BOT's 36 Worst Films of All Time - Ceremony Complete! Master List on Page 1.

[Phil in the Blank]

I thought about this post before I responded. After thinking about it, it is a straw man. The object was to list the 36 worst movies that you have ever seen. That is why you need to have watched at least about 30 minutes of a movie to be able to vote on it.  People had the option of making their votes public or private. I have no idea if you voted or not because no one can see the private votes. However, my vote was public.

 

My vote was public because I wanted everyone to see how I voted. By making my vote public, I allowed people the time to see the movies on my list in case they never have, which allowed them the chance to see if they wanted to put those movies on their list or not.

 

You did no such thing. I can't find your vote in the voting thread. You never listed 36 movies that you felt were the worst of all-time. You never made any suggestions about bad movies that people should consider. Now, after you have seen the results of the vote, you keep talking about how there are all of these bad movies out there that no one has ever seen. You say you can name all of these bad movies that are worse than what was on our respective lists. Yet, you offer no evidence of that. You just offer words.

 

You need to accept that these are the 36 worst movies of all-time. Maybe if this vote is done again next year, instead of complaining after the fact, you will submit your list early. That will allow people to at least see the movies that you claim are so bad before voting. And, if you can't do that, then you need to accept the results of our vote.

 

That applies to everyone else complaining also. I have no idea if this will be done again next year. However, if it is, instead of acting like you are above this type of vote (which you aren't), you should make your lists public and get them in early. Especially if you believe that people haven't seen all of these awful movies that you claim exist.

 

I voted and only 3-4 movies out of my 36 made the list. And I am much more passionate about my list than a lot of you (certainly more than those that didn't vote because they didn't even bother to vote) because my top 15 has been that way for a long time (with the exception of Cloud Atlas, which is a new addition to my list). Yet, I am not complaining about the results, nor am I trying to convince anyone to despise the crap that I don't like or to not despise the stuff I like that others despise.

 

You state that my argument was a straw-man but then you don't show how my argument was a straw man at all. Instead you spend your time making your own straw-man argument that because I didn't make my votes public (i didn't vote at all for the record) then I have no right to complain about the results.

 

Now instead of strawmaning why don't you answer my actual problem with the creation of this list. Here it is as simply as I can put it.

 

The majority of people who enjoy films, try their best to seek out films they think they will enjoy, while avoiding the ones that they think will be terrible. This means that the typical person when creating lists will have many more movies to choose from the 'great' end of the scale then when compared to the 'shit' end of the scale. Especially when you consider that many truly bad films were never released on a cinema and are hardly likely to get a major distribution deal on home video that means you have to actively seek them out. Ultimately a smaller sample size of movies for people to choose from means that the list will inevitably be worse than a list where there are more candidates to pick from.

 

In all honesty, what we (mostly) have here is a '36 most disappointing films ever' list rather than a true 'worst film ever' list. Many of these are films that people went to see expecting to be good and came out not enjoying them. Which is fine, If you looked how i personally rated these films a few pages back most of these films are in my mostly shit or shit categories. I mean there are some major stinkers among them. I'm not arguing that their taste in movies is shit. But to consider them the worst movies ever made? Most people simply haven't watched enough bad movies for that opinion to have any weight at all. And you know what, that's actually a good thing, believe me! Life is too short to waste your time watching shit. But because of that, this list is more meaningless then most.

 

As for needing to accept these movies as actually the 36 worst movies of all-time, that's just ludicrous. My opinions are not formed by consensus. 

Edited December 29, 2013 by Spottswoode

[4815162342]

No, it's not remotely one of the worst films ever. (And I think it's terrible, so it's not like I'm biased toward it).

It may not be one of the worst films of all time, but for me it is the perfect representation of everything that is wrong with 21st-Century blockbuster cinema combining into a perfect storm of atrociously painful dung.

[Punishment]

It may not be one of the worst films of all time, but for me it is the perfect representation of everything that is wrong with 21st-Century blockbuster cinema combining into a perfect storm of atrociously painful dung.

 

LOL, I don't agree with you, but I love your description of the movie

[Walt Disney]

You state that my argument was a straw-man but then you don't show how my argument was a straw man at all. Instead you spend your time making your own straw-man argument that because I didn't make my votes public (i didn't vote at all for the record) then I have no right to complain about the results.

 

Now instead of strawmaning why don't you answer my actual problem with the creation of this list. Here it is as simply as I can put it.

 

The majority of people who enjoy films, try their best to seek out films they think they will enjoy, while avoiding the ones that they think will be terrible. This means that the typical person when creating lists will have many more movies to choose from the 'great' end of the scale then when compared to the 'shit' end of the scale. Especially when you consider that many truly bad films were never released on a cinema and are hardly likely to get a major distribution deal on home video that means you have to actively seek them out. Ultimately a smaller sample size of movies for people to choose from means that the list will inevitably be worse than a list where there are more candidates to pick from.

 

 

As for needing to accept these movies as actually the 36 worst movies of all-time, that's just ludicrous. My opinions are not formed by consensus. 

 

How can I attack a straw man argument with evidence? You aren't making a point about the results list. You're just spouting rhetoric that takes us off the topic. There's no point in arguing whether people seek out good movies or bad movies. You watch the movies that you watch and then you vote. This isn't complicated.

 

If you don't like the concept of the list, then just ignore it. But, if you're going to respond, then you should accept the rules of the vote and comment with actual constructive criticism. No one needs your approval to make a list. Your whole problem seems to boil down to you don't like the idea of the list and you're going to keep saying it until someone hears you. But, we heard you the first time. However, the way we do votes here is the OP sets the rules and we vote based on that. Catching Iceroll set it up, so he gets to set the rules. You can always create your own vote where you set up the rules.

 

I can reverse your argument also. Most people haven't watched enough good movies to be able to give their opinions any weight. Most people have very little knowledge of classic movies. We did a vote for the best movies from 1930-2012 and there were very few participants for the eras pre-1970. Yet, everyone feels comfortable voting in Sims best movie of all-time poll. But, how can they when they haven't seen all of these classic movies from pre- 1970? There are lots of great movies that people are missing out on. Yet, I don't bombard that thread by telling people their opinions aren't informed. People have seen what they have seen and the goal is for them to vote on that.

 

And again you write lots of words about how there are these theoretical movies out there that no one bothers to see. Yet, you offer no specifics. Also, you didn't even bother to read the criteria for the vote. Any film that isn't released in the cinema isn't eligible to be voted on. It must have a theatrical release. So I have a feeling that a lot of these movies that you're thinking of went straight to home video and aren't even eligible to be voted on.

 

I can't tell you that your specific movies that you think are so bad really aren't if you never name them. I can't tell you if a movie that you disagree with on this list is good or not unless you name it. If you're going to continue with this straw man argument that there are so many movies out there that we just haven't seen, then you're wasting your time. Don't tell us....show us.

 

And now, I will answer your question (which is off-topic, but you want it answered) about why people see so many bad movies when they only seek out good movies. The answer is that sometimes people recommend movies for you to watch. Whether in the movie theater or movies on cable or VHS/DVD/Blu-ray. And some people have shitty tastes in movies. That's how you end up seeing a turd like Mulholland Drive....because some people with horrible taste in movies told you that you had to see it.

[iceroll]

All I would suggest is that you change the criteria next year. Make it so only films that had a U.S cinema release that was backed by a major studio and the list instantly becomes a little less.....lame.

Well it basically already was that, even if it wasn't explicitly stated most people don't watch many films that aren't U.S. cinema released and backed by a major studio.

[Goffe]

I put 2001 on my list because it was the most painful movie experience for me, so fucking slow and incomprehensible without external explanations, 2 hours and 19 minutes (which felt like 10) of "what the hell is going on". That being said, It had good acting, amazing score and nice visuals and therefore I don't know if 2001 should be on the list

Edited December 29, 2013 by Goffe Luvs 1D

[Lordmandeep]

Some films are divisive..

 

Is passion of the Christ the worst film ever? 

 

 

No the film was quite emotional and some solid acting and of course the story is great due to the source material.

 

It is just that some disliked the film as its hyper violent and makes Jews look bad or are radical atheists. 

[Kvikk Lunsj]

What did people expected? Most people do not watch shit movies. So a lot of movies that are well known would be on this list. If I would summited a list mine would looked lke this.

1. Amazing Spider Man

2. The Hobbit

3. The Hobbit 2

4. The Avengers

5. The Dark Knight Rises

6. Lord of The Rings: FotR

7. Lord of the Rings : TTT

8. Lord of the Rings: ROTK

9. Iron Man

10. Spider Man 2

11. Man of Steel

12. Thor II

13. Captain America 

14. The Dark Knight

15. Batman Begins

16. Inception

17. Citizen Kane

18. Godfather

19. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

20. Spider Man

 

just to see people's reaction on this board. 

[luna]

wait, the texas chainsaw massacre was for the original? WTF?

[Films]

wait, the texas chainsaw massacre was for the original? WTF?

 

No 2003, it looks like their is a mistake in the opening post

[Punishment]

That doesn't make it a good film.  If you are making a film simply to impress film students, then your career will be short and you will be broke.  Films are first meant to entertain, if they were'n't then no one would spend the 100's to 1000's of dollars a year they do on film.  

 

[Claire of Themyscira]

I'm appalled by some of the films that made the list.

 

It makes y'all less attractive.

 

Ugh. 

 

Oh, and I'm being honest when I say that.

 

I wanted to hook up with my Introduction to Cinema professor because his taste in films was amazing, and I was super attracted to him.

[baumer]

I'm appalled by some of the films that made the list.

 

It makes y'all less attractive.

 

Ugh. 

 

Oh, and I'm being honest when I say that.

 

I wanted to hook up with my Introduction to Cinema professor because his taste in films was amazing, and I was super attracted to him.

 

What films do you like?

Do you look like your avatar?

I'll like any films you like if it means we can have some Wolf of Wall Street sex.

 

[Claire of Themyscira]

What films do you like?

Do you look like your avatar?

I'll like any films you like if it means we can have some Wolf of Wall Street sex.

 

[baumer]

Oh damn.  The fat Britney look.  Ok, I don't want to have sex with you anymore.

[Claire of Themyscira]

Omg. How rude.

 

I don't look like Britney or Claire. Lmfao.

 

You should know this, Baumer. I guess you always seem to forget who I am.

[Blankments]

Well... I'm happy The Last Airbender was #1

[DAR]

I'd probably still bang fat Brittney

[Phil in the Blank]

How can I attack a straw man argument with evidence? You aren't making a point about the results list. You're just spouting rhetoric that takes us off the topic. There's no point in arguing whether people seek out good movies or bad movies. You watch the movies that you watch and then you vote. This isn't complicated.

 

If you don't like the concept of the list, then just ignore it. But, if you're going to respond, then you should accept the rules of the vote and comment with actual constructive criticism. No one needs your approval to make a list. Your whole problem seems to boil down to you don't like the idea of the list and you're going to keep saying it until someone hears you. But, we heard you the first time. However, the way we do votes here is the OP sets the rules and we vote based on that. Catching Iceroll set it up, so he gets to set the rules. You can always create your own vote where you set up the rules.

 

I can reverse your argument also. Most people haven't watched enough good movies to be able to give their opinions any weight. Most people have very little knowledge of classic movies. We did a vote for the best movies from 1930-2012 and there were very few participants for the eras pre-1970. Yet, everyone feels comfortable voting in Sims best movie of all-time poll. But, how can they when they haven't seen all of these classic movies from pre- 1970? There are lots of great movies that people are missing out on. Yet, I don't bombard that thread by telling people their opinions aren't informed. People have seen what they have seen and the goal is for them to vote on that.

 

And again you write lots of words about how there are these theoretical movies out there that no one bothers to see. Yet, you offer no specifics. Also, you didn't even bother to read the criteria for the vote. Any film that isn't released in the cinema isn't eligible to be voted on. It must have a theatrical release. So I have a feeling that a lot of these movies that you're thinking of went straight to home video and aren't even eligible to be voted on.

 

I can't tell you that your specific movies that you think are so bad really aren't if you never name them. I can't tell you if a movie that you disagree with on this list is good or not unless you name it. If you're going to continue with this straw man argument that there are so many movies out there that we just haven't seen, then you're wasting your time. Don't tell us....show us.

 

And now, I will answer your question (which is off-topic, but you want it answered) about why people see so many bad movies when they only seek out good movies. The answer is that sometimes people recommend movies for you to watch. Whether in the movie theater or movies on cable or VHS/DVD/Blu-ray. And some people have shitty tastes in movies. That's how you end up seeing a turd like Mulholland Drive....because some people with horrible taste in movies told you that you had to see it.

 

Very Bizarre. It's like you aren't even reading my posts, just reading what you want to read and then responding to that.....

 

1) I listed 3 movies well back as examples of truly terrible films. Films I have had the 'pleasure' of seeing, Santa and the IceCream Bunny, Cool as Ice and Fat Ethel II. 

 

Here is a clip from the Santa movie (and yes it had a theatrical release) to give you an example.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI0b_68fzLE

 

Imagine that for like 90 minutes. And that's like the highlight of the movie lol. The point I am making is that if you are not deliberately seeking out these bad films, then you are never going to see them in normal circumstances so you are not really seeing the worst movies of all-time. Most people do however seek out films they think they will enjoy, and hence a 'best-of list' while still having many problems on a site like this (see point 6) is still typically of a higher quality than this particular list.

 

2) I have no desire to post my own list of 36 worse films ever made, but that's neither here nor there. While I have probably watched more truly bad films then most here (my friends in college would try to one-up each other on finding a terrible film to torture us with) I still haven't watched enough bad movies to feel I can truly do the list justice either.

 

3) I made 2 posts in this thread. One was a light-heated post using a common meme to express my disappointment with the list. And the other a constructive post explaining why I felt that this list was of lower quality than most. The rest of my posts outside of the one where i personally rank the films on the list have all been defending my opinion against you. Because apparently in your world it seems that anyone who doesn't take this list super seriously and as a total fact when it comes to the worst movies ever made shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion. 

 

4) I also find it a bit rich that you criticize me for going on and on when all I have done is respond to your posts. I mean, WTF mate?

 

5) I'm not sure you get this idea where you think I feel people need my approval to make a list. Ice-roll is perfectly entitled to setup a list like this and people are perfectly entitled to participate in this list. Just as I am perfectly entitled to make a post explaining why I feel that a worst movie list of all-time is more flawed then most and just as you are entitled to keep making posts misrepresenting my points. It's called freedom of speech and I love it.

 

6) Well done, you are starting to open your eyes when you see that my opinion can be reversed. All lists on this site are basically bunk because people don't seek out older films or non-holly-wood films. Sure, its why I've only really been active in the creation of one list (that sadly never eventuated), the 1000 movies you must see before you die list - because its not making any claims about being the best films ever made, only films that you feel others should see. But the best of lists still have more credibility then a worst of list because people are actively seeking out movies that they think they'll enjoy so they have a greater range of movies to pick at from the top end, rather than the shit end. That is all that I have been saying.

 

7) I never asked you that question. I was stating that people tend to seek out films they think they will enjoy to watch as fact. My belief that that makes a list like this worse than most flows from that fact. 

[Phil in the Blank]

I'd probably still bang fat Brittney

 

Sure, I would too. But I'ld be thinking of skinny Brittney.