|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 14, 2017 17:24:39 GMT
The Last Airbender. I was going to say Batman&Robin but at least that one looked like everyone was having fun making it. This looks like all the actors are in a hostage crisis. An excellent choice. This is another picture with just about no redeemable qualities. With that said, however, its placement here interests me at an analytical level, because it seems to straddle the boundary between the categories I described before. It's not "silly bad," like Batman and Robin (in which, as you accurately note, it at least looks as if the actors are having fun) or Catwoman. But it's also not so bad as to make one feel wrong for having watched it, like Son of the Mask or RIPD. Is there a third category of "bad," then? (Or am I just being far, far too analytical? Don't answer that one! ) In other words, to arrange them as Dante organized the levels of hell: (*Note: these categories are only for big-budget, Hollywood-level films. That's why such hilariously silly-bad "classics" as Plan 9 and Robot Monster, among others, are left off.) 1. Silly-Bad ( Batman and Robin, Catwoman, maybe one--hm?--of the Transformers movies [as I wrote, I've never watched any of them, so I don't know], most of the films on Mystery Science Theater 3000) 2. Bad-Bad (probably most of the Transformers movies, Underdog, The Last Airbender, just about everything Adam Sandler has ever put his name to) 3. Dirty-Bad (some Adam Sandler movies, RIPD, Son of the Mask, probably Pluto Nash, Baby Geniuses) Of course, even here there's some overlap. Where does The Room go? Battlefield Earth? The Master of Disguise? Mac and Me? North? With some of these, it's difficult to say. Even so, I think this categorization is a good start.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 14, 2017 17:35:56 GMT
The Last Airbender. I was going to say Batman&Robin but at least that one looked like everyone was having fun making it. This looks like all the actors are in a hostage crisis. An excellent choice. This is another picture with just about no redeemable qualities. With that said, however, its placement here interests me at an analytical level, because it seems to straddle the boundary between the categories I described before. It's not "silly bad," like Batman and Robin (in which, as you accurately note, it at least looks as if the actors are having fun) or Catwoman. But it's also not so bad as to make one feel wrong for having watched it, like Son of the Mask or RIPD. Is there a third category of "bad," then? (Or am I just being far, far too analytical? Don't answer that one! ) In other words, to arrange them as Dante organized the levels of hell: (*Note: these categories are only for big-budget, Hollywood-level films. That's why such hilariously silly-bad "classics" as Plan 9 and Robot Monster, among others, are left off.) 1. Silly-Bad ( Batman and Robin, Catwoman, maybe one--hm?--of the Transformers movies [as I wrote, I've never watched any of them, so I don't know], most of the films on Mystery Science Theater 3000) 2. Bad-Bad (probably most of the Transformers movies, Underdog, The Last Airbender, just about everything Adam Sandler has ever put his name to) 3. Dirty-Bad (some Adam Sandler movies, RIPD, Son of the Mask, probably Pluto Nash, Baby Geniuses) Of course, even here there's some overlap. Where does The Room go? Battlefield Earth? The Master of Disguise? Mac and Me? North? With some of these, it's difficult to say. Even so, I think this categorization is a good start. I think this plus Ghostbusters as someone else mentioned would fall under the category "Boring-Bad". A film that is so dull in spite of its poor quality it's a chore to sit through. Other examples I can think of in that category include The Avengers (1998 of course); 10,000 BC; The Spirit; Abduction; The Invasion; or the first Ghost Rider.
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Mar 14, 2017 17:35:57 GMT
The Wolf Of Wall Street is the worst big budget, major studio Hollywood film I've ever seen. It was three hours of greed, corruption, and debauchery. I never felt so dirty after seeing a movie in all the time I've been seeing movies.
|
|
|
Post by Times Up on Mar 14, 2017 17:38:04 GMT
The Wolf Of Wall Street is the worst big budget, major studio Hollywood film I've ever seen. It was three hours of greed, corruption, and debauchery. I never felt so dirty after seeing a movie in all the time I've been seeing movies. Jesus, yes. It was really super. How a nitwit like Scorsese get so tasteful?
|
|
|
Post by scoobysnacks on Mar 14, 2017 17:38:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 14, 2017 17:41:38 GMT
An excellent choice. This is another picture with just about no redeemable qualities. With that said, however, its placement here interests me at an analytical level, because it seems to straddle the boundary between the categories I described before. It's not "silly bad," like Batman and Robin (in which, as you accurately note, it at least looks as if the actors are having fun) or Catwoman. But it's also not so bad as to make one feel wrong for having watched it, like Son of the Mask or RIPD. Is there a third category of "bad," then? (Or am I just being far, far too analytical? Don't answer that one! ) In other words, to arrange them as Dante organized the levels of hell: (*Note: these categories are only for big-budget, Hollywood-level films. That's why such hilariously silly-bad "classics" as Plan 9 and Robot Monster, among others, are left off.) 1. Silly-Bad ( Batman and Robin, Catwoman, maybe one--hm?--of the Transformers movies [as I wrote, I've never watched any of them, so I don't know], most of the films on Mystery Science Theater 3000) 2. Bad-Bad (probably most of the Transformers movies, Underdog, The Last Airbender, just about everything Adam Sandler has ever put his name to) 3. Dirty-Bad (some Adam Sandler movies, RIPD, Son of the Mask, probably Pluto Nash, Baby Geniuses) Of course, even here there's some overlap. Where does The Room go? Battlefield Earth? The Master of Disguise? Mac and Me? North? With some of these, it's difficult to say. Even so, I think this categorization is a good start. I think this plus Ghostbusters as someone else mentioned would fall under the category "Boring-Bad". A film that is so dull in spite of its poor quality it's a chore to sit through. Other examples I can think of in that category include The Avengers (1998 of course); 10,000 BC; The Spirit; Abduction; The Invasion; or the first Ghost Rider. It's probably correct to create a category of "Boring-Bad." I haven't seen the Ghostbusters remake, so I can't comment on it, but, you're right, there are some movies that would fit there. It does have some overlap with the "Bad-Bad" (yeah, I know, it's vague: perhaps I should rename that "boring-bad') category, however. (Actually, I'm one of the very few people who think the '98 Avengers, while a very bad movie, is not as bad as it has been made out to be. But, since we're trying to find points of commonality as we categorize levels of "badness," I'll keep my trap shut.)
|
|
|
Post by Times Up on Mar 14, 2017 17:50:31 GMT
Highlander 2: The Quickening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 17:53:21 GMT
Gotta go with "Ishtar" (1987). un-honorable mention to "Gigli" (2003) and "Glitter" 2001.
|
|
maxwellperfect
Junior Member
@maxwellperfect
Posts: 3,966
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Mar 14, 2017 18:50:44 GMT
Avatar and BvS.
Avatar wasn't as boring as BvS, granted.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Mar 14, 2017 23:20:40 GMT
Interstellar was boring-bad
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 1:35:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 15, 2017 1:47:24 GMT
Since I've seen a grand total of none of those, would you mind writing your comments on the categories of "bad" each falls into? I'm probably unduly interested in this kind of analysis, but--well!--so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 15, 2017 1:49:16 GMT
Avatar and BvS. Avatar wasn't as boring as BvS, granted. By Avatar, you do mean Avatar (the James Cameron picture with the blue people on the alien planet), right? Not The Last Airbender, which also went by the name Avatar? I only ask because Avatar is one of the most popular movies ever made at this point--and I find it dreadful in just about every imaginable respect, but I often feel that I'm the only person to think so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 2:17:06 GMT
Since I've seen a grand total of none of those, would you mind writing your comments on the categories of "bad" each falls into? I'm probably unduly interested in this kind of analysis, but--well!--so be it. Well, they pretty much all fail on every front. Stealth is a kind of "Short Circuit with planes" deal. The US is fielding a new Artificially Intelligent unmanned warplane, and of course it's hit by lightning, and obviously it becomes self aware and starts defying orders. What most gets me about it is that the military angle is just sooooo stupid. Like, their planes all fly around at like Mach 5. And they all carry like 30 bombs and missiles internally. And have enough range to fly all over the world. It's set in the future so we're supposed to excuse it, but it's sooooo terrible. On top of that, the drone airplane? It's got a cockpit in it with a pilot's seat. They make some excuse about test flights but the second you see it, you're like "Oh, that's because the hero is going to have to fly it at the end of the movie." And that's just what happens. Christ, they even play into some of the oldest cliches in the book. One of the three heroes is a white guy, one is a white woman, and one is a black guy. Guess who dies first? Guess who falls in love with who? But the absolute best (worst) part is when the drone wants to refuel. So it goes to this refuelling balloon (yes, you read that right), but it doesn't have permission to refuel because it's gone nuts. So it... get this... shoots the end off the refuelling probe with its cannon, then sticks the probe into the tattered end of the hose and gets fuel that way. Pluto Nash is unbelievably bad in every way (both it and stealth are two of the biggest box office bombs of all time, by the way. Stealth lost something like one million dollars per minute of screen time!) It's Eddie Murphy on the moon as this bar tender who gets into trouble with a local crime lord. Lots of shenanigans as he tries to get out from under. It's awful. He's bad in it. The sets look terrible and cheap. The effects look terrible and cheap - this despite the film costing like 100 million to make. He has a robot sidekick that's a guy who talks in this horrible robotic voice... And there's a twist in the end that is just plain stupid. It really is a legendarily bad movie. As for The Phantom Menace... Mr Plinkett did it better than I ever could. This is long, very long, but it's also the best takedown of a movie that I have ever seen in my life. He absolutely devastates the movie. Though he does so with this persona of a weird insane serial killer who loves Star Wars but hates this movie, so you have to be in the frame of mind to accept that... Some highlights : 1) The characters are all flat and boring. He plays a description game with the characters - people describe describe Han Solo as dashing, a rogue, a bad boy, a wannabe tough guy, arrogant, charming, cocksure, a thief with a heart of gold, etc. But try and describe Qui Gon Jinn. Or Padme. the people he talks to literally can't think of anything because he has no character. Nor does anybody else in the movie. 2) There is no protagonist in The Phantom Menace. Seriously, this is writing 101! Who is the protagonist? Annakin? He doesn't show up until 45 minutes into the movie! Qui Gon? Not really. Obi Wan? No. Padme? No. There isn't one! 3) Lucas does nothing to make his movies exciting. Watch how many scenes there are of people just talking to one another. The camera switches between them. One will walk to a window. Or sit on a couch. It's all done slowly, and filmed in the most boring way there is. He contrasts this to a scene in the 2009 Star Trek movie where Chekov has to beam Kirk and Sulu up as they fall. It's an exciting scene, with lots of movement and energy and characters who are obviously responding to a situation with urgency. In TPM we have scenes where people say things like "We must act fast" - and then slowly wander away. 4) The opening crawl announces that the situation arose because of "a dispute over taxation". That's the sum total of explanation that we EVER get about what's happening. We've never even told who is taxing whom, or why, or who is objecting. There is no logic whatsoever to the plot, and every single thing everybody does during the course of the film makes no sense. And so on. Watch the video, it's well worth it!
|
|
flasuss
Sophomore
@flasuss
Posts: 323
Likes: 147
|
Post by flasuss on Mar 15, 2017 3:42:33 GMT
The Wolf Of Wall Street is the worst big budget, major studio Hollywood film I've ever seen. It was three hours of greed, corruption, and debauchery. I never felt so dirty after seeing a movie in all the time I've been seeing movies. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 7:00:18 GMT
What was that awful movie made by the Wachowskis recently? It was so bad it seems I've expunged its title from my memory.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Mar 15, 2017 7:56:33 GMT
I suppose the Phantom Menace would be the worst by some standard. I was depressed after I saw it so it did suck.
But Transformer and Transformers 2 were the first big Hollywood movies I saw where I thought they completely screwed it up to the point where they showed no professional skill and wasted what could have been a great giant robot movie if they had a different writer, director, and star. It takes special skill to make FX scenes look bad and Bay accomplished it by constantly moving the camera and cutting away from the most interesting parts. I didnt bother watching anymore of them after the second.
The idea of a map being etched on some grandfather glasses and the robots were searching for it was like something you would expect in a Z grade sci fi movie where they couldnt afford props.
Masters of the Universe 1987 had a similar plot and set up--they did a lot more with it. Kurtzman and Orci have no talent.
At least Bay made the Rock but I bet he was forced to keep the camera under control.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Mar 15, 2017 9:01:50 GMT
What was that awful movie made by the Wachowskis recently? It was so bad it seems I've expunged its title from my memory. Oh, Jupiter Ascending. That has to be on this list
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 9:10:10 GMT
^Yes that's the one! I actually thought I'd walked into the wrong cinema for the first 15 minutes.
|
|
maxwellperfect
Junior Member
@maxwellperfect
Posts: 3,966
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Mar 15, 2017 19:06:16 GMT
Avatar and BvS. Avatar wasn't as boring as BvS, granted. By Avatar, you do mean Avatar (the James Cameron picture with the blue people on the alien planet), right? Not The Last Airbender, which also went by the name Avatar? I only ask because Avatar is one of the most popular movies ever made at this point--and I find it dreadful in just about every imaginable respect, but I often feel that I'm the only person to think so. Yes, I mean that James Cameron blue people cartoony thing.
|
|