Talk:List of films considered the worst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice This article is frequently the subject of strong objections to its existence or naming. If you wish to comment on it, you are welcome to do so. Note, however, that rants, soapboxing, diatribes, insults or empty or needlessly heated oratory violate multiple policies and guidelines and are NOT welcome.
Notice Before adding a movie to the list:
  • Ensure that it is widely considered one of the worst films by a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics. There are hundreds of "bad" or even "crappy" films, this page is for the worst.
    • Cite at least one of those sources (Preferably the most reliable one(s)) that explicitly calls it "one of the worst films ever"
  • Check the list of films removed from this article to see if it has already been considered. If so, ask on this talk page before re-adding it.


Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List
This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
NA
This article has been rated as NA-importance on the priority scale.


Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1. Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Shameless advertising

There seems to be an awful lot of advertising for RottenTomatoes. While it is a good site, it is commercial and for profit. Parts of this article mention how good of a service rottentomatoes provides in being a crucial and critical website and being objective enough to cite or believe. However, it is a site that collects primary newssources and is not an academic or peer-reviewed institution. Could someone please clean this up?


Indeed RottenTomatoes seems all over many of the film pages, with little mention of others (metacritic for example). Pog (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] These movies are overwhelmingly modern and US

Has anyone ever seen the average Bollywood film? How about "Day of the Triffids"?

[edit] Star Wars

It is inconceivable that an ostensibly encyclopedic listing of the worst movies ever would not include the Star Wars "prequels" If the delta between expectations vs. results counts for anything they are easily top three. Plan 9 had a budget equal to what I spent on lunch yesterday, the Phantom Anus' budget could feed Burma.

[edit] Writing Style?

I think the wording and writing style of this article could use some work. It's very informal-sounding in its descriptions of the catergories. 24.214.205.150 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Rayne

I notice that this movie is left off the list. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it earn a 01% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a spot on the 100 worst movies of all time on IMDB before it was even released? I think it should be added to the list. 154.20.135.89 21:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

While there's probably a case for putting most of Boll's movies on the list, one is probably enough for most directors :). To me the general consensus seems to be that 'Alone in the dark' is his worst movie, though I've never seen it. Mark Grant 10:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen alone in the dark but BloodRayne is the worst I've seen so far. crappy plotline, crappy acting, crappy everything. Usually I can enjoy an "action" movie like that as long as the action is good, but this failed to do even that. Honestly, the fights looked so slow and clumsy that I'm 100% sure I could have jumped in and kicked all their asses.

I've had the misfortune of seeing nearly all of that con man's movies and Bloodrayne was the worst of them (not sure about its prequel, though.) Chronus Valtiel (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It got a 6% on Rotten Tomatoes and it now on IMDB 100 movie list. I think we should add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

6% isn't worst. That's worth mentioned if it gets added, but is in and of itself a reason to added that brain-bashingly BORING movie. Wryspy (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And I must say, that Bloodrayne was actually worse than Alone in the Dark. At least the first five minutes of the latter was somewhat entertaining. Chronus Valtiel (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Just stumbled upon this article and it couldn't be more useless. I'm just wowed by the time wasted by so many people to create an entirely opinionated and useless WP article. I don't know what is more impressive, the ammount of time spent molding purelt artistic opinions into just barely neutral copy OR the fact that this entire article is one giant opinion peice. This is a bold Example of an article that should never be in Wikipedia. It is the antithesis of encyclopedic in that it is purely speculative and based on but a sliver of the American pop culture perspective. Worst movies of all time? Considered the worst? Considered by who? A collective group of people who've managed to spend a long time finally agreeing on the meta? How can you reference an art criticism? Is there an article of "paintings considered to be the worst ever"? How about, cartoons considered to be the worst ever?

Really sad to see that this article has been nominated for deletion multiple times, and over and over people have ignored the rules of wikipedia, that information must be ENCYCLOPEDIC and not just someone's or a group's opinion. This is the kind of article that people use just to fill their own sails and have their personal perspective seem universal for their own self justification. It is the very kind of article that makes one question everything one reads in wikipedia. To think, articles are deleted everyday that contain basic, factual information on things like Podcasts and Radio Shows or Actors or Journalists because they are considered "not notable", while the wikiNazi's have allowed this giant zit of an article to remain on Wikipedia's overgrown ass. Please, save some face, delete this entire article, and do a little bit to restore credibility back to the Wikipedia community. For once and for all, using Rotten Tomatoes to prove your point does not make the information factual. 71.234.110.209 06:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this article still exists. It will never be finished, as long as two people are alive on this planet there will be differences of opinion on this title; it is not fact! *groaning at the fact that this even needs to be said* Blow this damned article away! Amargosa 08:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
While it's purpose is questionable (as is the purpose of many other Wikipedia articles), it is definitely not a biased article in any way. Simply go search one of these movies on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB. You will see what I'm talking about. MysticLyman 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the idea of the article. Many books have been written about the "worst movies" ever made. The only problem is that the list is overloaded with bad movies made in the last few years. The forgotten drek of times long past is far worse. --Tysto 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a good encyclopedic article. Some films simply are objectively bad. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Have to agree with original poster. It's rubbish like this that makes Wikipedia look like a joke. A bunch of silly pop-culture whores trying to sound relevant. Not encycolopedic at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.146.66 (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
So what do we have to do in order to get rid of it? I agree wholeheartedly of course that the opinions of "professional film critics" are entirely irrelevant, and not worthy of Wikipedia inclusion. So how precisely ARE we supposed to get rid of the entire page? ~ SotiCoto (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I agree. I think there are older films that should be here rather than most of the new dreck. I, personally like Eks vs. Sever, but I realize it was awful. I think it (the article) should stay, they're always going to be people who are incredibly attached to the 'Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder' nonsense. Encyclopedic means 'Broad in scope or content' not 'stuff *I* think should be in an encyclopedia'. 71.247.193.174 (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations

Please refrain from using links to YouTube or the scripts of the films cited either as links within the paragraph or in references. I know that these are some major turkeys, but some of them are still heavily copyrighted in whole (including the bad screenplays and clips from the film), though public domain films like the Ed Wood and Coleman Francis bombs and Manos are the exceptions to this rule. (65.9.121.180 10:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

"Heavily" copyrighted? Aw, he ain't heavy. He's my lawyer. --Tysto 05:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

^hahahahaha!!


[edit] Pinocchio (1992 movie)

Neither this or the main article explains why the movie sucked, explain it to me please?

No, I'm not foruming, I'm trying to help the Pinocchio article, and don't have time to watch a movie right now. TheBlazikenMaster 19:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that film on this page? Nobody of consequence 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That's because you didn't look here, the minisection. The code is so long that I decided to direct to closest section. TheBlazikenMaster 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see it now. Those minisections are from various film rating websites of the worst-rated movies. This one is from Rotten Tomatoes' list. Check the reference tag at the end of the subhead above the list Pinocchio is in. Or, just click this link I'm giving you. :-) [1] Nobody of consequence 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the Sequel examples?

WHy is there a section on sequels and remakes and such; yet no examples given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.141.240 (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Holiday Special

Okay, we seem to have a disagreement whether this should be included. Let's discuss? I think it qualifies as a film as it's referred to as a film many many times in the Wikipedia article about it, and production information from IMDB shows one of the production companies as 20th Century Fox Film Corporation. It's also referred to as a film on fan websites. I can't really find any newspaper articles about it that specify whether it's a film or a tv show or anything, for that matter. So, based on the Wiki article, fan sites, and info from IMDB, I say it's a film. Demented and sad, yes, but a film nonetheless. Nobody of consequence 04:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As a sort of shorthand, people will refer to this as a film. But fansites and, unfortunately, even the Wikipedia article cannot be viewed as authoritative. The IMDb uses the (TV) tag as they do for TV movies because they have no separate tag for non-film specials. The fact that there is a "film editor" credited for the special and that the 20th Century Fox "Film" Corporation helped produce it has no bearing, whatsoever on the issue.
Ultimately, it does not belong on this page because (1) as I have demonstrated, it is not truly a film, not even a Made-for-TV movie, and (2) TV movies and specials, straight-to-video releases and fan films and the like are not held to the same standard as proper theatrically released films, so should not be included on this page, anyway. It belongs, as noted, on lists of "worst television" or some such, as that is its proper place. Rhindle The Red 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok to delete if you like. Nobody of consequence 17:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV programs considered the worst ever

I don't know if anyone is interested, but I have thought about creating a "TV programs considered the worst ever". The Holiday Special would certainly apply and I can think of lots of TV show bombs too, (Cop Rock, etc.). I've found some citations to support a few of the bad TV shows I have in mind. Anyone think this would be a good ides? Nobody of consequence 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

While it seems logical, it will be harder to support with references. There are more books, websites, and reviews tallying the worst films ever. The problem with TV shows is that they're always works in progress. A film is a film is a film. Somebody might consider TV show X to have been great for three years, but then the worst ever later on. And think how much hassle it is to defend this article against inappropriate additions. The problem would be oh so much worse for TV shows. Wryspy 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That's kinda what I've been thinking too. Oh well... Nobody of Consequence 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that the films page ought to be removed for being a useless collection of opinions spouted by pretentious retards, there is no reason the oppurtunity for further crap should be extended for television. ~ SotiCoto (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Who's being pretentious? I'm sorry, but I haven't heard that professional critics and regular moviegoers who can spot techincal flaws in a movie are retards. --Surten (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Surten

[edit] Hercules in New York

I notice that Hercules in New York has never been on the list. IMDb rating of 2.5, Rotten Tomatoes 20%. Anyone object? Poker Flunky (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do object. The facts you've given actually do not prove that anyone at anytime has called this film the worst ever. --Krótki (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Corman

Thank you for this page. I understand the potential criticisms of the page: it's POV, it's pointless, etc. But "the worst film ever" is a hotly contested title, and thus having a page for it just makes sense. Plus, the attempt to limit the page to films that have a legitimate claim of "worst ever" helps prevent the page from becoming just a list of bad movies.

I do have a criticism though, and I'm bringing it to the talk page rather than editing because I don't have enough verification I feel. It has to do with Roger Corman. The page currently reads "Some of these [films] are the result of filmmakers ... whose creative vision outstrips their technical or financial resources, such as Roger Corman." There are several filmmakers with grand visions that they simply could not pull off, but I don't think Corman falls into that category. In interviews, the man always comes off as terribly cynical, a man who has found a niche and revels in it. He was an expert in putting out movies very quickly and very cheaply. I honestly don't know if this is insulting to Corman or not. Certainly, his movies were not very good, with major flaws in such basic things as continuity and editing, but those things were not left in because of incompetence, but because of frugality. To edit it better would take time and money. Tritium h3 (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Corman as cynical, and I've never seen anyone in a reliable source make that claim either (though someone may well have done so). As far as I can see he's just a good businessman who knows the market for his movies and ensures they're made for a low enough budget to get a decent profit. If my boss says 'we're going to sell the new Widget(tm) for $100 apiece, so we can't spend more than $20,000,000 on R&D', I don't regard that as cynical, but a good business practice.
That said, my view tends to go against the 'creative vision outstrips their resources' angle too, since he's deliberately making them cheap. Mark Grant (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Most of Corman's films as director are quite intelligently handled. He often finances drek because he thinks it will sell, but Corman makes his films economically, not badly. Look at his Poe films. Each looks more lavish than the last because they stored the flats. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB user ratings

User:The_Parsnip! has twice reverted my edit that removes references to IMDB user ratings.[2] The second revert included the comment "rv IMDB ratings deletions. Wikiproject's don't make policy and these deletions don't represent consensus. Discuss on talk.".

These deletions represent the consensus of the WikiProject Films guidelines. There is no logical reason for having user ratings in this article, and yet removing them from every other film article. All of the same arguments against user ratings (unverifiability etc.) apply here. IMDB user ratings are not a reliable source, I see no reason why this article should be treated any differently to every other article on Wikipedia. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. In theory they're a decent measure of public opinion of a movie, but they're so often stuffed with '1' or '10' votes that it's hard to see them as reliable in general. So I tend to agree that they can't be considered a reliable source. Mark Grant (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that guideline should be treated with common sense (as specified at the top of the guideline page). This article is a little different from an article on, say, an individual title. This article is specifically about "Films considered the worst ever", and IMDB user ratings in this case aren't really being presented as references, but as general article content/information to help convey the concept of "films considered the worst ever". That's how I see it anyway. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There's more of a discussion going on over at Talk:Films_considered_the_greatest_ever#IMDB_user_ratings. I'd expect the concluded consensus to apply to both articles. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Mark Grant (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Troll 2

IMDB score of 2,0 (#31 at bottom) as of Dec. 2007. The reviews repeatedly call it 'Worst movie'.

Is that enough? I think it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleet (talk • contribs) 22:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a critical consensus. Posts by random people on IMDb aren't enough. It made the Film-Talk top 100 best films ever. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about Titanic?

Here's another one for the 'audience polls' section: in 2003, Titanic (1997 film) 'won' a British poll by The Film programme to determine the worst film of all time. See here:[3]. This is included on the Titanic article, I think it's also worth mentioning here. Terraxos (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Titanic doesn't belong on this page, almost by definition. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not, Mr. Anonymous? What invalidates that poll? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of shitty films, Titanic is not one of them. See the 83% fresh rating here, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/titanic/ On IMDB, it gets a 7.1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/ I wouldn't base the whole assumption that it is a bad movie worth being put next to Gigli and "Manos" on one poll. 67.80.89.255 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swept Away

While I agree Guy Ritchie's Swept Away belongs on this page, I propose its entry is moved from the "Star Vehicle" category to the "Bad Crossover" category.

Reason: Madonna is not a A-list actress, she is a "star in other fields, such as music" that "attempted to parlay their existing fame into a movie career".

85.227.226.235 (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Highlander 2

From Highlander II: The Quickening:

" Despite its negative reputation Highlander 2 was commercial success worldwide at the box office. In America it grossed nearly 3 times as the original.In the UK it pulled in $9,319,978 at the end of its run there.In Germany the movie also did well making nearly 7 million.In Spain it pulled in 1,128,132 admissions at the end of its run.In Australia in did $2,616,414. "

Does Highlander II really has its place here ? --Vspaceg (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, it does.85.227.226.235 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems, there is a "lost european version" of this movie. I think I saw this version in theater in France.
http://www.figmentfly.com/published/highlander2article.html
--Vspaceg (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Rod

I removed Hot Rod from this list. Just becuase the movie bombed doesn't mean it is considered the worst ever, and 13% on Rotten Tomatoes is too high. Plus, the part that said "Promotion was weak, the storyine was too, and the movie tanked." is serious-POV. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Acutally, it has a 35% on Rotten tomatoes. Who added this? Just because he didn't like it means it's a bad movie? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Missed Call

Should we add the 2008 remake of One Missed Call? It has a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes according to it's Wiki page. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just sucking horribly does not count. It has to suck at black hole-levels from several decades away, like Manos does. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If it got a 0% rating, then it probably should be added. I have no definite opinion, however, because I have never seen the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.37.15 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about Bio Dome?

Its the lowest rated film on Metacritic: [4] With the exception of some wonderfully written fictional reviews by some users Legotech (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This might qualify. It's so bad it's now pretty much justifiably forgotten, however. I remember when it came out I was working at a local newspaper and part of my job was putting in film reviews in the daily and weekend papers. Bio-Dome was notoriously not previewed for critics so we didn't even have a capsule to stick in the "What's Playing Where" chart. Some critic did pay to see it anyway and gave it no stars.

It's easy to see why ... so many things wrong: Pauly Shore in a lead role and a premise (let's make fun of Biosphere 2) that had probably reached its expiration date when they started writing (if that's the word) the script. It's not even a camp classic, it's just a turd that got flushed by the studio and the filmgoing public a long time ago. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meet the Spartans well on its way to being added.

So far 0 on Rotten Tomatos out of 14 reviews. I personally saw the movie opening night. It was AWFUL. I wouldn't doubt seeing it on this list in no time.

R.L. Nieman (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

See recentism. A lot of bad movies get made. This has yet to stand the test of time (and I'll agree, from the ads it looks like anything funny was already there). Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Meet the Spartans isn't just bad. It's exceptionally bad, and deserves to be on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Frederick (talk • contribs) 09:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
i saw the film it was ok but not one of the worstFW07 (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about Ishtar?

The movie Ishtar continues to be considered synoynmous with "horrible movie" two decades after its release. See the trivia section of the article about the film for examples. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See the "removed" list. It's better known for being a famous big-budget flop than an unwatchable failure. It's gained a bit of a cult following on DVD (while Hoffman and Beatty just don't work, I've heard Charles Grodin actually did a good job in his part). Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I had always (until recently) thought that Ishtar was the only movie anyone ever seriously called "the worst movie of all time". I've heard it explicitly called that, in those words, at least a few times before. I don't think it's *only* known for being a flop. Am I really the only one who has heard this? I've never seen the movie, BTW, and I have no idea how true the legend is. Xezlec (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether the film is actually bad. The name of this article is "List of films considered the worst." If people consider it to be terrible, then it belongs on this list, whatever the film's actual watchability. I happen today to have seen a new You Tube video [5] that pokes fun at Ishtar as a movie no-one would want to watch. The video is less than 13 hours old as I post this comment, so the infamy of Ishtar is still very much alive. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hell Comes to Frogtown?

Does anyone have any references for this? Having seen it, I am fairly sure it is the worst film of all time, as it would clearly be mathematically impossible to achieve a greater degree of badness. Of course, maybe I just have bad taste or something, since some people actually seem to like Roddy Piper movies and since I actually really liked several of the movies on this list. Anyway just a suggestion. Xezlec (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title...

I think the title of this article should be changed to "Films considered the worst ever made". Ending the title w/the word "ever" turns it into a herd-mentality cliche that's WAY TOO OVERUSED. Too euphemistic for an article that's supposed to be objective. Tommyt (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Y'all don't know bad

Three words: Fantasy Mission Force. look it up, watch it, and be sure to bring along some meth because that's the only way you'll understand it. Morethan3words

I absolutely agree with this assessment of Fantasy Mission Force, as well as the argument that this whole entry is sadly rather Amerocentric. Can we have either a companion article for List of Cantonese Films Considered the Worst, or some reference to Japanese, Taiwanese/Hong Kong/other Cantonese, Bollywood or other national cinemas from their fans or film critics? Calibanu (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)User: Calibanu

[edit] Eh-heh-heh-heh-heh. Heh-heh.

I was wondering if 3 Dev Adam should be added to this list for its ridiculous B-movie premise and stupid portrayal of famous Marvel Comics superheroes. --172.163.133.134 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hottie and the Nottie

Seriously, folks. It's been out for less then a week. I doubt it's known as one of the worst movies of all time. There is a huge difference between a box office bomb (Even one as big as this) and the worst movie ever. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


It's near the bottom on IMDB, FWIW130.64.158.99 (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Know Who Killed Me

It got terrible reviews, won Razzies, and bombed at the box-office, but no one has ever officially called it "The Worst Movie Ever," So I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.242.227 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see it has been re-added. I don't think it meets "worst ever" status, but is just a bad movie. --Phirazo 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Majority / Professional Opinion is still Opinion

There is no reason for this article to exist. Simply put, if a topic is open for fair disagreement (as opposed to being genuinely right or wrong) then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I have my own list of the worst films ever made, and the only correlation between those and the list given is Highlander 2. What exactly is this article trying to prove though? It isn't really informative in any way. The opinions of people paid to give such aren't, in fact, any more valid than anyone else's. Nor for that matter are film ratings given on any website or magazine. The only thing the page convinces me of is that the film critics in question are complete retards for drawing attention to merely unspectacular films when there is crap the likes of Mars Attacks, A Bug's Life and that awful Dungeons & Dragons adaptation out there... *shudders*. It is just opinion. The very fact that the contents of the article cannot be empirically evidenced demonstrates its invalidity. It does not belong. The article MUST be deleted. ~ SotiCoto (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You have an interesting interpretation of Wikipedia's policies. All (or at least most) of these opinions are published in reliable, third-party sources, and they're merely being presented to support the assertion that these are "considered the worst films ever". Your argument that because you disagree with the list, then it must be wrong, is utter nonsense, and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than WP:NPOV. The biggest problem we have with this article is people adding unreferenced sections about films that they thought were bad, but that's never a reason to delete.
If you really honestly think you can make a good argument for the deletion of this article, go ahead and list it on WP:AFD (again). I can't say you'll have much support. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useless?

IMHO this is simply a canvas for vandalism. I know this comment will receive nothing but poor reviews (!) but it must be said. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 10:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To the two above editors - you can take this to AfD (again) if you think it is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Phirazo 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Time for a clean-up

I think it is time to remove the the merely bad films, and concentrate on "the worst ever". Quite a few films have 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and low box office figures, but aren't "the worst ever." What does a reliable source have to say to qualify for the list? --Phirazo 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreee. Unless a film is stated, somewhere reasonable, as “the worst film ever” or is described as such by a recognised reviewer or site, it’s just a list of crappy movies. The one that jumped out at me was “Underground Comedy Movie”, which is just some cheap crappy film which is using this page as advertising. I think it needs a serious amount of editing. Famous Mortimer (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas and the Magic railroad

Should thomas and the magic railroad be included in this article? After all, it was a critical AND commercial failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.116 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it received 20 (Rotten) in Rotten Tomatoes. Laughreach (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

I don't see a discussion on moving the page to it's current name. Could someone explain why it was moved? If not, I will revert it back. Rgiht now it just seems like an unfinished sentence. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This list is focused on U.S. cinematography

This is, obviously, a list that can be implied exclusively on U.S. cinematography, so I placed a "worldwide" template to the top. I sincerely don't think this article has any value at all, BTW. An interesting list, but an uninformative and unencyclopaedic one as well.--Vitriden (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the article is a contentious one. I personally think it's fine, but I lean towards an inclusionist paradigm on Wikipedia. One reason I think it's appropriate is that it really deceives the reader when, say, Gigli is presented with a small plot summary, as is Top Gun as is Ikiru (for example). Considering that all three vary widely in commercial, critical and cultural reception, ignoring their reception (including the "Worst film of all time" moniker) is silly.
As for it being American-centric, fair enough. But there's a few reasons for that. For one, Hollywood still produces the bulk of movies, especially the ones with cultural "seepage" (http://mutiny.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/bollywood-vs-hollywood-the-complete-breakdown/ among other sources). Also, this is an English-language encyclopedia. So it definitely needs some bad foreign films, but be careful since this criticism might seem to be a way to trash the article through the backdoor, so to speak. And even a "perfect" version of this article may lean strongly towards American films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArekExcelsior (talk • contribs) 08:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier to move the article to a title like "List of American films considered the worst ever". Although, I could sugest Turkish Star Wars (1 & 2) as possible candidates for non-american movies considered worst ever. --Surten (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Surten

[edit] Removed poorly sourced "trivia"

Removed the note about Quentin Tarantino owning a 35-mm copy of Manos: the Hands of Fate. Used-edited content which is not fact-checked or peer reviewed is not a source (and furthermore the trivia is no longer in IMDb). The text removed was "Filmmaker Quentin Tarantino owns a rare 35 mm copy of the film, and has stated that it is his favorite 'comedy'." If someone can produce an actual source (interview transcript etc), then it can be readded. I just don't want to see an urban legend propogate due to user-edited databases sourcing each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.170.6 (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good edit; I don't know if it's true or not... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, what happened to Gigli and Ballistic?

I noticed the removed Gigli and Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever from the list. Now, I know most of the films in the list are realtively bad, but I specifically remember Gigli being called worst ever by several people (There was a J Lo cameo in Jersey Girl which also starred Ben Affleck, but the producers didn't say it, so audiences wouldn't believe it was Gigli all over again. That may help a little). As for Ballistic? It the worst rated movie in Rotten Tomatoes ever... It has a 0% total rating. Wuldn't that help notice it is as bad as it sounds? --Surten (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Surten


[edit] Serious, heavy editing?

Why don't we just make this page about films that someone relatively important, somewhere, has described as the worst film ever made? It'd be a great deal more interesting and would be a great deal less POV. "One of the worst" just means a list of crappy films, I think it would be better if it were closer to the title of the page. Famous Mortimer (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo?

A low-budget horror film made by El Paso fertilizer salesman Hal Warren, about a family in vacation that stumbles upon an isolated house inhabited by a polygamus cult.

Shouldn't that be polygamist? Lunakeet 00:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Catwoman

Would this film be added to the list. I belive that this rules above Blood Rayne as a bad film. And i am asking for agreeing voters to reply and add this to the list, perhaps a proffesional critic. Consider it

[edit] original research tag

The categories and prose describing the categories is not sourced. The placement of movies in these categories, and the description of the categories constitutes original research. 128.237.226.178 (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Film categories do not need sourcing, unless you are actually disputing that "Superbaies" is a family film and "Battlefield Earth" is a science fiction film. This seems pointy to me. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Crossoverposter.jpg

The image Image:Crossoverposter.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield Earth

Battlefield Earth appears twice in the article (with some of the text and references duplicated between the two appearances). It should probably be listed only in whichever section is more appropriate and the content merged. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Think About Deletion?

I love crappy movies as much as anyone, but this page keeps growing, with a bunch of people seemingly of the opinion that any film that they don't like is fine to be included here. It's become worse, even in the last few weeks. I really think it ought to be deleted, or heavily edited because as it is it's just a pointless page. Famous Mortimer (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion is a bit strong. I do agree that the page has gotten out of hand. I'm of the opinion that only, say, ten of these entries have a legitimate claim on "the worst film of all time." Criteria like "scored a 14% at Rotten Tomatoes" just doesn't cut it; this page is not "List of films considered really really bad."
Films that, based on this page, I believe have such a legitimate claim:
  • Glen or Glenda
  • Plan 9 from Outer Space
  • The Beast of Yucca Flats
  • "Manos" The Hands of Fate (although this needs a citation of the Amazing Colossal Episode Guide calling it the "worst ever;" I'd do it, but I don't have it handy)
  • Zombie! vs. Mardi Gras
  • Battlefield Earth
  • Gigli (maybe? Hideous weasel wording here: "Some reviewers dubbed the film 'The ultimate turkey of all time'" This is an unsourced quote!)
  • I Know Who Killed Me (this is really borderline)
  • From Justin to Kelly
  • Freddy Got Fingered (maybe... Ebert doesn't explicitly say it's the worst of all time, but it can pretty much be inferred.)
  • Staying Alive
Note that this is not personal opinion. Personally, I believe that 'Red Zone Cuba' is the worst film ever, and compared to this Coleman Francis nightmare Battlefield Earth is a masterpiece; however, Rotten Tomatoes has called Battlefield Earth their worst "Drama" of twenty-five years, and no such equivalent honor has been given to Red Zone Cuba, as far as I can tell. Tritium h3 (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's not difficult to find what a bunch of respected film critics have called the worst film ever made. A lot of these films are just some piece of crap that someone saw and decided to edit into the article. I don't think anyone seriously considers "Underground Comedy Movie" the worst film ever made, so it doesn't belong on this page. 144.87.143.3 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I'm proposing a move to the title 'Worst film'. As at least one other editor has remarked above the title reads like an incomplete sentence, and it wouldn't be a stretch to extend this article to cover the topic of 'worst film' in general, it is already far more than the average list. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support as the proposer of the move. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a very bad idea. This page should not, as it is beginning to do, become a list of films the editors consider really bad. That has no place in an encyclopedia. Instead, this page should follow the films considered the best ever page, and attempt to survey critical opinion. Tritium h3 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    But I'm proposing a move away from lists. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't support that either. I think this page, if cleaned up, would make an excellent companion to the "best ever" list. If there are good secondary sources for the concept of a "worst film," that might be worthwhile, but most such sources that I see merely declare this film or that the worst ever, rather than discussing those features that might make a film the worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritium h3 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this article is a list and whatever the title needs to reflect that. It's not about the concept of worst films... also, we use "considered" to make it clear that it's a normative judgment that they are "worst" and not a fact. gren グレン 13:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    How would you solve the problem of it sounding like an incomplete sentence? A move to 'List of films considered the worst ever'? I would support that. What do people think? +Hexagon1 (t) 01:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't this page in fact named "List of films considered the worst ever" at some point? And actually, now that I think of it, adding "ever" does not make it any more or less of a complete sentence; it's a perfectly valid noun phrase either way. Tritium h3 (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It still reads like a strange sentence, though I can't vouch for its noun veracity. It reads strange, and I strongly doubt this would be the majority title which people would seek on Wikipedia for this topic. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia naming conventions. First, it's a list article, which necessitates a title beginning with "List of...". Second, it moves from an NPOV title to one with POV. B.Wind (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. As stated several times above, this is a list, and the name must be "List of...". Secondly, it is certainly a good idea to clean it up and perhaps to model it off of "List of... best ever", to make it a companion article to that one. I would readily concede to renaming it "List of films considered the worst ever" toward that end. Bottom line: the primary concern of this article right now is clean up for verifiability. Wilhelm meis (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, meets naming conventions now, you already have the redirect. "It reads strange"? The verb's ambiguity is not a real problem; as a sentence the title doesn't resolve, but when you expect a noun phrase as indicated by convention, it does resolve. It does not need to be the majority search title if another title is indicated by naming convention (e.g., redirect adjectives to nouns, redirect verbs to gerunds). Anyway, as to content, would someone mind listing The Wiz (film) for historical value, and looking up how Matt Drudge panned Gigli on a weekly basis on his radio show? JJB 05:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, vote closed. I think we've established people are not in support of this change at this point. If someone finds the close-y templates feel free. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Roundabout

I think The Magic Roundabout must be deleted form the list. A film considered the worst ever is poor in all the world. In england it received good reviews.

Laughreach (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the American version and the British versions were different, therefore should make it clearer the American version was negatively reviewed whilst the British wasn't so bad. Mr Daw (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New list

This message isn't about this list, but, I want to make a list about the worst comic books ever.

Laughreach (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Dragon World: The Legend Continues

This movie is outlandishly horrible, and I believe it deserves a place on this article.

68.55.33.112 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A plan

Tomorrow night (EST), I plan on combing this article, reorganizing it, and removing those items that are not adequately sourced, or do not make a convincing case for "worst ever:" maybe 9/10 of them. I realize that in doing this, I may remove worthwhile entries, or leave in worthless ones; please do fix my errors. This article has gotten into a terrible state, and needs a really radical cleaning, beyond a single section or entry. Please also let me know if you think this is a horrible idea, or support this action. Tritium h3 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First step: I have run through the B-movie section, and removed some stuff. A do believe that "Monster A-Go-Go" belongs on the list, but without better justification, it shouldn't be there. If someone want to re-add it, please do, but for God's sake add a respected critic who calls it "the worst ever!" Also, someone please add that quote from the Amazing Colossal Episode Guide calling 'Manos' the worst film ever. Tritium h3 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cite sources

Editors who have added or are currently adding material to this article should immediately cite their sources. I understand that this article, judging from previous AfD discussions, elicits an emotional response, both positive and negative; the article should focus on noted critics' opinions and not that of Wikipedia users. (Some of the prose in the movie synopses is florid and/or biased.) Wikipedians won't hesitate to eliminate unsourced, unreferenced material. Cheers, pinotgris 04:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)