Talk:The Fifty Worst Films of All Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
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.

Contents

[edit] Not neutral POV

The article presents a book's author personal point of view, which is of questionable objective value and appears biased. The comments about the films seem to be added by the (anonymous?) author of the article thus rendering the article to be double-POV.

There are other wiki articles on the "worst film" subject, such as listed below, both of which do include elaborate comments on taste and judgement being subjective:

  1. Films considered the worst ever
  2. The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made (Documentary)

– see also the May 2005 discussion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made .

The comment about Zabriskie Point is plain propaganda thus qualifying this article for deletion. (WP:NOT)

- Introvert 28 June 2005 10:00 (UTC)

Agree. Strange list and absolutely non-NPOV. Is it allowed to propose deletion once again now? --CodeMonk 22:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VFD debate link

Due to insufficiently strong consensus to delete this article at this VFD debate, the article has been kept. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy question

While checking the Library of Congress to verify the publication information of this book, I found an oddity. The 1978 edition actually lists Harry Medved and Randy Dreyfuss as the authors — no sign of Michael Medved. However, later editions, listed under the shorter title and including the originally cited ISBN, list only Michael Medved as author. I confirmed this information with FetchBook.info and Amazon.com as well. I've added a references section that shows this discrepancy.

Could someone who has access to either or both of these editions make any necessary corrections in the article text? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I have the original book, copyright 1978 but my copy is from a 1980 reprint. It lists ISBN: 0 207 95891 2 (cased edition), 0 207 95892 0 (limp edition). The cover and titles pages clearly list authors as Harry Medved, with Randy Dreyfuss. It also pictures both authors: Harry Medved and Randy Dreyfuss. The ackowledgements page notes that "Harry's brother Michael Medved was involved in every step of the project and without him this book would not exist." The copyright notice says "Copyright 1978 by Michael Medved". Asa01 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove tags

OK I remove accuracy tags. Minor article about minor book. Article basicaly described the book well enough. I think the author problem has been addressed. Clearly the actual authors is somewhat murky (see talk above) but the article reflects this I feel. Asa01 23:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another removal

Removed text:

The list is largely restricted to sound films because the book predated widespread consumer use of videotapes and silent films were harder to find

Removed because this is completely wrong. There are in fact no silents in the book, and the reason for their exclusion is not that which is given here. In fact the authors consider silents as an altogether different artform, and say so in the book. Reference to consumer videotapes seems questionable: in 1978 when this book was written I think it is safe to say that over 90% of the films listed were not on video. Asa01 23:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

I don't know most of the films on the list given in this article, but how in the world did Eisenstein's Ivan Groznyi 1 & 2 get up there? It's usually considered among the very best of all time. Something seems fishy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.125.46 (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the reviewer Matherson (Rhinebeck) at amazon.com's Fifty Worst Films of All Time (Paperback): "Some of these line-ball calls are due to the fact that there was originally a core of about 20 really "good" bad films in the first draft - then the publisher insisted on 50." If true this would go a long way to explain some of the strange selections. It would explain the attitude with films like Dick Tracy vs. Cueball (1946) where character names are derided even though Gould himself had been doing much the same for years.

It is hard to take the jab of a jeweler being called Jules Sparkle seriously when you realize that the comic strip had a pianist called 88 Keys (1943) and the Summer Sisters (1944) May and June. This is all ignoring Gould tending to reverse common words for last names--a musician named Seton (1940) and a midget criminal named Trohs (1940) are good examples of this.

Similarly the plot is not as far off what Gould was writing at that time as the book implies. Between his better known stories Gould would have filler material like this and the quality did tend to be so so. It is clear to any Dick Tracy fan they were trying desperately to find things to poke fun at with this movie.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)