Talk:List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes

"Removed from list"
I understand the desire to include films that received low ratings. That said, this article is about something else. Films that received "only one or two" positive reviews do not have a 0% on RT, nor were they "removed". Why 1 or 2? Why not 3? A film with 5 positive reviews out of 200 is at 2.5%. On with 2 positive reviews out of 20 is at 10% but we would include the second but not the first. The "1 or 2" criterion is something someone at Wikipedia came up with. It is completely arbitrary. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless someone has a policy/guideline based reason to keep this original research, I will be removing the section shortly. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the section. I completely agree with your opinion. Plus, I checked, many of the films listed actually had more than "1 or 2" positive reviews. Gstridsigne (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Must have 20 reviews?
A sister article, List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, has an on-going discussion about what the inclusion criteria are/should be. Interested editors are invited to discuss the issue. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning that discussion. The 100% list now only lists films with at least 20 reviews. I don't think this is necessary for this 0% list. Here's my reasoning. First of all, currently, the 100% list has 213 entries and the 0% list has 154 entries, so the latter has less entries even though there is no review minimum. Also, the note in the 100% article that claims that films with only 2 reviews are still shown as 100% is tagged with WP:OR, this claim may even be incorrect, for "0%" to show up at Rotten Tomatoes it requires at least 5 reviews. Finally, it is Rotten Tomatoes that decides which films get a 0% rating and it's not up to us to add an arbitrary review minimum; the current overview is more complete and more accurately provides what the article title promises ("List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes"). --82.136.210.153 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This list ought to have a 20 requirement too.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why. This article isn't overly long, it's factually accurate, reliably sourced; there's no reason whatsoever to implement an arbitrary inclusion criterion. What you want goes against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Your "20" is a random number based on absolutely nothing. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should have at least 20 reviews (I would actually prefer 30 or 40). 5 is simply not enough to get a meaningful aggregate opinion.  --GHcool (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We are currently talking about whether to make it 15 or 20. Nobody has advocated 5. So, other editors reading this. is there a consensus for 30?
 * In my opinion, if fifteen reviewers have all said that a movie is a bad movie, that's not a movie with too few reviews to determine that it is bad. I don't think the criteria for 100% is relevant. Many more reviewers review good movies. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Blackout
I have removed The Blackout (1997 film) from the list because apparently, its Rotten Tomatoes page redirects to that of the 2009 film of the same name. The 1997 film can be found on the search results at the Rotten Tomatoes website; plus, it mentions that it has a 0% rating. However, if one were to click the result of the 1997 film, it redirects to that of the 2009 film. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you filled out this form? That appears to be the way to contact them to get the listing fixed. Until then, the most recent archived version has a 0% rating. If we cite both that and the search result, would that be sufficient verification that it still has 0%? Reach Out to the Truth 23:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have sent an email concerning this error. In the meantime, I guess we can cite both the archived version and the search result to verify that the film still has a 0% rating. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Iron Fist
Apparently, the Marvel/Netflix show Iron Fist (TV series) is at a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. Since it is a TV show and not a film, would it be best not to add it to the list? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pretty predictable that someone will remove it with that exact edit summary: "it is a TV show and not a film." I don't think it's about whether we should add it. We should be asking about whether we can move this article to "List of films and television shows with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes," turn its current contents into a "Films" section, and add Iron Fist to the "Television shows" section. Because while this show doesn't fit this article, the whole reason to have an article like this is to have a helpful list of zero-percent stuff. Doesn't it makes sense that people coming here would also be interested in a list of 0% TV shows?  City O f  Silver  18:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Although it still might not happen. There's a discussion on this page about the minimum number of reviews a movie needs to get listed here and consensus seems to be at 20. Iron Fist has 11 reviews right now.  City O f  Silver  18:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well we can move on from this now that the show is now at 9%. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The Emoji Movie
Wouldn't The Emoji Movie be on this list, since it's received very harsh criticism and is now included in IMDb's Bottom 100 list? -NovaBrunswick 11:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The list only includes films that have 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. The moment Rotten Tomatoes adds a single "fresh" review, it no longer qualifies and is removed from the list. Reach Out to the Truth 13:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So The Emoji Movie actually has one 'fresh' review? -NovaBrunswick 09:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It has eight. Reach Out to the Truth 12:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

New entry
Can someone add these films on the list: Don't Sleep, Gun Shy. I can't do it right now because my internet browser doesn't allow me to edit such high MB articles. Thanks. Sebastian James (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Both of those have no Critics Consensus and less than 20 reviews, so they don't qualify and would be removed. Kevin Dorner (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

New inclusion criteria at 100% list, what about here?
On Talk:List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, this discussion decided that the list should only include films that have a Critics Consensus at Rotten Tomatoes - something that usually happens once a film has 20 reviews. Consensus reached, it is now getting a well-needed prune. Now, what about this article? Should we apply the same criteria here, or do something different? 'Cause let's be honest, this article is too long as well. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 16:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's apply the same criteria here and evaluate how many we would have after the culling. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's too long. Most of these films do not have a consensus and/or +20 reviews. If we apply the same criteria here, the page will be too short. Sebastian James (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think we editors can claim that the page would be too short. From what I've seen in coverage from reliable sources, movies that have a 100% rating are discussed a lot more than movies with 0% ratings. That means we should not be more indiscriminate with 0% rating movies. Having the same criteria here is at least consistent within this kind of list. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging those involved at the 100% rating discussion for their input:, . Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I wasn't involved in the 100% rating discussion. Nevertheless, the same thing should apply to the 0% rating list as it does with the 100% rating list.  Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed all listings that had less than ten reviews. Now we need to check listings under twenty reviews to see which ones, if any, have a Critics' Consensus. Those without one can be removed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I support culling anything that doesn't have critic's consensus and fewer than 20 reviews. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that lowest amount of reviews on a film with 0% could at least be 15, as there are film's out there with that and close to 20 reviews out there. Any zero-percenters out there with lower than that should not be added to this article. I noticed that one user was adding oe with only 5 reviews which is WAY too low an amount to be included here. I tried to remove it and they have repeatedly reverted the edit (almost an edit war). I just want to have this all stated so that editors know the standard that we have to follow for films to be included i this article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * While I agree that Derailed is an outlier in having a Critics Consensus (staff-written summary) despite only five reviews, it's the only one. I don't see a need to change the criteria because of this, and I would rather have the criteria same here as at List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which has ten films with less-than-20 reviews listed because they have staff-written summaries. If you want to get additional opinions, you can use WP:3O or post a notification at WT:FILM. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up
It's been a few months since this discussion was last carried, so I'd like to know what the ultimate conclusion was? Should entries be required to have a critical consensus or has that been deemed unnecessary in the long-run? I can't tell from how this discussion played out what was decided in the end, if anything.

If I were to put my own 2 cents in I think the requirement of a critics' consensus is unnecessary, as at the moment just limiting it to maybe have at least 15 or 20 reviews seems like enough to keep it as a fairly small list of films. Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 18:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think the discussion was conclusive, but I do not see a reason not to follow the same criteria as with the 100% list, "Only films with a Critics Consensus (staff-written summary) or at least 20 reviews are included." It's "or" rather than "and" so a film does not need a critics' consensus, but if it lacks one, there should be at least 20 reviews. Any reason to do anything different? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Rollback
Twice now IP editors have tried to roll back this list to a more indiscriminate version as seen here and here. In addition, the rollback to the indiscriminate version erases any positive contributions The local consensus for this particular topic is to create a more discriminate list based on the criteria here and stated in the article. I've requested semi-protection. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes logo.svg

Variety references Wikipedia
Here, Variety seemingly references Wikipedia as it writes, "'The Last Days of American Crime' joins only 42 other films (with at least 20 reviews) to receive the dubious distinction of getting a Tomatometer goose egg," with this list having 43 films. Guess our narrowed-down criteria paid off. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How many reviews?
A while back I noticed that there are several noteworthy films 15-20 0% reviews, so I WP:BOLDLY made the limit 15, removed one film with 5 reviews, and added one with Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas with 19. Since then I have seen some great additions with numbers like 17.

So what is the ideal cutoff? Obviously one or even three reviews are not anywhere near enough. But should we go to 10? go back to 20? 12 maybe?

Before answering, please look at Rotten Tomatoes and see what films your proposed number of reviews would add or remove from this list. Setting the "tomatometer" to 0%-1% gets all 384 0% films. Examples: --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Roller Boogie got 7 reviews
 * Santa Claus Conquers the Martians got 23 reviews, and no bad movie list is complete without Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
 * Monster A-Go-Go got 23 reviews
 * Deep Blue Sea 2 got 5 reviews
 * I Spit on Your Grave 2 got 8 reviews
 * Space Chimps 2: Zartog Strikes Back got 8 reviews
 * Bolero got 23 reviews
 * Eegah! got 8 reviews
 * Manos, the Hands of Fate got 16 reviews


 * I'm confused why anything has to change. Both this article and the 100% article had used films with either a critics' consensus or at least 20 reviews. Why drop from 20 to 15? We have List of films considered the worst to cover stuff like Manos. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's why I brought up the question. I don't want to decide all by myself that it should be 15. I picked that number because it seemed to me that 20 was excessive, but that's just my opinion. Let's see what the consensus is.


 * If we go back to 20, the following films will be deleted:
 * Manos: The Hands of Fate (16)
 * Foolish (16)
 * Father of Invention (16)
 * The Anomaly (17)
 * Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas (19)
 * 365 Days (15)
 * ...reducing the size of the list from 52 to 46.
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the cutoff is mostly arbitrary, I would ask for input at WT:FILM. Still, 20 is closer than 15 to being a decent sample size. And for me, it seems cleaner to apply consistent criteria on either end of the spectrum. I feel like if we change it once, we can argue to change it again. Kind of why we don't budge with the 700-word plot limit or the film infobox parameters. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 20 like, the 100% list. Sure, there's little chance of the 0% list becoming indiscriminate, but any less than that and we're basically slating an unknown movie for no reason. Kingsif (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 20: I think we should be erring on the side of only listing when these numbers have substantial statistical validity (if this list is to maintain any veneer of being about critically reviled films rather than random oddities), and the previous consensus for this to be set at 20 has been one I agree with. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Shall we completely remove the review limited and only make it a list of films with a written consensus? Most films that reach 20 reviews already have a written consensus on the website. It would set clear rules and remove all the arguing back and forth about the number of reviews. Just an idea to be discussed further. Jonastav89 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It usually takes non-English language films more reviews than others to receive a consensus. Can anyone see what films we would lose if we went to only critic's consensus? BOVINEBOY 2008 21:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Return of the Living Dead Part 2 (from 1988), Precious Cargo (from 2016), John Henry and Hard Kill (both from 2020). So the films dropping off are mostly newer films. The only non-English film on the list is Pinocchio and it has a consensus. Badly recieved foreign films rarely are widely seen and distributed to an English speaking audience. Jonastav89 (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Contract (2006 film)
Despite its only receiving 6 negative reviews from critics, the Contract still requires a spot on this list. Best cartoonist ever (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Johnny & Clyde
Johnny & Clyde, a horror-heist film, came out last year and has 0% fresh with 10 reviews (link). Not sure if it will get more reviews but could be one to watch, a truly awful film. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Consensus
At some point, someone added a "Consensus" column quoting the Rotten Tomatoes Critics Consensus for each film. We do not have this at the 100% article, and the excessive quoting makes it look like Wikipedia is engaging in WP:PROMO of Rotten Tomatoes. Especially with commercially-rooted topics, we should keep these lists as basic as possible. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Less than 20 reviews
I just reverted here the addition of films that have less than 20 reviews and no critics' consensus. I did the same revert on May 30 as seen here. If it needs to be explained, the idea behind the criteria is to have a big enough set of reviews for the 0% (or 100%) to be worthwhile. Like if we had only one review, would we allow 0% or 100%? Where do we draw the line? 20 is what the consensus was here and on the 100% list, unless there is a critics' consensus written by the Rotten Tomatoes staff (like with Derailed here). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)