2 LIVE POLLS: Rotten Tomatoes: Worst Universally Critic Panned Movies

Thanks, corrected

@Peter_pbn, Thanks for the feedback. Only the first paragraph is used on the two poll lists, the second paragraph is for the poll thread only. As you pointed out there are a number of details to the calculations that likely would make a detailed accounting an essay. Corrected, the abbreviated revised poll list introduction is as follows, along with other adjustments: "On the review aggregation website, Rotten Tomatoes, movies unanimously reviewed as negative by every TOMATOMETER® critic who submitted a critique receive a dreaded 0% rating, once they cross the minimum threshold of required critic reviews. Among those movies that are more widely seen and reviewed, those films that have posted a minimum of twenty total reviews since their release, only forty-two titles have achieved and maintained the lowest possible rating (0%) over time by never posting a positive Tomatometer® critic review."

I revised the intro even more for flow and content. "Movies unanimously reviewed by critics as negative on the review aggregation website, Rotten Tomatoes, receive a dreaded 0% rating, once they cross the minimum threshold of required critic reviews. Among movies that are more widely seen and reviewed, usually films that have posted twenty or more total reviews, only forty-two titles have achieved and maintained the lowest possible rating (0%) over time by never getting even a single positive Tomatometer® critic review since the movie's release."

One more revision for clarity, " Movies unanimously reviewed by critics as negative on the review aggregation website, Rotten Tomatoes, receive a dreaded 0% rating, once they cross the minimum threshold of required critic reviews. Those films with at least 20 total reviews are regarded as more reliably reviewed, as they are considered less vulnerable to statistical variances and anomalies that are usually associated with smaller samples. From the pool of Rotten Tomatoes movies that have accrued 20 or more critic reviews, only 42 titles have never garnered even a single positive Tomatometer® critic review since their release, thus maintaining their 0% rating over time and distinguishing them as the worst popular movies of all-time. "

I always try stay below 6 lines in the intro. But sometimes it makes no sense to put the question on top, because it derives from the intro-text. I plead for giving more lines, if necessary. Peter has a good point. Bad reviews are a dime a dozen.

I removed the second paragraph from the sprinkle thread. "Their aggregate Tomatometer® critic score is compiled from reviews by individual professional film and TV critics, who are Tomatometer-approved and whose reviews are included on Rotten Tomatoes, regardless of whether the outlet for that particular review is Tomatometer-certified and publications that review entertainment content, such as websites, online video outlets, newspapers, consumer and trade magazines, alternative weeklies, podcasts, radio programs, and TV shows that have been Tomatometer-certified, regardless of the review's author status as being individually Tomatometer-approved."

@Breumaster, In think most poll takers skip to the question, so it doesn't make a difference whether it precedes or follows the question. I think those who were going to read it, will read it either way, since they want to understand the question's context. I bold the question so poll takers can find it quickly, but I also agree it makes sense to lead with it with the shortened display that now is standard.

Why do you think it does make sense? Just because people do all things with the cell phone, today? I don't like that trend. Indulging to that trend only leads to shorter texts, less to read. Lesser content to think about. It's the death of creativity. Not using AI is the real death of creativity. It's things like that. When I look in the direction of youth, there often is a severe lack of language skills. I even got the impression, it gets worse each generation. All has to be more and more easy. No real competition wanted. If there are troubles, they first call the older before trying to cope with it themselves. They stay in a mental childhood status far beyond their mid 20s. So the trend is to make all conversations shorter, easier, simpler, and in end-consequence dumber. The bad thing is that all submit into, partly because there is no other way to take part. Like here.

I agree and like the point you are making. That's why I prefer to fully explain everything and not allow the premise to be misinterpeted. But, at the same time I think good writing has always been about making it easy for the reader to understand your point by using words and themes that fully make your arguement or delve into the topic.

@Pencho15, I have seen 30 of the original 0% Tomatometer® pool of 45 movies (three titles were removed when they rose above 0% in the past year, after each getting a positive review or two). I don't think any of these movies were truly terrible and without any merit. But given they were widely distributed, I think it hard to be both: be a total disaster and be in 1000+ theaters. Plus, I can think of fair amount of worse movies I see each year. I scored those 30 titles that I have seen from the lists pretty evenly among 3/10, 4/10, and 5/10 ratings and even gave two titles 6/10 ratings for having more redeeming qualities in each than the others in the pool. I think the thing that stands out is the lack of a single positive review for all of them, given it common to see a range of critic reviews on just about every film. Plus, getting a 0% is even harder then getting a 100%, especially when it is not the goal you are striving for. Still, it averages out to about a single 0% film per year. Which is probably right, when you consider a normal statistical distribution in probability and this would be at the low end of the bell curve.

Thanks.