't.

The entry is still there. It's under one of the other folders now.

It's IM Db page is 2.2/10.

Yep. This thing is not looking good.

Even though it "improved" to 3%, I'd say this movie is more than qualified to be listed as horrible.

I say wait until the box-office results come in. Our rules say that if a work is commercially successful, it can't count as SBIH. If The Emoji Movie is a flop, then you can feel free to add it.

Given its low score, it'll be a miracle if TEM is even a decent success.

Its IM Db score is now 1.5.

Edit: Here's a review from Chris Stuckmann.

Also, it's at #60 on the IM Db Bottom 100.

I'd maybe wait for the IMDB scores to cool for a bit, given that there are people giving it bad ratings without seeing it and good ratings ironically.

Also, personally I think if it does okay at first but ends up dropping significantly it can still qualify.

It got beaten by Dunkirk in it's opening weekend, which considering how it's a much narrower appeal and not marketed towards kids is pretty significant.

It debuted at only half its budget. Let's see how badly it pans out in the long run...

Update: Grossed $34 mil globally on a $50 mil budget. Would that be the nail in this coffin?

It made more than its budget now. Because the foreign numbers came in.

$62.2 million against $50 million.

You have to be kidding me.

So should it be cut now that it apparently fails the "sales flop" aspect of this trope? Can is still qualify if it failed at local box office? Or should we wait and see how it officially pans out? (I say we jumped the gun on adding it before we had sales figures.)

Emoji Movie isn't a flop but it's not really doing particularly well, either. Especially considering it didn't have a particularly huge budget. Last Airbender made its money back on a much higher budget and it's still on the list.

Putting the entry here, and we can add it once some time has passed:

'''''WesternAnimation/TheEmojiMovie''''' was a production doomed by its very [[AudienceAlienatingPremise concept]]: InAWorld inside a smartphone, where each emoji has its own specific role it can fill, one, Gene, has several, and feels constricted by his designated role of "meh." For this, he is cast out of Textopolis. In the meantime, the phone's owner, Alex, tries to woo his crush while beginning a new chapter of his life. When the "meh" emoji he's texted goes haywire, he sets out to factory-reset the phone. The story is [[ClicheStorm clichéd]], insultingly predictable, [[{{Anvilicious}} embarrassingly unsubtle]], and self-contradictory, obviously trying at points to will itself into being any one of several far more successful films made in the past four years. That's saying nothing about the rote, uninspired attempts at humor (many of which date the film right away) or the embarrassingly heavy-handed dialogue. Most of the characters are by design one-note, and the ones that aren't are just boring. By and large, the most effort in this film went to the ProductPlacement, which takes up huge chunks of the film and all but derails any semblance of a plot. It debuted at half its $50 million budget and still has yet to break even, even on the international market. While its very announcement was met with scorn across the Internet, review sits don't treat it much better; its Metacritic page currently stands at 12 out of 100, its Rotten Tomatoes page currently stands at 7% (the second-lowest score thus far for an animated film) and its rating is 1.8 on Website/IMDb, placing it squarely in [[http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom the site's bottom ten]]. The sad part is, Creator/TJMiller left his role on ''Series/SiliconValley'' to star in this film. Would you believe Creator/SonyPicturesAnimation president Christine Bell chose this picture as the beginning of an animation renaissance for the company? Watch Creator/ChrisStuckmann [[https://youtu.be/r2XO5i59wUg tear this movie a new one.]] WebVideo/AniMat also tears the film apart [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydvQB-4bBfQ here]].

Could you put it in [==] so it shows the formatting, letting it be pasted in?

At what point do we add it back? When there's official word of it being a commercial failure?

The Last Airbender still bombed domestically, though. Also, The Emoji Movie has made only $53 million domestically; marketing and other costs need to be covered as well, and not a lot of money comes to the studio from international releases, so it might well be a flop.

I Hate Everything also covers the film here.

How much would it have to make to be in the black? Because I think it's already covered...

^ I think it would need at least $100 million domestically to cover just the production cost. According to this (granted, it's a few years old), the studio only gets 50-55% of earnings in the US. Not sure if it's still valid, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: A total of around $18.64 million was spent on TV advertising (source).

It's now made only $58 million domestically (link). Pretty sure that won't be enough to cover its budget. I could be wrong, though.

97.2 mil by the last mark. This thing's definitely in the black. God help us.

On Wikipedia it's $99.4 million worldwide, but on Box Office Mojo it's $76 million worldwide ($65.7 million domestically, $10.3 million internationally) for some reason. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be fixable due to the edit protection on the Wikipedia article (unless someone with over 500 edits can fix it).

In any case, I don't think it'll be able to make a decent-enough profit, given that its domestic gross is only $65.7 million, so it could still qualify for this list.

It's now made only $71.8 million domestically. Given that its budget is at least around $68 million ($50 million production, $18 million TV advertising), I think it counts as a flop. It hasn't exactly done well overseas either (around $53.6 million in foreign box office)

Honestly, looking at this thread and a question of it counts as this based solely on it being a box office bomb or not. Or at least that's what it seems.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a commercial success, because while it did make back it's budget, it still would be hard to actually make all of the people who get advertisement happy financially.

Even then, the signs are pretty clear, this is a bad movie. Regardless of how much money it made, it has a 8% on Rotten Tomatoes and less than 50% of audiences liked it according to it as well. Not to mention that it has a critic consensus of "🚫", that's pretty impressive in a way. IM Db also 2.1 rating for it and several reviews have noted that the target audience, kids, just plain did not like the movie.

I think at this point this movie has more than deserved its place on this page.

I agree. I think that there is more than enough evidence showing that this movie is close to being universally disliked and has almost no defenders or people that consider it to be So Bad, It's Good.

I think that mostly the reason why the movie was successful was because it was well advertised and a lot of people watched it because of Bile Fascination, not because any real significant amount of people actually liked it.

I also agree.

Also, the Rotten Tomatoes average critical rating might also be worth mentioning (in this case, it's 2.6/10, which is still really bad).

The film's theatrical run seems to be pretty much done by now.

So does it qualify for the page?

Although I don't really debate, I do agree that The Emoji Movie is definitely a qualifier for this. It's IM Db has lowered to 2.1%, 10% on Rotten Tomatoes, and not even some newspapers (The New York Times, The Guardian, etc. have given it around 1-3/10 ratings, and only 28% of Google users liked it as of this writing). And with the flak it has everywhere else, it seems that it doesn't have a chance of being Vindicated by History. I'd say yes.

I'd say we need evidence of it being a commercial failure to qualify, since it's making it's budget back implies something about it went right? That we jumped the gun on calling it a Box Office Bomb shows we're over invested in calling this a failure.

Is there any Horrible examples that were commercial successes? If not, commercial success is a disqualifier.

Even if it did do well at the box office, remember that a good portion of people who did see it saw it for the bad publicity it was getting. I'm not trying to make sure the movie gets in, I'm just trying to see if it does fit a place on another list.

^^ I think The Last Airbender made a decent profit internationally, but bombed domestically.

The Emoji Movie hasn't flopped, but it hasn't exactly done well at the box office either.

How about we wait until the end of the next month and then see if anything changes?

sure, why not.

^^ Changes as in?

not sure. we will see.

Okay.

I think I figured out how to decide if The Emoji Movie qualifies.

I think we should do some research on how much of a fan base the emoji movie has, mainly among its target audience, kids. Even really terrible films bad enough to be So Bad Its Horrible sometimes have a few non ironic fans, but it can still qualify if those people are a tiny minority far less than what a So Bad, It's Good film would have. Is there any information on how much kids like this film? If kids generally didn't enjoy this film then it probably does qualify for So Bad Its Horrible. If a significant amount of kids do like The Emoji Movie, then it is disqualified for the same reason that the star wars prequels and the live action transformers movies are.

I haven't heard of many kids liking the Emoji Movie, with a substantial amount of reviews pointing out kids were quiet and/or bored during the movie.

Quite a few child reviews on Common Sense Media were overwhelmingly negative, so I'd say it qualifies.

And in any case, the Star Wars prequels mostly received a mixed (and in the case of Revenge of the Sith, positive) critical reception, so they'd be disqualified anyway.

Then I guess we should go ahead and add it if nobody has any objections.

Sounds good.

I don't see it there yet.

It's been added.

I gave my opinion above, but I wasn't aware that this was already being discussed down here. Also wasn't aware of the reviews coming from actual children being negative.

Rapsittie Street Kids is under the Western Animation subpage.

Also, I dunno about Felix. It's been ages since I've seen that movie.

I've seen it for myself and saw the Nostalgia Critic's review of it after. He didn't speak about every flaw but he saw how much of a bad movie it was.

Also, shouldn't it and that other movie from the same studio be relocalized to be here? They're animated movies, not cartoons.

Sounds terrible so I approve but ...

But what?

I think what Idisagree is trying to say is that it can't be added to the list because it has only one fan.

Rottentomatoes and other sites do suggest a few genuine fans. So I would not add it.

A few genuine fans doesn't mean the film isn't horrible. I am actually a genuine fan of the horrible film The Master of Disguise. A film can have greater than zero fans and still be horrible.

37% is probably way to high to be horrible. I have actually seen that film and I enjoyed it a little bit. I mostly think that it was unmemorable, like it was So OK, It's Average or just below that. Aside from the bad premise and sometimes uncanny animation, there isn't really anything to hate about that film. Although my opinion may not be a reliable one since I actually like the horrible film The Master of Disguise.

can you give some examples of films that are disqualified?

The Emoji Movie, Foodfight!, Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return, The Adventures of the American Rabbit, Ice Age 5: Collision Course and A Troll in Central Park.

We actually have not decided yet whether or not The Emoji Movie should be on this list, but those are good examples

There might be more possible examples, though.

Is A Troll in Central Park an example that should be disqualified? By all accounts it hits all the qualifications. Hated even by its target audience, abysmal reviews from professional critics and a huge box office flop.

I can understand the other ones, but that one? I don't know, I think it both more than qualifies and earns its spot here.

^ Maybe the only reason it isn't here is because no one has added it yet.

I already asked about A Troll in Central Park below and it seemed like a good candidate. All we need is an entry. Also The Emoji Movie is on the page with a decent entry. The others are either So Bad, It's Good or just plain have too many supporters.

Say, just a small question, how comes Where The Dead Go To Die isn't on the So Bad It's Horrible page for Animated Films? I'm honestly surprised it hasn't yet, given how depraved that movie is.

This is the first I heard of it. Maybe it's the case for everyone else?

I suppose. It's not a well-know movie....and many reviewers refuse to review it because of how bad it is. You see, it's got a reputation for being very hard to watch, due to it's content. The movie is that terrible.

well, being offensive is not enough to make the film horrible. It needs to have other serious problems and not have any good qualities that are significant enough to redeem it.

It's not just offensive, it's....terrible on every level. The animation, music, voice-acting, writing, plot, everything is bad. It doesn't really have any redeeming qualities to speak of.

Ignore the people who refused to watch the film. Are the people who enjoyed the film a tiny minority even among the people that did watch it?

Actually, I looked at the YMMV page for it and it said that the film is a Love It or Hate It Cult Classic. If that is true then it probably is disqualified.

Really? I never met anyone who liked the film. Everyone I see hates it and says negative things about it, not just critics but commentors.

Do you have reviews from respected sources arguing for it being horrible? That's a prerequisite for this trope.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about the film's reception:

"Where the Dead Go to Die was panned by many viewers and Internet animation critics, criticizing its three stories, animation, characters, voice acting, writing, and use of music. It was however reviewed well in many horror publications, such as Rue Morgue, DV Dtalk, and horrornews"

good idea

In a way, I agree with this. And it also was a big Box Office Bomb, so it does qualify for it.

I don't think Values Dissonance works qualify.

I just added it back, sorry, but rewrote it a little.

Being a commercial failure is a requirement for this trope, since it proves those who normally wouldn't mind didn't like it.

Collision Course's total gross worldwide is 3.78 times its budget (compared to 60% back home), so it wasn't a bomb overseas (making 84%! of its budget abroad)

At least it has a Cinema Score of a B+ (which is pretty good).

At least the animation was good

Yeah, seems weak. Taking out the profanity kinda makes it... borderline nonsensical. What's so bad about the character named Knowhow anyway?

Funnily enough I had the chance to watch this special last Christmas. I thought that while the plot was pretty dumb and bland and the animation was nothing special, it didn't seem anywhere near bad enough to consider it So Bad Its Horrible. Especially when you compare it to the likes of Norm of the North, which goes out of it's way to be as obnoxious and pandering to the lowest common denominator as possible.

I'd suggest waiting a bit, After all it just recently came out.

I agree, but it seems very likely that it'll end up on the list.

Glorious. I must catch it at some point.

I was about to add it too. It had been a week, still has a goose-egg on Rotten Tomatoes.

Never mind, it's already listed in the Western Animation page.

Needs a bit of context, seeing as examples can't rely on a weblink.

16%, whilst definitly a low score, seems kinda low for these pages. Usually the films that make it in here and the film section have about 5% to 0%. and it has a 6 out of 10 on IMDB. Plus, there is a fan of the film on this site here.

I know that this is old, but I'm bumping this to add evidence that this film does not belong here. Adding with IMDB's 6.0, Rotten Tomatoes's scores suggest that critics hated it, but filmgoers loved it (16% critics/73% audience). I've looked into the trailers on websites and the scores are somewhat positive overall (on Youtube, a trailer has about a 3:5 like-dislike ratio).

Seems to be more a divisive movie than a universally hated one. So no, it does not belong here.