So Bad, It's Horrible is one of the more flame-bait-y parts of the site, so a cleanup thread is needed to ensure that works aren't added simply because someone doesn't like them.
If you want to list a work under this, keep the following in mind:
- The work must have very few fans or defenders (both genuine and ironic). It should fail to appeal to any type of audience.
- Being offensive in its subject matter isn't enough.
- It isn't horrible just because a certain critic disliked it, though their reviews can be used as sources and citations.
- The work should have notably poor reviews (e.g., less than 3/10 on IMDb, or single digit scores on Rotten Tomatoes)
- For a Moral Substitute to qualify, it cannot even appeal to its target demographic.
- Please be polite while writing and as much as possible, avoid falling into Complaining About Shows You Don't Like. Instead, focus on explaining why the work is horrible.
Edited by Twiddler on May 20th 2024 at 5:34:49 AM
he/him | Image Pickin' regular
Antwan pulled Rockman Xover here
before Horrible.Video Games was split because it had over a million downloads in Japan and an official soundtrack released (I don't think the latter is a disqualifying factor), but it's currently on Horrible.Smartphone Games. Why does it have to have poor sales to qualify, even if both audiences and critics panned it? I assume "poor sales" doesn't require it to have not made a profit; The Emoji Movie made back more than its budget, and many of the works on here have No Budget meaning it'd be easy for them to be "profitable".
Short-Term Projects herald
My guess is that works that were profitable were successful in that sense.
Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!
Not Sherlock Holmes
There was a discussion a while ago about adding The Adventures of Kid Danger to the horrible list, and there wasn’t a single objection, but it’s not on the list yet. Should it be added?
“Now! Let us engage in the art of deduction!”
I'm Sad Frogerson.
On the show's YMMV, it's labeled as So Okay, It's Average, so I don't know. I never watched it. Here's the entry:
Really doesn't seem SBIH worthy to me.
Not Sherlock Holmes
The problem is, that’s on the show’s best days. On its worst episodes, it has nonsensical plots and terrible “comedy” with shoehorned references. The animation also looks like it was pushed out ASAP.
On a different subject, the Metroid Genesis example on Fan Games doesn’t count, as it has a 4 star rating on Newgrounds, enough to disqualify it.
Edited by TalesofUnder on Jul 26th 2019 at 4:28:05 PM
“Now! Let us engage in the art of deduction!”
I'm Sad Frogerson.
I don't see how a work can be both okay and horrible at the same time. If the quality varies from episode to episode, than its too inconsistent to count for either trope. If it truly doesn't raise the bar to passable entertainment, then the So Okay, It's Average entry should be the one removed.
As for the Metroid fan game? Probably a safe cut. The way Newgrounds works is that if a work receives low enough ratings, it'll be "blammed" and removed from the site.
Edited by chasemaddigan on Jul 26th 2019 at 5:42:50 AM
Darkwing Goose
There's an edit war going on over the inclusion of Dwegons and Leprechauns on Animated Films. I think it qualifies, other people don't.
SP00PY month!
he/him | Image Pickin' regular
Why is Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 listed as horrible while the original Baby Geniuses isn't, even though YMMV.Baby Geniuses describes Superbabies as a Surprisingly Improved Sequel and both The Nostalgia Critic and I Hate Everything consider the first movie worse?
Keet cleanup
Darkwing Goose
The first Baby Geniuses was a box office success.
SP00PY month!
I noticed that there are 234 wicks for the page, most of them in non-Darth Wiki pages.
Edited by costanton11 on Jul 29th 2019 at 11:27:33 AM
I'd need to see more evidence for Dwegons and Leprechauns. A cursory search showed ratings that were more in the So Okay, It's Average range.
A lot of Horrible subpages are clogged by mentioning reviewers' takes on the films/games/whatever, which seem superfluous to the lists being about the works themselves.
The Protomen enhanced my life.
Planeswalker
That's probably because of the work's requirement to have poor reviews done by critics.
Oissu!
Darkwing Goose
Gonna get yelled at for this, but I think that the many links and references to other reviewers are part of the pages's charm. I've discovered a lot of people I would have never found otherwise through these pages. I request we don't cut back on the reviews.
SP00PY month!
Darkwing Goose
Also Dwegons and Leprechauns has a 4.1 on Imdb and the sole review on RT (via CommonSenseMedia) is very negative. I wouldn't call that So OK, It's Average. Many films, such as Fant4stic and Furry Vengeance, are in the 4.0 range and have been decided horrible. I'd say 5.4 is the limit; after that a work's average. Imdb is weird and every film on there has 10/10 scores from vocal minorities on there. Let's not use it as a decider.
SP00PY month!
Darkwing Goose
Someone named The Fallof Eldorardo is deleting all of the Nostalgia Critic and Cinema Snob reviews and replacing them with reviews by a guy named Smeghead without any edit reasons. Does this have to do with #Change The Channel? We haven't decided how we deal with those guys yet and he's acting like it's already been decided that we purge them all.
SP00PY month!
Discarded and Feeling Blue
Have you PM'd them?
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I'm Sad Frogerson.
I remember them, they were pulling this same stuff about a year ago.
I made an ATT query about this, so we can direct the conversation there for the moment.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I PM'ed him a couple months ago, and he said the controversy was why he was deleting the review links.
Darkwing Goose
So, do we keep the Channel Awesome entries or no? Personally idk, I too am against the company's actions, but removing them would qualify as censorship.
SP00PY month!
Aspirant Creativity Wizard
That’s...iffy if “avoiding controversy” is their reason. We don’t delete mentions of works or links to works based off of controversy the creators have been involved in if there’s no other rule violations.
I don’t care about NC, but at that rate we’d have to cut a lot of pages and rewrite a lot of things if creator controversy was a legitimate reason to remove all mention of a work.
Adventurers: homeless people who steal from tombs and kill things.
Not Sherlock Holmes
Keep them. Creator =/= Creation.
Edited by TalesofUnder on Aug 8th 2019 at 6:55:38 PM
“Now! Let us engage in the art of deduction!”
Darkwing Goose
So, what would be a good hidden "%%" message for us to put on the pages? I have Troper's Block.
SP00PY month!
Darkwing Goose
Talking about Eldorado, of course.
SP00PY month!
Before someone adds it I feel I should say that the Cats trailer has defenders already and doesn't qualify. No one's added it yet, but just to be safe.
Edited by TheAlmightyKingPrawn on Jul 18th 2019 at 7:25:15 AM
SP00PY month!