Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

The Twilight Saga

I have some reservations about these movies being on the list. The only source that actually says they are the worst is a poll voted on by fans of RiffTrax. Looking at the introductory paragraph to this article it states that the movies listed "have been cited by a combination of reputable sources as the worst movies of all time." One fan poll is certainly not enough to qualify as a combination of reputable sources. Looking at the other sources, the reviews from Rolling Stone, the San Francisco Chronicle, and MSN do not state that these are the worst movies. In fact the SF Chronicle and MSN don't even contain the word "worst". The Rolling Stone article does use the word "worst" but only by saying that Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 is the worst film in the saga. Under the Gun review probably isn't notable enough to be considered reliable as we don't have an article about their website, but even that review doesn't state that the Twilight movies are the worst of all time. That leaves us with a forum posting from fanpop.com, which isn't reliable and doesn't say that the movies are the worst of all time. We also have the aggregate score from Rotten Tomatoes. With scores of 27& from critics and 73% from audiences for New Moon and 24% from critics and 63% from audiences for Breaking Dawn 1, these references actually show these aren't considered the worst movies of all time. They may not be well regarded by critics, but the other movies with Rotten Tomatoes listed have 5% (Movie 53), 11% (Freddy Got Fingered), and 0% (Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever). In fact the list that includes Ballistic, is called the worst of the worst, and the highest score on that list appears to be under 4%, a far cry from two movies in the mid to high 20s. Until reliable sources that proclaim the Twilight movies the worst can be produced, we need to remove this from the list. AniMate 01:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed them from the list. trainfan01 talk 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Jack and Jill

How can a movie that's so poorly scripted and utterly lacking in life and humor, scored a 3% on Rotten Tomatoes and is so far the movie with the biggest clean sweep at the Razzies, NOT added here? I've seen it added an removed, but its quality has cemented its place in the list of worst films ever made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THK1138 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

1. It is not up to us to make judgement calls about poor quality, this is original research.
2. Many films have low RT scores.
3. The Razzies have expanded the number of categories over the years, which means that Jack and Jill's record number of Razzie wins is an illusion as there have been other films that won in all categories before. In any case the Razzies crown that worst of the year and not of all time.

What is needed is reliable sources calling it the worst (or something self-evidently equivalent) if it is to be included.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In his review of Jack in Jill for it's DVD release Richard Roeper said this "The man who gave us Michael Corleone now has the unique distinction of appearing in the greatest movie of all time and one of the worst movies in the history of cinema!" Considering Roeper's "Citizen Kane of awful" comment, along with a couple 0 star reviews, got Movie 43 into the worst ever list I think this should put Jack and Jill back into consideration.here's the link for those that are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordMaldad2000 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to add on to that... Ramin Setoodeh from The Daily Beast reviewed Jack and Jill with Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, the very title of the review is "Movie Review: Adam Sandler's 'Jack and Jill' Is the Worst Movie Ever Made" and Ramin goes into detail in the article, they both discuss in the video.[1] Travers says that "On a scale of 1 to 10 on the laugh meter, Jack and Jill is a negative 10" in his own review.[2] RedLetterMedia claimed the film was so egregious that it ceased to be a film after an hour long dissection/review.[3] Mike McGranaghan of Rotten Tomatoes says "Howard the Duck, Gigli, Showgirls, From Justin to Kelly. What do they all have in common? They're all widely considered to be among the worst big studio movies ever made. You know what else they have in common? They're all better than Jack and Jill."[4] Gary Wolcott of Tri-City Herald [5] , Mary Pols of Time [6],Brett Michel of The Phoenix [7], and James Luxford of The National [8] agree that it is the worst of Sandler's career. It was compared to Ed Wood's Glen or Glenda by the razzie awards, one of the worst movies ever according to this page, and won the worst remake award for that comparison.[9] Is all of this enough to get Jack and Jill back in the article? LordMaldad2000 (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This looks like enough proof to put it on the list. --75.141.100.53 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Jack and Jill was in the 10 worst movies ever rifftrax poll that was used in the heated Twilight debate. Considering that the reason it wasn't considered reliable enough before was because it was the only source for Twilight, it may be useful for Jack and Jill. Rifftrax joins Roeper, Setoodeh, and Travers in claiming explicitly it's one of the worst.[10] LordMaldad2000 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

From Justin to Kelly

I see no reason for this film to be on the list. There are a lot of bad reviews, but I see no sources calling it "the worst movie ever." The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it from the list. If any reliable sources do come forward that it is the worst movie ever, then it can be re-inserted. trainfan01 talk 02:57, 24 February, 2013 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

Is there any chance we could get the 2010 film The Last Airbender on this list? I'll provide my reasons: There was a casting controversy with fans making acquisitions of racism, it was nominated for nine razzies, won five overall, it has a 6% on Rotten Tomatoes, the CGI & 3D has been universally panned, the plot was deemed incomprehensible, the dialogue was awkward and flat, many, many elements from the TV show were either cut out entirely or shortened so much, they had to be explained in a voiceover to keep from tearing plot holes wider, and of course, the unintentional humor of the word "bender" to the British audience (Bender being British slang for homosexual).

Also, could we get a consensus for why Jack and Jill is posted on here? It just says the title, as of yet. Should have a description too. Mister Self Destruct (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Casting controversy doesn't really affect the quality of the film (Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are both considered good films even though they had very problematic plots).
2. A lot of films have won many Razzies, and that in itself is not enough to make the list (Razzies are for the worst of the year and not the worst of all categories).
3. Here is a [11] of 100 films from 2000-2009 alone that have the same RT score range (beginning at 7%). They can't all be the worst.
4. It's a given that The Last Airbender is a bad film, but the question is if it is one of the worst. We shouldn't compare reviews on our own and judge if films are the worst as this is original research. We are therefore bound by what the reliable sources (in this context, established film critics etc.) say.
5. The whole "bender" thing has no bearing on the quality.

Jack & Jill was re-added without discussion, and without any sources it will probably disappear again soon.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I can live with that. I'm not gonna cling tenaciously to it, you have a good point. Thanks for clearing it up, anyhow! Mister Self Destruct (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

By Crosswalkx- Yes I too thought The Last Airbender movie was rushed. The Last Airbender was under average but not the best. My biggest complaint with The Last Airbender was the characters were dull, boring, quiet and way too serious. There was no jokes and none of the characters were happy or funny. It definitely didn't follow the cartoon TV show. I even read in Leonard Maltin's movie guidebook that called it clunky pacing, flat performance and it was rated 1 1/2 stars. So yes I agree M. Night Shyamalan altered the story and messed it up. The only good thing I really liked about the movie was James Newtons music. But everything else in the movie bored me except for the fighting. Yes I think it's okay to put The Last Airbender movie in this worst movie list because alot of Avatar: Last Airbender fans were upset with the changes in the movie. Besides websites like rottentomatoes.com imdb.com thought it was a crummy movie. I hope that M. Night Shyamalan learns his lesson. I also heard Internet rumors that he wants to make The Last Airbender 2, but I think he should let it go and move on with other movies.

Again, it's a given that The Last Airbender sucks, but the question is if it is one of the worst ever. Fan disappointment with the film isn't really relevant to the quality of the film (for example, some were outraged that Tom Bombadil wasn't in the LOTR film but that doesn't change the quality of the film). Fan opinion isn't a reliable source on its own because it is impossible to know if it represents the general opinion or if it is merely a loud minority voicing their opinions (which might be the case here as the The Last Airbender was seen by many, enough to make its budget back). --Sus scrofa (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool World (1992)

The film received highly panned reviews from film critics. The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes collected a sample of 32 review and judged 3% of them to be positive. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote that Cool World "misses one opportunity after another", describing it as "a surprisingly incompetent film". Deseret News reviewer Chris Hicks described it as "a one-joke movie – and it's a dirty joke. [...] And much of what's going on here seems more angry and nasty than inspired or funny." Variety reviewer Brian Lowry compared the film to an extended music video, praising the soundtrack and visuals, but panning the story. Leonard Maltin described the film as "too serious to be fun [and] too goofy to take seriously", and the lead characters as "unlikable and unappealing". The Washington Post reviewer Hal Hinson wondered "whether Kim Basinger is more obnoxious as a cartoon or as a real person," and felt that the combination of animation and live action was unconvincing.

The film garnered a Razzie Award nomination for Worst Actress (Kim Basinger; also for Final Analysis). -69.137.32.46

But no one called it the worst movie ever. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A Good Day to Die Hard

That didn't take long.

http://www.contactmusic.com/in-depth/a-good-day-to-die-hardthe-best-worst-film-ever_3511313 "This got us thinking: what is the worst film to dominate the box office charts? A Good Day To Die Hard is certainly up there."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mendelson/huff-post-review-a-good-d_b_2714098.html "A Good Day to Die Hard is a terrible film, one of the very worst theatrical movies I have ever seen."

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_good_day_to_die_hard/ Only 16%

I just kinda want to get this out there... Odds are, it won't be added. But, who knows? Kude90 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(just throwing it out there. Currently, nobody opposes this addition. So... tonight, if nobody is opposed...) Kude90 (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The criteria for this list is for at least one critic to call it "(one of) the worst movies ever made". Take a look at those reviews again: Huffington Post: "one of the very worst theatrical movies I have ever seen." / Contact Music: "the worst film to dominate the box office charts." None of them say "worst ever made". The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

theatrical== Of, for, or relating to acting, actors Last I checked, movies involved acting. And the other one just means that it's the worst fiscally successful movie ever. The fact that it made money since it had four successful predecessors does not change how bad the movie was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kude90 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Manos: The Hands of Fate

While this movie may be easily the worst movie ever made, the current section on this list is more of a summery than anything else. It goes about listing several flaws, but never cites any sources calling it the worst. The only negative source it cites is rotten tomatoes. I believe that this section needs to be either removed, or rewritten. Kude90 (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--Sus scrofa (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Needing to be rewritten is not grounds for removal, and your characterization of there only being one source is flat out wrong. In addition to Rotten Tomatoes, Mystery Science Theater 3000 is also cited, as is an Entertainment Weekly article titled The Worst Movie Ever Made. This seems like a fairly straight forward candidate for inclusion on the list, and I'm frankly stunned you've attempted to remove it. AniMate 22:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. Because the article never calls Manos the worst, it CAN and IS being removed. If you want to take the time to do more research, find a source, and incorporate, be my guest. Until then, it isn't allowed on the list, due to it not meeting the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kude90 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite it, but you should read WP:PRESERVE (which of course I misspelled in an edit summary). AniMate 22:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, read page one of the Entertainment Weekly article: Little did they know they would end up creating what is widely regarded as, quite simply, the worst movie ever made. AniMate 22:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't the worst, I said that the blurb here didn't call it the worst. According to this specific page's rules, "Cite at least one of those sources (Preferably the most reliable one(s)) that explicitly calls it 'one of the worst films ever.'" I edited it for some minor grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kude90 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation Mistakes?

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2011/08/punctuating-around-quotation-marks.html

While reading through some of the older entries, I noticed that many of the quotations have periods which where put outside of the quotes. Is this done intentionally? Or is some sort of mass fix needed? As far as I can tell, outside the quotation is British, not American, and that is supposed to be changed. Thanks, Kude90 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please let us include "The Last Airbender" 2010 worst movie article.

Hello there I just want to let the wikipedia user in charge of this article know that it's okay for "The Last Airbender" 2010 movie to be included in the Films considered the worst I thought the movie was very boring so I agree it was a crummy movie, it should've been good like the cartoon TV show. I enjoyed Avatar: The Last Airbender cartoon TV show it entertained me through all 3 seasons. But when I saw the movie I was very disappointed in the changes M. Night Shyamalan made in the movie. The only thing I ever liked in the movie was James Newton Howards music which was well done, but the movie itself was too serious and very rushed and took out the fun in characters. Please include The Last Airbender because it won many razzle awards during the same year Sex in the City 2 won razzle awards. A lot of critics and fans were very upset with The Last Airbender movie. at rottentomatoes.com it holds a 6% rating. at imdb.com it holds a 4.5 rating. at metacritic.com with a 20 out of 100 rating. Even Leonard Maltin thought the movie was bad.

Please let us include The Last Airbender because lot of other wikipedia users are ready for The Last Airbender movie to be included in the 2010s section. CrosswalkX (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't like the movie. You are not alone in that regard. However is already a subsection on this page discussing Airbender. I'll echo what the users there said: we need reliable sources from critics claiming it's "one of the worst of all time" or something to that effect. We cannot just add movies we did not like or movies that critics didn't like, but didn't go far far as to call it one of the worst ever. If you can find some sources that do claim that than you can add it to the article.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok now here's some of the movie sources for The Last Airbender movie that won worst movie awards, (Note these are taken from various Internet website links.) I hope this information is proof enough for the worst movie article.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/27/airbender-dominates-worst-movie-razzies/ The Last Airbender Dominates Worst Movie Razzies

http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/27/razzies.awards/index.html The Razzies name The Last Airbender the worst movie of 2010

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/last-airbender-named-worst-film-162008 The Last Airbender Named Worst Film at Razzie Awards

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/the_last_airbender_razzie_leader_winning_worst_picture_director_screenplay_ The Last Airbender Razzie Leader "Winning" Worst Picture, Director, Screenplay & Use Of 3D

These are reliable sources that you may find very helpful. If I did anything wrong in posting the web links. Then you may delete it. But all I'm trying to do is help convince you that The Last Airbender movie is acceptable for worst movie article. I hope I helped all the wikipedia users out. CrosswalkX (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the razzies do not qualify on the list (that's why Jack and Jill isn't on the list), and secondly, these are reviews calling it "the worst movie of the year." The criteria for this list is for someone to call it "(one of) the worst movies ever made." The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there any website sources I can look for to contribute "The Last Airbender" movie so it'll be acceptable to be included in the worst movie page? If so how do I post a neutral point of view article? How do I get permission from the movie critic. Let me know because I just want "The Last Airbender" to be included in the worst movie page and I'll be ok if you make any changes to my contributed article as long as "The Last Airbender gets to be included because it earned it's reputation as the worst movie ever. I'll do my best to create a professional article. CrosswalkX (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources in the context of film criticism are as a rule of thumb any professionally published critic. Print or internet doesn't matter, the important thing is that there is some editorial oversight and accountability for things that are published. Things like fanzines and blogs by Joe Shmoes like you and me are not reliable sources. Another field of reviews that fall outside the category of reliable sources are those that are produced for comedy's sake (such as the Nostalgia Critic, who in spite of the name, is not a critic but a comedic character used to convey skits about films in a mimicking of film reviews).--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey I've added "The Last Airbender" movie article in "Films considered the worst." Please tell me is this article acceptable for "Worst movies" page? Is it in a neutral point of view? Please tell me if I did it right. If not let me know because I've done alot of research on "The Last Airbender" movie and I've tried to make it professional and acceptable to wikipedia's standards. Let me know if I did anything wrong or if I need to correct something so it doesn't get deleted. CrosswalkX (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Another user reverted your edit. I agree with that user that your post was not up to wikipedia's standards. You need sources claiming that this film is "one of the worst of all time". The Razzies hand out annual awards, not all-time awards, therefore they do not usually qualify by themselves.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I messed up. Can you find a different wikipedia user who is willing to include an acceptable article "The Last Airbender" worst movie article? Please do because I know it has definitely earned it's reputation for being the worst movie ever made. Another movie that also earned it's worst movie reputation is "The Cat in the Hat" 2003 live action movie. I'm sorry I wasn't able to contribute an acceptable article, anyways I'm going to let someone else post "The Last Airbender" movie. I wouldn't have tried to post "The Last Airbender" if it wasn't considered the worst movie. I'm very sorry for M. Night Shyamalan and his actors and actresses who didn't know how to make it like the cartoon "Avatar: The Last Airbender" TV series. Anyways I'll be waiting for "The Last Airbender" movie to show up in "Films considered the worst." CrosswalkX (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Questionable sources to score movies

Glen or Glenda being the first one gives a gruesome idea of whats goind on here. Sources like imd that get a wider and real feedback from viewers, show that is considered a bad movie by most, and genius anticipation of a cruel discrimination and medical issue on gender dysphoria. Is a bad movie, but is far away from being one of the worst and has even received worship on media culture.

This article is transphobia propaganda unless fixed by honest people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.140.233.27 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

These films are listed in chronological order, Glen or Glenda is listed first because it is the earliest film on the list. Glen or Glenda is not disliked because of the issues it tries to tackle but because of its flawed execution. Leonard Maltin is one of the most respected film critics around, so when he calls it possibly the worst ever, his words carry a lot of weight. I saw nothing transphobic about the article nor do I see anything wrong with its sources.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate, Dünyayı Kurtaran Adam (The Man Who Saved the World), Celal ile Ceren (Celal and Ceren), Showgirls, Monster A-Go-Go, and An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn

These are all movies that received bad critical reception, but were not declared one of the worst movie ever. If I could get support on this, I would be most appreciating. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am very much against Heaven's Gate being taken down. It's one of the worst reviewed films of all time, especially in its time, and the article has one critic calling it the worst and Canby and Ebert calling it something similar. I support everything else being removed though, unless we can get some reliable sources that support their status as one of the worst.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Joe Queenan called Heaven's Gate the worst film ever made here as did The Independent here, though it is hidden behind a pay wall. I agree it should remain. AniMate 06:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, Heaven's Gate was called the worst movie ever by at least one critic. But I don't think the others qualify. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen Monster-A-Go-Go? Most sound-minded people would come to the consensus that it belongs. There's literally no end because "there was no monster!". Really, I feel the removal of this and "Manos" plunges a worst movie list into irrelevance... Anyhow, enough opinionated talk, for one the original creator under its title of Terror at Halfday; Bill Rebane has cited it as the worst-that's a start, probably not very supportive for making its case. The Mst3k guys have also referred to it as such, on and off with "Manos"-considering what the article states at the top, wouldn't that be a reliable referral for that, or is it intentionally messing with me? --Bladez636 (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you have a point. Monster-A-Go-Go is considered one of the worst. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

One thing for certain is that Dünyayı Kurtaran Adam (The Man Who Saved the World) has no sources whatsoever calling it the worst, so I'm removing it. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have heard a great deal of people say Showgirls is one of the worst, so I guess that is qualifiable. But I think the article should be rewritten, because it does not contain any sources calling it the worst. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of 2012 Category

I would very much like an explanation for the removal of the 2010's category, as it is A) A valid new decade and B) not empty. If not, I guess I'll just re-add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kude90 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack and Jill (2011)

I understand this film has been discussed on here several times before but I'd like to bring it up one more time. A month ago I posted several sources calling it "one of the worst" but that post got archived before it received adequate approval to be put back in the list. In Richard Roeper's review of Jack in Jill for it's DVD release he said said "The man who gave us Michael Corleone now has the unique distinction of appearing in the greatest movie of all time and one of the worst movies in the history of cinema!" [12] Ramin Setoodeh from The Daily Beast and Peter Travers of Rolling Stone reviewed the film together, the very title of the review is "Movie Review: Adam Sandler's 'Jack and Jill' Is the Worst Movie Ever Made".[13] RedLetterMedia claimed the film was so egregious that it ceased to be a film after an hour long dissection/review and called it "the worst thing in the world".[14] Mike McGranaghan of Rotten Tomatoes says "Howard the Duck, Gigli, Showgirls, From Justin to Kelly. What do they all have in common? They're all widely considered to be among the worst big studio movies ever made. You know what else they have in common? They're all better than Jack and Jill."[15] It was compared to Ed Wood's Glen or Glenda by the razzie awards, one of the worst movies ever according to this page, and won the worst remake award for that comparison.[16] It came in 8th in the worst movies of all time poll by rifftrax.[17]. Is all of this enough to get Jack and Jill back in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordMaldad2000 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. There's been several sources citing it as "the worst," it should be included. Grande (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that it won in all 10 categories at the 2012 Golden Raspberry awards. 121.222.154.96 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but that's an annual event that hands out yearly awards, not worst of all time awards. Time and TV Guide also said it was the worst of the year, but never explicably stated that it was the worst of all time. We'll mention all of that if/when Jack and Jill gets into the article but all of this by itself cannot qualify it. But I think everything I quoted in my original post, which does call it one of the worst ever, does qualify it.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Big Bobby

Someone keeps adding this series, which does not appear to actually exist. Czolgolz (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Batman and Robin (Repost from Archive 3)

I'm not certain on the formatting for reposting from the archives, but here are the issues that were brought up in May 2009 over the entry that have not been addressed since. A single source from an essay book by a former MST3K writer is not enough to justify inclusion. This film is not that dissimilar from Superman IV and Star Trek V: The Final Frontier in being known as bad films to series/"geek media" fans and largely ignored by more general critics. Arcadina (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Quoted

I'm going to have to challenge Batman and Robin's inclusion on this list for several reasons:

• The citation for its appearance on the list is a men's general interest magazine without either any focus on films nor a professional critic on staff (plus the citation is a broken link). Researching what was written in this article reveals the list to not be objective, comprehensive, or formal, wasn't based on any popular vote, and the content of the list itself is geared towards films interesting to write about over quality, most likely failing it as a reliable source.
• The top critics feature on Rotten Tomatos reveal a 20% approval rating and an average score of 4.0, with most of said reviews pretty far from calling it the "worst" even for the year 1997, much less "of all time". The content of most citable reviews suggested ambivalence.
• While the film was nominated for 11 Razzies, it only won one for what could be considered a throwaway category (worst supporting actress). The film was also nominated for the Saturn Award for Best Fantasy Film as well as Make Up and Costumes, won two Blockbuster Entertainment Awards out of four nominations, and won a Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Award out of three nominations. The latter two involved direct public voting and one of these awards was even in direct contention with the Razzie win.
• It made over 100 million dollars domestic for a total of 238 million dollars worldwide, which is pretty firmly in the "success" category regardless of its large budget. While not as large a success as hoped and the least successful Batman film, it was still considered a success. Both this point and the previous one fail this film as per the guidelines listed in Talk:Films considered the worst ever/Removed films.

While no doubt a bad film, it seems to be pretty far from being considered the worst by any citably large margin of reliable sources and has evidence to the contrary. If there's no objection within a couple days, I'm going to remove it. 140.146.210.18 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently, somebody copied and pasted the old text back without addressing the issues and tacked this on the end (as is):

• Michael J. Nelson, in Mike Nelson's Movie Megacheese, says "Batman & Robin is not the worst movie ever. No, indeed. It's the worst thing ever. Yes, it's the single worst thing that we as human beings have ever produced in recorded history."

Would this be considered a reputable source? Michael J. Nelson is a comedian and script writer, not a film critic and the book is mostly comedy rather than serious film analysis. Even then, I can't find any other serious source that calls it one of the worst films. 68.164.1.177 (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Film critics are professionals. Professionals who take their work seriously don't call it "Megacheese". He's no source. GuySperanza (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for a second Nelson is a writer for Mystery Science Theater 3000 which, if you look at the top of the page, is one of the sources in which we use to determine whether movies are fit for the list. So when a writer from this source claims a movie is one of the worst it does carry some weight.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Besides a single source not being enough for inclusion, it wasn't a "serious" book, so it's possible he was going for hyperbolic effect. Arcadina (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I would bet alot of money on the fact that most of these "worst film" reviews are hyperbole. They are just really bad. I don't think hyperbole is a valid excuse for discounting a review. Kude90 (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree Kude90. As long as they're not being sarcastic if a valid source calls it "worst ever" I don't know why we should discredit these sources. By the way the reason I reverted the Freddy Got Fingered deletion was because the title of The Guardian source reads "The worst movie ever?", although nobody ever explicitly wrote this into the article. Just wanted to clear that up.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually read the source afterwards, and the article is about how it's actually not the worst. But that's neither here nor there, since I didn't read it until after I reverted it.Kude90 (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Son of the Mask

Should Son of the Mask be here? It has an even lower rating than Catwoman on both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb, and it's one of the search suggestions on Google. Disdude13 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Disdude13

IMDB isn't really a source we use to determine whether movies are fit for the list. We need real critics claiming that it is "one of the worst" or something to that effect. This film could be added to the list if those reviews do exist.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yor Hunter from the Future.

There is a breakdown of the film in this review that basically just points out why it is horrible

http://vodpod.com/watch/1782174-yor-hunter-from-the-future-movie-review-the-spoony-experiment

It's ratings on RT and IMDB could be lower, but most likely any up-votes are due to it being considered one of the most enjoyable bad movies to watch.

It also received 3 Golden Raspberry nominations, though it didn't win any.

I suspect the lack of negative attention is likely due to the lack of attention paid to the film period.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.45.31 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 March 2012‎(UTC)

InAPPropriate Comedy (2013)

Directed by Vince Offer and originally envisioned as a sequel to Underground Comedy Movie, InAPPropriate Comedy has universally panned with criitics. Most reviews pertained to its reliance on ethnic humour and its resemblance to fellow sketch comedy, Movie 43, which has received equivocal reviews. InAPPropriate Comedy currently holds a 0% rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, with an average rating of 1.1 out of 10 based on four reviews.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshh (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What source material do I need to look for to include "The Last Airbender" 2010 as worst movie?

Hello wikipedia users I'm back. I know my past contribution articles didn't meet with wikipedias strict standards. I will try again and make sure that I do it professionally. While I'm a big fan of the Nickelodeon cartoon TV show Avatar: The Last Airbender, I was a little disappointed in how altered the live action movie "The Last Airbender" was. I did enjoy the fighting and the music and costumes and special effects. But the storyline bored me to death and I felt like the movie was way too serious and too High Society for a kids movie. The acting was very cheesy and almost put me to sleep, the movie felt like it was rushed and I think M. Night Shyamalan did a very sloppy job with his directing. Anyways I would like to help anyway I can and I will be very polite and respectful in doing so.

I emailed and asked Leonard Maltin if it was ok to have his Leonard Maltins movie book review 2012 "The Last Airbender" review quote in this worst movie article and he said "Hi… I can’t give you permission to do anything but quote the review in my Movie Guide, which you’re welcome to do. cheers, Leonard Maltin" So he tells me He can't give me permission but I'm welcome to do so.

Now since my past submitted articles "The Last Airbender" was rejected. I will try again and keep it in a neutral point of view. So I know that mentioning "The Last Airbender" 2010 won may razzie awards is not supposed to be included. Now I'm wondering which websites do I need to get the source material information from? Also how do you want this article presented? Let me know because it was considered the worst movie of 2010s. Also it would help if we had a vote on whether it was considered the worst. Please help me so we can have "The Last Airbender" article we can all agree on thanks. I'm ready for your reply. CrosswalkX (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You're taking the wrong approach. It's not a question of "such-and-such is a horrible movie and should be in this article, now how can we find sources to support that?" It's rather a question of "these notably recognized professionals have named such-and-such one of the worst movies, so we should cite them in this article." DonQuixote (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I'm doing my best I'll try to take the right approach. Now before I get started I want to show you the web links to why both movie critics and fans of "The Last Airbender" cartoon series was not happy with the way "The Last Airbender was made so here are the review links.

[[18]] The Last Airbender: Worst Movie Epic Ever?

[[19]] The Last Airbender is now, officially, the worst movie of 2010

[[20]] Movie review: 'The Last Airbender' "The dialogue is unsophisticated and the interchanges are uninspired. But if you're in the target 10-and-younger audience, you might like M. Night Shyamalan's film."

[[21]] 'The Last Airbender' review: M. Night Shyamalan's chintzy fable can't be saved by stars

[[22]]

'Last Airbender' blasted by film critics

Film called 'agonizing,' 'soul-crushing' and 'incomprehensible'

There are many more website examples of why it was considered the worst movie. I hope those are reliable sources that'll help you or any wikipedia users who want to contribute. Let me know if you think those are reliable sources for "The Last Airbender" movie to be included in "Worst movies ever" CrosswalkX (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Only one of those sources calls it the "worst" movie (Time). Blastr calls it the worst movie of 2010, but their notability (and thus reliability) is questionable. Today cites Cinematical, which just calls it the worst summer movie. The others, they lambaste it but doesn't call it worst anything. It's not a question of "many more websites examples of why it was considered the worst movie" (and following that trail can lead to synthesis and original research). The question is, what do notable reliable sources say are the worst movies, and if this movie is mentioned, then it gets a mention in this article. In other words, it's not about confirming that this is one of the worst movies ever by trying to find sources that say that because that seldom works. DonQuixote (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know but I have done alot of research on "The Last Airbender" 2010 movie. In the website [[23]] there have been alot of negative user reviews on "The Last Airbender" because they were embarrassed and upset by the changes in M. Night Shyamalan's film and they also complained about how dull and boring and serious the movie was and that it didn't have any jokes, fun or laughter, also they complained about the mispronouncing of names especially Aangs name and even stereotyping of Asians and the controversy of casting characters. The film was given a rating of 4.5/10

Also at there have been many movie critics user reviews at [24] that also didn't like the movie, one of the movie critics from New York said "The Last Airbender? Let us hope so." and there have been other movie critics and Last Airbender fans that hoped there wouldn't be a sequel done by M. Night Shyamalan. I even emailed Chris Hicks a Utah movie critic and he said he even refused to review the movie since he felt like it was too negative to review. The film was given a 6% rating and only 42% of people liked it.

In fact there have been people that want to send M. Night Shyamalan's back to film school by doing a fundraiser at [[25]] in hopes that he won't become like the director Ed Wood. Also there have been youtube.com videos on "The Last Airbender" movie review including rants, criticism about how bad and crummy the movie was compared to the great cartoon TV show. Also there was even a video of the "Razzie awards of 2010" with Dev Patel who accepted the Razzie award. Also M. Night Shyamalan won many Razzie awards compared with "Sex and the City 2" and "Vampires Suck"

Anyways I hope I was convincing enough. I'll be waiting for approval to add an article on "The Last Airbender" 2010 movie. Let me know if I can put in Lenorad Maltins movie review on "The Last Airbender" because it was in the movie guidebook of 2012.

Also I would like to invite any wikipedia users to help me out with "The Last Airbender" movie article for "Worst movies ever." I would even like to have a vote on it. Let me know if I have permission and I promise to keep the article in a neutral point of view and respectful. CrosswalkX (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You posted a lot of harsh reviews but none really call it the worst, besides that one from Time that you posted before. Even that calls it the worst "movie epic" which could be considered different from just plain "worst of all time". Also, IMDb isn't a source we use because those are user scores and we add movies based on critics.LM2000 (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fan reviews do not count genius. If you try to add Last Airbender to the article with no actual source calling it "The Worst", I will delete it for lack of official sources. Stop spamming this page with this garbage, you're wasting everyone's time. --75.141.100.53 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to explain this again, as clear as possible. Some of the links you posted say it's a candidate for the worst movie of 2010 (making it WORST OF THE YEAR and not OF ALL TIME), at least one was a fansite and not a reliable source, and only one (Entertainment Weekly) had any mention of it being one of the WORST OF ALL TIME. But when reading the Entertainment Weekly article, it's phrased as a question, and the article later says that another movie got harsher reviews. Freddy Got Fingered was removed from the article because a similar source was used for its inclusion. Furthermore rather than being an being a review of the film it's just a collection of what other publications said about the movie. None of these help its chances. Before posting a long list of links please, please keep this message in mind and do not post any link that does not clearly state that Airbender is THE WORST OF ALL TIME or THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE.LM2000 (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear wikipedia users. I have deleted one section of my talk page. If I annoyed you, I'm very sorry. I wasn't trying to spam anybody. I was trying to give you helpful information on "The Last Airbender". I'll be careful from now on. Anyways I hope you'll forgive me for my mistakes. I'll still try again with contributing my article. CrosswalkX (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok wikipedia users my article is ready for review. I'm ready to come to an agreement. This is the article I want to contribute to wikipedia.org for "Films Considered the worst" Here's the Article "The Last Airbender" 2010 I would like to present to you and please know that one of the reviews is by Leonard Maltins 2012 movie review guidebook. And please before you reject it, I would like you to read it carefully and please be aware I'm autistic and I get nervous around angry people, but I'm doing my very best so please be patient with me because I'm doing you a favor and helping you not miss out. Now this is not spam, it's from website sources.

The Last Airbender 2010

• 1/2 stars, Director M. Night Shyamlan. Noah Ringer, Dev Patel, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone, Shaun Toub, Aasif Mandvi, Cliff Curtis, Katharine Houghton. Live-action adaptation of popular Nickelodeon animated TV series Avatar: The Last Airbender is a total near misfire, with sporadically impressive special effects offering inadequate compensation for flat performances, clunky pacing and speechifying dialogue. Muddled fantasy-adventure plot pivots on efforts by 12-year-old would be messiah (charisma-free Ringer) to master control of four elements- earth, fire, water, and, of course air- to defend disparate tribes against a wicked warlord (Curtis) Last-minute conversion to 3-D is spectacularly ineffective. Source: from New York Times Bestseller “Leonard Maltin’s 2012 Movie Guide” book.

Time Magazine ranked “The Last Airbender: Worst Movie Epic Ever?” By Richard Corliss “In his first film adaptation — his most expensive project by far — Shyamalan has hit paper-scissors-rock bottom, and the promise of a sequel at this movie's end feels more like a threat. Please, Hollywood, if there's to be another Airbender movie, hand the job to some efficient hack, and not to a once mesmerizing artist who's lost his way. Source: [[26]] At Voices Yahoo Eric Shirey said “Worst Movie of 2010: 'The Last Airbender' For Once the Movie Critics and Fans Agree on One Thing”- “The action sequences in "The Last Airbender" were even boring. They were so run-of-the-mill and lackluster that you very well could find yourself drifting off amidst all the noisy clatter and planned spontaneous explosions. It's pretty bad when you can't even get excited about characters throwing water and fire bombs at each other.” [[27]] Last Airbender Review: Worst Movie of the Year Submitted by Claire Light: “As of this writing, the movie has a 00% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. That's the first time I've ever seen that. I'm sure that score will rise slightly over the next few days, but it's pretty telling. This movie is a disaster. Don't waste your time. Don't waste your money. Let this franchise die the pathetic death it's been begging for all along. Avatar: The Last Airbender didn't want to be a movie anyway. Let it stay a TV show and stay pure.” Source: [[28]] Official: The Last Airbender is the Worst Reviewed Movie of 2010 (So Far)- "It is now official, M Night Shyamalan‘s The Last Airbender has beaten the Brendan Fraser animal family comedy Furry Vengeance to become the worst reviewed film of the year. This according to Rotten Tomatoes, which compiles reviews from movie critics from around the world. Airbender has a 6% rating with 80 reviews counted thus far. That means that only five of the critics files a positive review. If you’re wondering which movie critics liked the movie, hit the jump." Source: [[29]] This movie has received negative criticism from both movie critics and fans for the changes M. Night Shyamlan has made in the movie including wooden acting, mispronouncing Aangs name, taking out the fun and laughter that made “Avatar: The Last Airbender” a popular Nickelodeon TV show. Rotten tomates website said “Despite flashy special effects, The Last Airbender squanders the potential of its popular source material on an incomprehensible plot, laughable dialogue, and a joyless sense of detachment.” Currently this movie holds a rating of %6 Source: [[30]]

Please tell me if you think this article is acceptable for "Films Considered the Worst" but if you think it doesn't meet with your strict standards let me know. Please tell me what parts need to be deleted and if you think it's professional or not. But remember this movie was considered the worst movie of the 2010 year. CrosswalkX (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to go online and support Ben (CrosswalkX) in his concerns that "The Last Air Bender" that the movie was not an enjoyable feature film. Please understand that Ben (CrosswalkX)is autistic and sometimes has difficulty communicating with others. His concerns are that in the simplest form or entertainment the "Last Air Bender" did not have a good plot, the movie was rushed and there wasn't any fun. The music was great and the costumes and locations where good but the acting offended the original Air Bender cartoon. It did win Razzie Awards so Ben (CrosswalkX) isn't the only one that feels this way! Please accept his article that he has drafted for Wikipedia Worst Movies ever or communicate your concerns with him. Thank you! Newgrains (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Newgrains Tim Lawson

I don't want to seem harsh or insensitive, but all the things you point out (did not have a good plot, movie was rushed, etc.) are irrelevant in that those things constitute original research and a non-neutral point of view. It doesn't matter that Ben isn't the only one who feels this way either. It's a question of notable sources stating such-and-such movie is one of the worst ever. Again, starting from a conclusion (such-and-such is the worst movie ever) and trying to find sources to back it up seldom works. DonQuixote (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know how to phrase it any differently than I have before. Your most recent post reads like an essay, filled with original research. None of the reliable sources call it THE WORST OF ALL TIME or THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE and that is the criteria we go by. If this was list of films considered the worst (2010) then Airbender would be set because almost all of those links you posted say that. But none of them call it the worst movie of ALL TIME so it is unfit for this page.LM2000 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I couldn't be any help for your strict worst movie article, anyways you're on your own, so if you can find some other wikipedia user to do the article on "The Last Airbender" 2010 to include in Worst movies ever. I would be very grateful. I'm sorry I wasted your time. Anyways just remember that "The Last Airbender" 2010 earned the worst movie title. So you may edit my rough draft if you want. But if someone else wants to do "The Last Airbender" 2010 article. Please let them do it. I'm done talking about this discussion and I'm sorry we didn't understand each other so I'm going to work on other wikipedia articles. CrosswalkX (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

R.O.T.O.R.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.O.T.O.R. Almost as bad as Yor: The Hunter from the Future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.59.48 (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I googled it, but couldn't find any reliable sources calling it the "worst movie ever." They were all blogs and forums. Do you have any sources calling it the worst?Kude90 (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd never heard of ROTOR before until it was featured on Best of the Worst from RedLetterMedia today, weird that you asked about it right before this episode came out. Jay Bauman did call it the worst but I doubt that one source is enough to get this into the article. I'll look into seeing if more reliable sources exist that call it the worst within the next few days.LM2000 (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixing the World View Bias?

I've looked through the archives and found a couple of such sections, [31] [32] and it got me thinking. Currently, the way we have this article set up is that we have a "US only" section, "and a rest of the world" section. Would merging these two sections be enough to remove the World View tag, or do we have to add more foreign movies before that can happen?Kude90 (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently there is a section "Outside the United States" but no corresponding section for "United States", as if the writer of the article thinks that all movies are by default American unless specially stated otherwise. That, at least, ought to be fixed. 86.148.152.2 (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My question is, what if there were no sections for nationality at all? Wouldn't that also fix the neutrality issue?Kude90 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I remember we had a problem with this before, and I'm pretty sure we just combined it all into the decades section. Not sure why it was undone, but you're right and should feel free to be bold and go ahead.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it, it seems that it may have been split up so that someone could include a film that was only called the worst in a specific country. The sections should be combined but we should make sure that these foreign films also all conform to the requirements of being called the worst of all time.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this article is currently a perfect example of Wikipedia's US centric bias. It must be fixed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've "fixed" the article, but I left the tag for now. I also added US flags in front of the US movies.

Reviving "A Good Day to Die Hard"

"[33] "This got us thinking: what is the worst film to dominate the box office charts? A Good Day To Die Hard is certainly up there."

[34] "A Good Day to Die Hard is a terrible film, one of the very worst theatrical movies I have ever seen."

("the·at·ri·cal Of, for, or relating to acting, actors, or the theater", for the critics of this entry. Last I checked, Bruce Willis is an actor, who acts in this movie.)

Only 15%"

Also, [35] Contact Music added this movie to their list of the worst movies ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kude90 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good start, but it feels more like 'news' at this point- I'd wait to see how the film is looked at when some time has passed and serious critics write about it in books and such. Besides, it also seems to be a critical success (not a bomb by any means).

{P.S. Of course, I'm not seeing it and clearly it's horrible} CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Today, pretty much every movie is a success in how much money they make. How many movies in the past couple of years have broken records of some sort or another? But, I get what you're saying. I can at least wait until it comes out on DVD. Kude90 (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding the flags in episodes

For those who are adding new movies, and need help with the flags, Template:Flagicon, and Category:Country data templates are the two articles you need to see for the flags. Thanks in advance, Kude90 (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Let me preface by saying that this article is well-written, well-sourced, interesting, and good-looking. However, it has multiple issues that could be insurmountable. Firstly, it is almost exclusively about American (Hollywood) films and attempts to globalise it have been feeble. Secondly, it does not have the tone of an encyclopedia article but instead reads more like an essay or a web article on the topic. Is there a way to make this article more encyclopedic and lessen its geobias? —  AjaxSmack  01:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Request rename to "List of films notable for negative reception"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. As noted below, this article is not about movies that have just received "negative reception", but specifically about those described by sources as the worst. The proposed title would redefine the topic in an imprecise way, making the topical scope of the article ambiguous and inviting a much wider indiscriminate list.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

List of films considered the worst → List of films notable for negative reception –

I am proposing that this article be move to "List of films notable for negative reception" because the title "List of films considered the worst" does not seem encyclopedic. --72.65.238.157 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I oppose this. Pretty much every movie ever has negative reviews, and many movies every year are "notable" due to the razzies, critic's least favorite movies lists, and other such events. Movies are criticized far more than video games or tv shows or whatever. Perhaps because of the amount of money pumped into movies, or time, or effort. To sum it up... I don't support this because I believe that movies that have gotten "negative reception" would be unmanageable. Worst movies is the best description for this list. Hence, I do not support.Kude90 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Several times I have contemplated throwing a {By whom} tag at the title, but wondered if it would work. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"The films listed here have achieved reputations as the worst films ever made. They have been cited by a combination of reputable sources as the worst movies of all time. Examples of such sources include Metacritic, Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Rotten Tomatoes, being featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and the Golden Raspberry Awards ("Razzies")."

These movies are considered "the worst" by professional critics. people who live, sleep, and breathe movies. They know good movies from bad movies, and bad movies from terrible ones. Kude90 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Terrible title. The issue above if addressed on Talk (of which this RM is now part) should prevent non-notable additions. Kude90, if you can come up with a better alternative move suggestion then fine, but this move is an improvement on the current title. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I do have an alternate suggestion. NO CHANGE. This title describes the article perfectly. If someone wants to find out which movies are "the worst ever," then they just google "worst movies of all time" and get to this wiki. Who googles "movies with negative reception" if they are trying to find the worst movies ever? (Answer: No one). The suggested title change is unnecessary, and misleading, which in my opinion, is the least encyclopedic thing which we could do. Every movie which got a razzie can be considered "notable for negative reception." Only the worst of the worst get in this list. Kude90 (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - I could not be more opposed to this. "negative reception" is far too vague for a title while "the worst" is straight to the point. Our criteria for adding films to the article is simple: a combination of sources most, at some point in their review, call a film "the worst" or something to that effect. The title of the article reflects this. "Negative Reception" would change the whole feel of the article. Dozens of films a year get almost universal "negative reception" and become notable for that. They would fit the definition to be in this article. But there's a difference between a lot of bad reviews ("negative reception") and ones where the reviewer calls it the worst movie of all time ("THE WORST").LM2000 (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely an improvement on the current title, and indeed the current inclusion criteria. It's bizarre that a film can only be added to the list if some reviewer happens to have made the ridiculously hyperbolic claim of "Worst Film Ever!!!". DoctorKubla (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You are suggesting that we change the entire article for it to fit with the proposed move which couldn't be further from what WP:TITLE requires. Also, it isn't just "some reviewer", these films have been "cited by a combination of reputable sources" to be some of the worst. We have to add films based on critical opinion because of WP:RS, by what criteria do you suggest we start adding films by? You and all other supporters should check out this list of films removed from the list, all of which are notable for negative reception but are NOT considered some of the worst of all time. Eliminating the criteria we currently have to be updating to one that you would prefer (as I inferred from your post), we would most likely have to include all of these. This article surely isn't perfect, but has survived AfD eight separate times BECAUSE of that solid criteria.LM2000 (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually there was an attempt to move this page to the exact same title in 2007 and it was shot down for the same exact reason Kude90 and I have argued[36]. Nothing has changed in the past 6 years to make the opposing argument make valid.LM2000 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps a better title would be "List of Films Considered the Worst of All Time." This may cut down on people adding films that are listed as "Worst of 2012" and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There were arguments in some previous AfDs that suggested "List of films considered the worst ever" would be an acceptable title change. I could deal with this or the change you suggested.LM2000 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support for the sake of encyclopedic accuracy and neutrality. This is a step in the right direction. mgeo talk 18:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This list is fairly specific. It's not about films that were very poorly reviewed, but it is about films that major critics and organizations have labelled the worst. The number of films that are negatively reviewed each year, and negatively reviewed almost unanimously by critics at that, is staggering. There are a lot of bad films out there, and changing the criteria and name of this page would lead to an unmanageable list. Limiting this to films considered and described as the worst by multiple reliable sources is the only way to maintain this article. AniMate 19:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current article title isn't great, the proposed title is a better title, but it's a better title for a significantly different article. If we're trying to give the current page a better title without changing the content, this seems an unhelpful transition stage - either the article will become inaccurate, or it'll be flooded with new examples which we'll just have to cut again when we agree on the best way to phrase "films which were significantly considered to be the 'worst ever' in some way". It's definitely worth discussing whether we should change the scope of this article, and to think about how we might actually define "notable for negative reception", but I think it needs a more focused discussion (rather than blurring together "this article needs a better title" and "this article needs a different scope" here). --McGeddon (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Several movies were notable for bad reception, but this article isn't about those. It's about the worst ever made.Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. As above have noted that "worst" != "poor reception", but even if that wasn't an issue, why is the snappy title "not encyclopedic?" Must everything have as dry as possible a title as can be made with no improvement in clarity? I could see the argument perhaps against "List of the worst films" or "Worst films of all time," but we already have "considered" as a nod that this is what the critics say. SnowFire (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - why change from one poor name to another? Imc (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - as others have said, even vaguer than "the worst". How would we delineate which films are "notable for their negative reception"?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disaster Movie (2008)

• [37]Jason Solomons of The Guardian "nothing can convey the grimness of Disaster Movie, which would be the Worst Movie Ever Made were it actually a movie at all".
• [38]Adam Tobias of Watertown Daily Times, certified Rotten Tomatoes critic. "'Disaster Movie' one of the worst films of all time."
• [39]Featured in Empire's poll of the worst films ever made.

Although IMDb Bottom 100 should never be used as a primary source, reliable secondary sources[40][41] commented on Disaster Movie taking the spot in first place not long after its premiere so I think this should be mentioned as well because it is notable.

Anybody opposed to this going in?LM2000 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kude90 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Movies with Metacritic score of 1.

I have yet to see some films on this list that pertain a Metacritic score of 1 - a film called Chaos, and another called The Singing Forest. A Metacritic score of 1 must have some merit?

NOTE: I have not personally seen these films, and I have no intention to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.58.225 (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fine. But, you need additional critiques of the movie to have it added. You can't make a listing based on just that number. As the lead says, "Cite at least one of those sources (Preferably the most reliable one(s)) that explicitly calls it 'one of the worst films ever.'" The metacritic score is a good addition, but it's not enough to have a movie added.Kude90 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we should refer to Metacritic for additions. Chaos and The Singing Forest may have a score of 1, but only a handful of critics reviewed each one. There are many simply bad films out there, and we need a meta-survey of what is considered "the worst". Erik (talk | contribs) 19:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

metacritic is a great source for finding terrible movies. The Singing Forest, for instance. I found several sources calling it "the worst ever." Unfortunetely, your edit erased what I wrote, so no summaries. [42] [43] [44] [45] Two respectable news organizations, and a 0 and 1.4 score, respectively. Add in the score of 1 on metacritic, and you have a decent entry.Kude90 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen Chaos. It's a flat-out cruel, ugly piece of cinema. Truly the most disturbing thing I have ever seen. And that's saying a lot, seeing as how I've watched Nekromantik and The Angel's Melancholy. ThatFilmGuy92 (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Mommie Dearest (AGAIN!)

I am strongly, I repeat, STRONGLY against having this film on the list. Okay, so it was listed in a book of "100 worst movies of all time" and "50 worst movies of all time". Big whoop. I'll bet that more than half the movies in both those books aren't on this list. The film being listed in those books is the ONLY source even remotely pointing to it being referred to as one of the worst films of all time (with the exception of the Razzie nominations, but then again, why aren't ALL worst picture winners on this list?). If being listed in 2 top 50 worst films of all time / top 100 worst films of all time books is a reliable source, then every film in both those books should be on this list. This film has an above-average rating on RT, with two critics even giving it a 4/4, it received multiple award nominations, and was a box office hit (not that that matters, just saying). If you want to have this film on the list, it needs to have more sources. If someone doesn't respond to this message within 3 days, I'm removing it. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Although it won some Razzies, Razzies are an annual event so they're not enough to get the film in. It did win an award for being the Worst of the Decade, however a decade isn't "all time" which is what we are working with. Other sources are quoted claiming Mommie Dearest earned "some of the nastiest reviews ever" making it notable for negative reception, but not necessarily "one of the worst of all time".... and although it may have gotten some nasty reviews it also did get some positive reception as well. I am slightly on the fence because of the two books but I agree that there are probably numerous films in those books that are not on this list, so while I may be swayed by an opposing argument, I am inclined to agree at the moment.LM2000 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Here areprevious argumentson this same topic.LM2000 (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED, you can remove it if you can get a larger concensus than in [46]. Currently, one of the criteria is "Cite at least one of those sources (Preferably the most reliable one(s)) that explicitly calls it "one of the worst films ever"" So, there is one source. It does not have to be a very reliable source. Unless you can find a source to counter it or something....Kude90 (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Which source is that? If you're talking about one critic saying it got "some of the nastiest reviews ever" (a blatantly false comment anyway), that doesn't count, because that's him analyzing other critic's reviews, not his own. And do NOT use the Razzies in this argument, because remember, Jack and Jill required sources beyond just sweeping the Razzies to make it on his list. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For the time being more should be added to the Mommie Dearest section to cover WP:NPOV. While in most cases positive reviews don't need to be covered here (in my opinion) because they're anomalies and we may be giving them undue weight, it seems this film has a solid mix of positive and negative reviews and this is the right way to go about it. Complete removal from the article seems like it will be an uphill battle, but this is the very least we could do.LM2000 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So... it should be removed for the time being? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No. I think he's saying that you should add something along the lines of "while some consider it to be one of the worst films ever, this film got mixed reviews." I quote "Complete removal from the article seems like it will be an uphill battle..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kude90 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I wasn't clear, I hadn't slept well before typing that up. But Kude90's interpretation of what I was trying to say is right. Personally I think it should be removed, and we should try to get consensus, but since it has failed before it is an uphill battle. But we can put some positive reviews in there to write up a fairer, more NPOV, summary... at least until some sort of consensus is made.LM2000 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it received mixed reviews isn't really the bulk of my issue; the bulk of my issue is that there are no real sources calling it one of the worst movies ever made other than some books that contain several films not on this list, and one critic saying it got "some of the nastiest reviews ever", which is not a fair source because that is not really him stating his opinion of the movie, that is just him stating what he thinks the general consensus is. I am in complete and full support of its removal. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The argument for removal is not at all convincing. Based on the criteria, if a film has multiple sources referring to it as the worst ever, then it belongs. That those books cover other films not listed here is not a reason to say those sources are unreliable, or that this film shouldn't be included. To say otherwise is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing about Mommie Dearest is that no reviews listed specifically call it the worst. To the contrary 55% of critics gave it positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The one thing it has going for it is the books. But books are different from reviews because they're not individual assessments, they're a compilation. It's one thing for a reviewer to call a movie "one of the worst" in an individual review after seeing a film, it's quite a different matter for a movie to be included in a book filled with DOZENS of movies that the author deems to be bad. Chances are most of these books are filled with "padding" to fluff up the books to make them as long as possible. While books and polls do help a films chances of getting on here, I think we need at least one critic specifically calling it "the worst" and the closest thing we have to that right now is the "nastiest reviews" bit, which is contradicted by the Rotten Tomatoes score described earlier in the summary. The only book specifically listed in the criteria at the top of the page as an example is Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide which is a book filled with reviews. When Maltin's Movie Guide is used for this page there are usually quotations from him in which he specifically claims that a film is "the worst".LM2000 (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Amen. If those other books are completely reliable sources, every film in the book should be on the list. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That's barely an argument. Nobody's stopping you from adding other movies in that book. This list is nowhere near complete. I personally have three or four movies I'd like to add, but don't have the time (and I have to look them up again.) The fact that this list is not yet complete is not an argument for why certain movies should be removed Who knows how many movies that The Sun called "the worst?" Probably we don't have all of the movies that they caled the worst. But, that doesn't mean that we should remove movies that were called the worst by The Sun. We just have to keep adding.Kude90 (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If The Sun took the time to individually review a film and called it "the worst" I wouldn't mind it being here. If The Sun threw a film onto a list of 50-100 other films they did not like then that alone would not be enough to get it on the list. There's a gigantic difference there. What we're looking at with Mommie Dearest is a case where nobody actually reviewing the film called it the worst. But when an author needed X amount of films to be in a book covering bad films Mommie Dearest managed to make the cut and was included in that compilation. It would be one thing if Mommie Dearest actually was listed as the number one worst film ever made in either of those two books, but it wasn't. Doesn't seem like "the worst" to me in any sense of the word. If the other films included in those books can be paired up with reliable sources then I wouldn't mind them being on the list. But including every single film that was ever included in one or two books or polls covering this topic, with no regard for popular or general critical opinion, will result in an unmanageable and disingenuous list.LM2000 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

my apologies. I've never read the book itself. never even heard of it. I figured that nobody would write a book which is just a list called "the worst" and then the names of movies. I figured it would be more like this article. The movie, a short blurb on why it's the worst, and the next movie.Kude90 (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the Michael Sauter book is set up, all we know is that Mommie Dearest is one of the films in it and the book was referenced by the NY Times. The Razzie book does include a summary in which they do include quotations from critics. But since none of those quotations include "the worst" I don't think simply being among a list of the 100 movies included is enough.LM2000 (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

So, are we good to remove it? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As stated before, if you can overcome previous consensus, then sure. So far, I don't think you have that.Kude90 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It was voted 4-1 for inclusion last time. We aren't quite there yet, though I hope we get there.LM2000 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but last time it was supported by the "nastiest reviews ever" bit, which we have now deemed null and void. How do you overcome consensus anyway? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

4 people voted for last time, so get 5 people to vote against.Kude90 (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, let it be known that the prime source that was used in the previous argument is now null and void, as it has been proven false. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Some of the nastiest reviews ever" is easily considered synonymous with "worst reviews ever." To say that a source is supposed to say "worst reviews ever" is silly game playing (see WP:GAMETYPE) and not a valid argument. --Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's easy enough to confuse. My biggest problem with the "nastiest reviews" bit is that it's simply a baseless observation by Richard Crouse, he doesn't cite any particular reviews when he makes this blanket statement. If we are to assume it does mean "worst reviews ever" then surely we would have came across at least one review that called it "the worst" and incorporated that into the article. So far we haven't. We've got Razzie annual awards, which never are enough to get in. We've also got lists with dozens of other films, which I've discussed my problems with earlier. Honestly I think it would only take one actual critic calling it "the worst", paired up with everything else, for me to support inclusion. Without actual reviews to back up Crouse's observation I don't think it's enough.LM2000 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, obviously - If by "exception of the Razzie nominations" you mean not only did it win the "Worst Picutre" Razzie, not only did is sweep the Razzies, but they considered it Worst Picture of the Decade. Additionally, as you alluded to, it was included in Michael Sauter's book The Worst Movies of All Time as well as "100 most awful" The The Official Razzie Movie Guide Enjoying the Best of Hollywood's Worst. These and many more are more than enough to pass inclusion standards set on this board. Many bad films score high RT because of their "it's so bad it's good" camp value and this is one of them. To this day it's a popular midnight movie due to its awfulness.--Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to get on my nerves. Winning Worst Picture, WP of the decade, and sweeping the ceremony is pretty harsh, but, and I will not say this again, The Razzies are not enough to qualify. Think about it: the inclusion of Jack and Jill required more sources than winning every award at the razzies. And even if the razzies were a legit source, to say MD was the worst of the year, or even the decade, is not calling it one of the worst movies ever made. Now, if it won "worst of the century", that might be somewhat different, but it is not. Richard Crouse saying it got "some of the nastiest reviews ever" is irrelevant as it is contradicted by the RT rating. And for your information, it is NOT loved just as a camp movie. There are some reviews on RT that deem it so, but they still don't call it one of the worst movies ever made. Plus, there are some positive reviews on there that are genuine, you can check. To say this film is only worth camp value is a sin upon mankind, and even if it were, THERE ARE STILL NO SOURCES CALLING IT ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES EVER MADE. If you want to put those 2 stupid books on the list, then you must include EVERY film in the entire book to be fair, and that wouldn't work, now would it???? I'm sorry if I am appearing too passionate on the matter, but I feel as though me and LM2000 have discussed this in detain more than enough times that you should begin to understand it. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You're just using red herring semantics to somehow mean all movies in a book about worst movies ever made must be included in this list. It doesn't. That's just you. The Razzies and its Golden Raspberry Award are the preeminent organization and authority on bad movies. They've set the bar on bad movies. That they not only named it "Worst Picture" for one year, but "Worst Picture of the Decade". There are only about 11 decades of movie making. This is additionally confirmed by USA Today. [47] Shadow-Fighter, there's nothing you can do to change that. If you'd like The Razzies to retract their opinion, you need to take it up with them. This is in addition to being included in The Worst Movies of All Time and The Official Razzie Movie Guide Enjoying the Best of Hollywood's Worst books. And no, Richard Crouse calling it having "some of the nastiest reviews ever" is not invalidated because some reviewers actually liked it. You cannot erase Crouse's statement from history despite your opinion. I'm sorry but to angrily complain that being considered by multiple reliable sources that this is one of the worst films in history isn't just because the exact line "one of the worst films ever made" isn't written despite it being clear from reliable sources that is is considered one of the worst films ever made is just an example of WP:GAMETYPE. --Oakshade (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Additionally - Critic Eric Henderson of CBS Minneapolis has named Mommie Dearest Number 1 (beating out Showgirls, Glen or Glenda, Heaven's Gate and The Room) on his Best ‘Worst Movies Ever’ article.[48] So there you have the "Worst Movie Ever" line. Let's move on. --Oakshade (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Given this most recent addition, I think it is most likely suitable for inclusion. My concerns before was that nobody specifically said it was the worst and I do believe that Henderson's list, with Mommie Dearest clearly listed at first (beating out some very bad films in the process) meets my concerns. I do believe that the summary should include some mention of positive reviews to cover NPOV because it did get plenty of positive reviews even when you disregard the "so bad it's good" reviews.LM2000 (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe even Heaven's Gate and Batman & Robin received some good reviews (Heaven's Gate has a not-terrible 6.6 IMDB rating). I'd have to look them up specifically and it's probably a good NPOV idea to include mention of them.--Oakshade (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose given this newest link. Shadow, maybe if you can find some really positive reviews (and I mean REALLY really positive) I might change my vote.Kude90 (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Believe me, I'd love to, and there are some very positive reviews for it, but if a film has at least one source calling it one of the worst movies ever made (and now it does), there really isn't anything I can do. I consider Mommie Dearest to be a very good film and I would do anything in my power to keep it off the list, but now I think we're at a dead end. Sorry. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, if you are looking for a very positive non-ironic review of the film, here is the link for a 4/4 rating by Slant magazine: http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/mommie-dearest The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to put this review into perspective, it repeatedly puts Mommie Dearest on par with Showgirls. It states:

"Now Mommie Dearest and Showgirls aren't "so bad they're good," they're so good they're bad (or, as John Waters puts it in his commentary track for the new "Hollywood Royalty" edition DVD, "so good it's perfect"...perfection, roughly translated, meaning unbelievable badness)"

While sympathetic on an interesting angle, it's hard to qualify this as a genuinely "positive" review.--Oakshade (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm not supposed to state personal opinion on here, but I really just don't understand all this "so bad it's good" stuff. Yes, there is a wire hanger beating scene that is a touch over-the-top. But that makes it something like "The Room"? I genuinely consider this one of the greatest movies ever made, and not for ironic purposes. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Other films for removal

• Gigli (2003) - Not a single source calling it the worst.
• Finding Rin Tin Tin (2007) - Ranked one star by multiple reviews apparently, but that doesn't make it the worst.
• De Zeemeerman (The Mer-Man) (1996) - Featured in one poll... Didn't even come in first place. Not really enough to go on in my opinion.
• Alex l'Ariete (2000) - Seems to be more notable for being a box office failure and "one of the least seen film[s] in the history of the movies." Don't really see any sources calling it definitively the worst movie ever made.
• Sproet 2 (Fleck 2) (2003) - It was voted the worst movie every made by a Dutchman in one television poll. Is that enough for inclusion? When foreign films were included separately Sproet 2 fit in well, but since the list has been globalized I don't think that winning one poll on the national level is enough to meet worldwide criteria.
• The Underground Comedy Movie (1999) - Was removed, then recently readded.
• Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie: Pyramid of Light (2004) - No sources call it the worst.
• InAPPropriate Comedy (2013) - This has been removed countless times but keeps coming back. It's inclusion this time hinges on one critic calling it worse than Movie 43. Most critics did not think that Movie 43 is the worst movie of all time (we include only two critics saying something to that effect) so I do not think that Movie 43 is synonymous with "the worst". While Frank Scheck does seem to think InAPPropriate Comedy is worse than Movie 43, there is no language in the review that shows he thinks Movie 43 is the worst movie ever made.

Anybody opposed to any of these?LM2000 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have time to look through this list tonight. Might this wait until tomorrow night, to give me and some others a chance to look at this list more closely? Kude90 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Course, I always let discussion happen before I make removals that may be controversial.LM2000 (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Gigli was called "the ultimate turkey of all time." [49] --Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good source. The IB times lists it as one of the top 5 worst movies ever, it's called "the ultimate turkey of all time" by some reviewers, and it claims The Times gave it the lowest score ever. Definitely good enough for me at this point.LM2000 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Since it's been 11 days I'm going to start removing them periodically (unless someone speaks up), starting with the least controversial.LM2000 (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point they have been removed, except for Gigli, which now has the appropriate sources thanks to this discussion, and The Underground Comedy Movie, which I changed my mind on. It was readded after being removed and at first glance I didn't think the sources were sufficient but after rereading it I think it's suitable for inclusion.LM2000 (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)