Worse Film: Pan or Jupiter Ascending

^This. At least 'Jupiter Ascending' and 'Pan' looked aesthetically pleasing.

Fantastic Four how could i forget how bad that was..oh i see why i forgot...keep playing this trash HBO and you will lose all your subscribers

What was so bad about Jupiter Ascending, I thought it was actually good. It was something that hasn't been done a million times over, it wasn't something you could neccesarily figure out from the beginning. And with Pan this story has been done so many times before they were just trying to add a new spin on it at least give them props for creative thinking. As for F4 I thought it was more interesting than the previous F4 it showed them learning to control their powers not just automatically assuming they can control these new found powers and then fighting evil with them. It actually showed these kids as human not superheroes. Movies are an individual work of art, you can't compare a Kinkade to a Monet or a Picasso, or compare circ du solé to a Broadway production. They're completely different. Just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show don't criticize every little detail.

Jupiter Ascending has its own slew of problems but it manages to be at least enjoyably bad. It's still fun to watch in spite of its flaws. Pan is dull, cliched and nothing short of cringeworthy.

That being said, Exodus: Gods & Kings, Self/Less and Jem & the Holograms were far worse films of 2015.

Pan? First off, the story is cliched. Peter being an orphan who turns out to be the chosen one from another world is a narrative that's been done to death - as are the various tropes like not believing in his destiny, encountering someone who knew his mother, having a gift from the dead parent that turns into a plot device, villain who wants to preserve their youth etc. I get that there aren't many original stories out there, but no thought or effort was put into this one at all. Everyone criticises Oz: The Great & Powerful, but that was a fantasy flick that put a lot of effort into its main plot. Not without its flaws but the story is a good one. Pan's story is played out and unoriginal. There is clearly no effort put in here. They just threw a stock chosen one narrative out there and expected people to buy it.

Going back to Oz: The Great & Powerful, it clearly respects the source material it comes from. L Frank Baum wrote about fifteen Oz books, and the filmmakers clearly did their research and took things from the established universe. Pan by contrast completely ignores any canon:
* Peter's backstory in the play and book is that he was a human boy who didn't want to grow up, ran away to Kensington Gardens and the fairies took him to Neverland. He's also a morally ambiguous trickster - not a stock chosen one.
* The events of the story take place in the Edwardian Era. This prequel for some reason puts it in World War II. A change that's not really necessary for the story, and again shows the filmmakers not caring about the property they're adapting.
* Captain Hook is always an Englishman who is possibly from the 17th or 18th century. The film makes him into an American cowboy. Again, why use the character if you're not going to actually use him? To a lesser extent, Tiger Lily for some reason becomes a white adult warrior princess. And yes, it is hugely offensive that in a tribe made up of loads of ethnicities, the leader and only one to have a role in the story is the white girl.

Artistic licence is fine. It's actually welcomed so you can put your own spin on things. But if you're not going to respect your source material, why are you even adapting it in the first place? For example, if you do a Snow White tale then you're of course going to have a princess with black hair and pale skin. If you do Cinderella, then there's going to be an abusive stepfamily and a ball where she meets the prince. None of the changes made to the source material benefited the story in any way.

There is also a weird mishmash in tone that doesn't quite fit. Some points the movie gets very cartoony - the pantomime villainy of Blackbeard, the Irish caricature that is the orphanage nun, the pirates singing "Smells Like Teen Spirit", Garrett Hedlund's performance etc. Then it'll try to go the other way and become all dark and plodding. The film can't decide if it wants to be a fun family flick like Oz: The Great & Powerful or Guardians of the Galaxy, or else a dark and serious 'adult movie for kids' like The Maze Runner or Jurassic Park. You can't have both, and the movie doesn't try to blend the silliness and seriousness in an effective way. So you're essentially watching two different stories haphazardly thrown together. The actors are all wrong for their roles too. Levi Miller tries his best, but it's not enough to save the film.

The special effects were nice though and the climax was decently put together. This movie is not appallingly bad. It's just dull, lifeless and poorly made. It's even more shocking considering Joe Wright has directed two of my favourite films in Atonement and Pride & Prejudice. But it's obvious that he has no idea how to do a fantasy film properly. At least not at the moment.