Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: zombie #1 on October 28, 2006, 11:39:41 PM



Title: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: zombie #1 on October 28, 2006, 11:39:41 PM
Do any of you think the capacity for the production so-called "bad movies" is possible anymore?

I mean think about it... 70's style crap special effects that don't quite work...dialogue that is so badly overdubbed that you can't help but laugh...plot twists that are so inconceivable that only a prosthetic dummy would fall for them.......etc. etc....

Film making has got to the stage now where all these "unintentional" mistakes can be  ironed out and glossed over during the editing stage with technology. even on a low budget.

when was the last time you saw a film that made you laugh out loud due to it's sheer incompetence?

the only "bad movies" that are made today are the ones that are genuinely bad, i.e. you really wouldn't want to see them again...not in the traditional "bad movie" sense.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Ash on October 29, 2006, 01:02:48 AM
Is it over??
No way!

Just look at filmmakers like our beloved Uwe Boll & Paul Anderson.
They have elevated bad movie making to a whole new level!

Yes they're bad...but not "bad..bad" like the oldies.

Bad filmmaking will never stop...it will only evolve into a newer kind of badness.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: LilCerberus on October 29, 2006, 01:18:48 AM
As a fan of shorts, indie productions & student films, I believe that if one is patient enough, with just the right level of idle curiosity, it is still possible.

With the advent of the newer editing & sfx technologies that you mentioned, as well as their affordability & ease of use, it's my opinion that we are now beginning to see examples of people & companies putting a little too much faith in them.

The most prominent recent example I can think of would be Timothy Hines version of The War of the Worlds. There are quite a few people on the imdb boards who just can't leave this film alone.

And let's not forget that some of the now classic films that Andrew's reviewed, such as The Creeping Terror & Manos - The Hands of Fate, were made by small timers who really had no idea what they were doing. I believe that we are now seeing something similar with home video productions, such as the works of the Polonia Brothers & Ikuzo Studios, and the Internet is dotted with all sorts of examples of rather promising looking works from "parent's garage" types of productions.

Also, with the advent of the internet, it's getting easier to find obscure productions, even recent ones, that someone wishes they'd never done.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Ash on October 29, 2006, 01:42:35 AM
Lilcerberus is right.
I've collected several friends on the Badmovies.org Myspace page who produced, directed or starred in current B-movies.

Myspace has an entire seperate area titled, "Myspace Film".
In it, you can find all kinds of seriously BAD films!

Just check out our friends list on Myspace.
"The Ghastly Love of Johnny X"
"The Horror of Cornhole Cove"
"Pot Zombies"

Yes....they're still making horrible B-movies!


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Andrew on October 29, 2006, 08:06:12 AM
Ken Begg and I have talked about this a few times.  What it comes down to is that studio productions, no matter how small, are often competent enough to be boring bad - rather than gloriously awful.  A big problem with no budget films these days is that they are such half-hearted efforts as to be unappealing.  "The Creeping Terror" had no budget, but the people who made it did expend some effort.  You can tell that they were trying to make a movie.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: daveblackeye15 on October 29, 2006, 08:14:28 AM
There will always be crappily made movies. I think you have nothing to worry about.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Doc Daneeka on October 29, 2006, 08:26:32 AM
The age of the 70's/80's style b-film (some of which were actually pretty good) is over. Nowadays, when people look for bad movies all they need do is turn to ASSylum productions. All include bad dialogue/acting, obviously ripped-off plots, technobabble, plotholes, and to top it all off, halfassed digital monsters to replace the halfassed rubber suits in days of yore. In a way, Leigh Scott and David Michael Latt are the new Corman and Arkoff, just without the creativity and social messages.

And remember, commercials for DVDs that you haven't seen gracing any local matinees are usually purty bad bets.

Oh wait! I change my mind, there may be a FEW old-school B-Movies still around if "The Gingerdead Man" is any indication!


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Yaddo 42 on October 30, 2006, 12:39:47 AM
The unintentional "bad movie" is harder to find as the awareness of camp and kitsch has gone up and irony has pervaded our pop culture. Many of the people making low budgets films these days grew up as fans of bad movies and are versed in the cliches, formulas, and references of the past. It's reached the point that throwing the names of directors good and bad into movies has become old.

There are still the well-intentioned amateurs and people with more money and access to quality equipment than talent out there. They just don't have the drive-ins and grindhouses anymore to have their stuff dumped out onto by folks out to make a buck. Like it was said above they go straight to video, direct market them, or sell or distribute them online.

There also the folks like the ones who made "Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter" who made a bad movie on purpose, to be enjoyed by fans, or be mocked by ones who think they failed , and to confuse and outrage people who either wouldn't "get" it to begin with or have a lower threshold of shock than they thought.

Bad movies are still out there, it's probably the case of that the old rules just don't apply so much. Will fans be discussing, appreciating, and having festivals around those SciFi "originals" and other recent films some day? I have no idea, the lifecycle for anything in pop culture is so much shorter now as we bombard our shortening attention spans with more and more stuff.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: zombie #1 on October 30, 2006, 01:18:04 AM
word, that was really well put yaddo42, cant front on anything you said there -  except I never want to see "jesus christ:vampire hunter", that really sounds like a move in the wrong direction, bad-movie wise, . :o(

who knows, maybe in 2040 kids will be in hysterics at Jurrasic Park and Terminator II, et al. that remains to be seen. all that we can hope for is a worldwide total nuclear meltdown and folks having to start from scratch making films on super 8 with half written scripts again...they say things go in cycles, I guess.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Foywonder on October 30, 2006, 01:26:06 AM
Sounds like what I've been talking about a lot in my reviews of late. Even the bad movies these days tend to be bad in the same uninspired ways. Its rare that you come across a film of spectacular badness these days. Most a bad but in a bland way. I can personally think of no better example than the Sci-Fi Channel's original movies. They're almost consistantly terrible but rarely in memorable fashion.

To answer the question that started this thread, as long as there are movies there will always be bad movies, but finding a true "so bad it's good" movie is becoming harder and rarer.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Zapranoth on October 30, 2006, 03:42:00 PM
I agree that entertainingly bad is becoming a narrower mark to hit.
Campy is hard to hit upon as a fluke occurrence.

We're in broad agreement that there will always be crap movies out there, but the awesomely bad ones (the ones that are stunningly bad, when there are the clear hallmarks of "good" intentions) are not coming up as often.

Bad CG, bad acting, bad writing will last forever of course.  But I don't think that's what we're really talking about here.

Are there many indie films that are really, awesomely suck-ass bad?   Like "Kiss and the Phantom of the Park" bad?  Like the Star Wars Christmas special bad?    I'm talking serious HP Lovecraft level blasphemy from beyond the stars bad...


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: zombie #1 on October 30, 2006, 08:26:38 PM
> Are there many indie films that are really,
> awesomely suck-ass bad?   Like "Kiss and the
> Phantom of the Park" bad?  Like the Star Wars
> Christmas special bad?    I'm talking serious HP
> Lovecraft level blasphemy from beyond the stars
> bad...


actually i read this thread again and Mr. Briggs makes a good point: "The Gingerdead man" . I forgot I saw this. its a new film, and it fits into the category pretty well. it's "bad" bad. check that one out.

overall though, I think my point stands.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: ulthar on October 30, 2006, 10:15:49 PM
When someone DOES try to make a campy, just-for-fun 'bad' movie, look at the reaction it gets.  My example is SNAKES ON A PLANE.  Some get it, many don't.  I think it's possible filmmakers are looking at the response and saying:

"uh uh, I am not going to waste my time.  Let me just re-hash AMERICAN PIE or pump out yet another DIE HARD-esque actioner and earn a living."

The question I think can be rephrased as "what motivates film makers into making films."  The B movies we love came largely from the love of making films.  The director might have had a message (all the anti-nuke 50's giant insect movies, for example) or simply had a story to tell, or simply wanted to tell an old story in a new visual way.  What motivates contemporary film making?

Money.  And not that from the box-office or DVD rentals.  Nah.  The modern era of film is a 90-150 minute commercial.  There is often product tie-in like action figures, McD's happy meals, and of course a BIGGIE, video games.  It all too often is not about the film anymore - the film is just the vehicle.

Just some thoughts.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Ash on October 30, 2006, 10:50:44 PM
Ulthar was pretty much right on in his last post.

The one exception I'd say is the guys over at Troma (http://www.troma.com/).
Those guys don't seem to care what anybody thinks.  They'll make tons of Grade Z movies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade-Z_movie) and money never really seems to be a factor.
I like that about them.
They seem to be out to make the best/worst films they can despite obvious budget restrictions.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: LilCerberus on October 30, 2006, 11:13:49 PM
Pardon me for getting all whiney & everything here, but how come I'm the only one on this board who ever brings up Hines' WOTW?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638
This guy wasn't going for the whole "intentional camp" thing, he was actually serious, and pretty narcissistic about it, too.

I just don't see how anyone can believe that there are no more laughably bad movies when I've seen a three hour "epic" based on a classic novel that features a guy with a fake mustache who's somehow able to overact & mumble at the same time while watching inept extras turn into dancing skeletons.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: zombie #1 on October 31, 2006, 12:19:56 AM
lilcerberus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pardon me for getting all whiney & everything
> here, but how come I'm the only one on this board
> who ever brings up Hines' WOTW?
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638

...just had a look at that link...looks promising :(


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Yaddo 42 on October 31, 2006, 06:01:27 AM
The problem with that version of War of the Worlds is that it is a hard movie to "share" with others. You can convince people to throw away 90 minutes or so of their time for an entertainingly bad movie, even less time for some of the stuff out there now and not just those Charles Band cut-and-paste clip show re-edits. But three frickin' hours that feels even longer! It's an oddity that stands out, but will people watch it down the line other than as an endurance contest?

From what I've read Hines seemed to think, or at least claim, he made the best film he could for the money. The cynic in me can't decide if he was sincere in his misguided effort (the length argues in favor of it) or was giving the finger to anyone who bought it (and I'm one of the ones who paid their $8.76 at Wal-Mart) or tried to sit through it (the FX and the endless and padded credits argue for this to me).

While I wouldn't want scads of films like "Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter", I can at least respect the makers honesty on the commentary that they were making a fun, stupid, cheap film in their spare time and were trying to have fun doing it.

Plus lionizing the good old days in misguided in any area. Many of the films we discuss and adore here were made by cynical producers who often had a title, poster, and/or ad campaign in mind and cranked out the film to fit, They didn't want (good or "bad") art they wanted a good return on their money, just like many, if not most, of the kids attending the movies originally couldn't have cared less about the story, effects, etc. They just wanted to get away from the parents, sit in the dark theater or the back of a car at a drive-in, and neck or more if they could get away with it.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Flangepart on October 31, 2006, 11:51:11 AM
Foywonder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like what I've been talking about a lot in
> my reviews of late. Even the bad movies these days
> tend to be bad in the same uninspired ways. Its
> rare that you come across a film of spectacular
> badness these days. Most a bad but in a bland way.
> I can personally think of no better example than
> the Sci-Fi Channel's original movies. They're
> almost consistantly terrible but rarely in
> memorable fashion.
>
> To answer the question that started this thread,
> as long as there are movies there will always be
> bad movies, but finding a true "so bad it's good"
> movie is becoming harder and rarer.

You make a great poind, Scott, about Blandness.
PLAN 9 is bad, but never bland! Its has a spirited feel, even as you realise "He said what!?" or "Dudly Manlove? Who's he?" The closest a Sci-Fi channel flick is the MAMMOTH! flick, as that had some good lines, a cast with a taste for cheese, and a sence of fun...yet, even that did not totaly meet the description, did it?
Ah weel, it beat out most of the crap they show!
Production values may improve, but concepts, acting, and attitude can still amuse.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: BeyondTheGrave on October 31, 2006, 01:27:01 PM
One thing that I don't see in B-Movies anymore is female nudity. I'm not trying to come out as a perv or anything but I could watch a B-movie from late 70s and 80s and 95% of the time their would be nudity .Now theirs none. Wonder what happened.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Derf on October 31, 2006, 03:29:25 PM
rich andrini Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing that I don't see in B-Movies anymore is
> female nudity. I'm not trying to come out as a
> perv or anything but I could watch a B-movie from
> late 70s and 80s and 95% of the time their would
> be nudity .Now theirs none. Wonder what happened.


It passed "out of style" with the feminist movement's claim that it degrades women. I'm not arguing this point, but now films seem to go out of their way to show naked men (at least men's backsides). Is that degrading, too?

Anyway, as Yaddo 42 pointed out, we are too aware of camp these days, so too many low-budget film makers see that they have no real chance to compete with the big studios, so they go for "camp" instead, trying to make an intentionally bad movie. I've seen the same type of thing happening all too often (and have been guilty of it myself) in other areas: When I know I am about to mess something up, I will try to make it hilariously bad. For example, if I am singing and miss a note, I'll then go into a bad Shatner impression or a bad operatic bass impression, as if to tell my audience, "Yes, I can't do this well, so let me show you instead just how cornball I can be." This works occasionally, in small doses. In a 90-minute movie, it is painful. I wanted to like The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra when I read about it. I really did. Then I saw that, instead of staying true to the monster movies of the fifties that they claimed to be honoring, they went for campy comedy instead, and they simply were not skillful enough performers to pull off camp at that level. Comedy is difficult to write and very difficult to perform well, and while I'll chuckle a bit at a 10-30 second "look at how much I can ham it up" shtick, I just don't find it amusing for 90 minutes at a stretch. Ed Wood wasn't going for camp; he was just trying to make the best movies he could on the budget he had; he believed he was making good movies. That's what makes them so delightfully bad. The makers of Scream and its sequels were going for camp, and it just got old, fast.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: LilCerberus on November 02, 2006, 02:44:18 AM
Okay, so maybe the best example I could come up with wasn't the best example.

Still, I feel somewhat optimistic about the future of the laughably bad.

For example, I recall reading an article in TV Guide back in the mid '90s in which Joel & The Bots lamented that they were running out of classic baddies to mock. At the time, I recall thinking to myself, "Has this guy ever been to a video store, or had insomnia & had to watch whatever the hell was on?" And they still kept finding material after that.

As for the concerns over the unwatchably bad films of today, I'd have to say that I've endured my fare share of classic dulloramas like The Wizard of Mars, with more punishment to come.

Finally, concerning the issue over the future of intended cheese, it's my opinion that Donald Pleasence addressed this back in 1984 in Terror in the Aisles during a clip from Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.

These things come in cycles.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: raj on November 02, 2006, 03:02:59 PM
I don't know if we'll ever see another "golden age" of bad or B movies, but there are people out there trying.  Charles Band, as has already been pointed out, has made some wonderfully bad movies -- heck at the end of Puppetmaster they used a stuffed dog.  You can't get much cheesier than that.

And the folks who made Vamps: Deadly Dreamgirls and its sequel (which features copious amounts of female toplessness) and the folks at timewarp films http://www.timewarpfilms.com/HomePage.html
are working on low budget b movies.


Title: Re: is the age of the "bad movie" over?
Post by: Yaddo 42 on November 02, 2006, 05:33:33 PM
But will they be enjoyed and appreciated the way some of the bad classics from the past still are? Or rediscovered by new fans later on?

There are way more infomercials, lousy syndicated reruns, crappy talk shows, and stuff like "Cheaters" on late at night than "late late movie" shows or horror host shows. Although this site has shown me there are more of them out there than I would have guessed. Even those are working from mostly the same pool of older films. Maybe if there were a new wave of local independent stations with schedules to fill.

There are tons of specialty and niche movie channels on digital cable and satellite now, when I hang out with a friend of mine who has it I sometimes check channels like Showtime Beyond. Yet I find myself saying "I've seen this" way more than I should. To me, since channel ownership has consolidated in the US and with the rise of Fox and the "netlets" (WB and UPN, now CW and MY network), I seem to "discover" films I like (good or bad) on TV less and less. Video on demand and stuff like Netflix allows you to sample offbeat or unknown movies, but that's seeking something out as opposed to running across it while flipping through the channels late at night or on a lazy rainy Sunday afternoon.

Even the way we find out about movies has changed. There are people who seem to be much better at generating interest and hype for their movies than they are at making them, see Timothy Hines for one. I'm not even thinking about studio films here. Maybe this just makes them the new William Castles and David Friedmans, but it sure doesn't feel like it.


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: Jack on November 15, 2006, 08:22:39 PM
Personally I think we are in a golden age of bad movies.  We've got this whole direct-to-video market that didn't even exist way back when, and I, for one, am positively in heaven.  Sure, the vast majority of these aren't memorable, and you couldn't really get a group of friends together to laugh at them, but they're still plenty good enough for a bad movie lover to fill up lots of shelf space with DVD's.  Between the Sci-Fi Channel, Charles Band, Jim Wynorski, The Asylum, Unified Film Organization, etc., I don't see that we've got anything to worry about. 



Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: RCMerchant on November 16, 2006, 02:04:05 PM
I dunno-I saw a fairly recent movie called VAMPIRELLA with Roger Daltrey,of all people,and it was actually an entertaing piece of slop.Jim Wyorinski did it I think. Its odd, but the classic cheese of today was ignored as total garbage in its time. I was looking through an old issue of FAMOUS MONSTERS mag from 1962,and Joe(GREMLINS) Dante wrote an articale on the worst horror films of all time.Many are favorites among B-movie fans now,others just dull,and some I've never even heard of-
1.ADVENTURE ISLAND(1947) w/Rory(MOTEL HELL) Calhoun and Rhonda Fleming.(?)
2.A-Haunting We Will Go(1941) w/Laurel and Hardy
3.the AMAZING TRANSPARENT MAN(1957) I rember seeing this years and years ago-but can't recall alot.
4.ATTACK of the 50 foot WOMAN(1958) Need I commenT? A beloved CLASSIC of B-cinema! ''SILLY"
5.the BLOB(1958) Even people who arn't B movie freaks like this one! "How low can you get?''
6.the BRAIN EATERS(1958) I can't comment,as Ive never seen it."grade z quickie"
7.BRIDE of the MONSTER(1955) See other thread. "card-boring"
8.the CAT CREEPS (1946)
9.CRY of the WEREWOLF (1944) Dante deems it dull-I agree.
10.the CYCLOPS (1955) I LOVED this movie
11.DEVIL GIRL from MARS(1955) I enjoyed this one...kinda slow. Dante calls it "juvenille".
12.FIRE MAIDENS from OUTER SPACE (1955) 
13.FRANKENSTIEN'S DAUGHTER (1958) CLASSIC.
14.GENUIS at WORK(1946) Brown +Carny,and Lugosi.Never seen it.
15.GIGANTIS,theFIRE MONSTER (1959) aka GODZILLA,s REVENGE.I like ALL the Godzilla movies.Dante-"another juvenile monster epic.
16.GIANT from the UNKNOWN(1960) Dante-"tiresome."
17.the GIRL from SCOTLAND YARD(1937) HUH?
18.GOLIATH and the DRAGON(1961) -"--loaded with phoney monsters,snake pits,and gushing blood." I GOTTA SEE IT.
19.HAVE ROCKET WILL TRAVEL(1959) 3 Stooges + cheezy fx.Dante-"What a bore!"
20.the HIDEOUS SUN DEMON(1959)A cult classic!Dante-"Routine D science fiction."
21.HOW to MAKE a MONSTER(1958) Dante-''a grim procession of horrible faces". YEAH!
22.INVASION of the SAUCERMEN(1957) Dante thought it didn't make sense.
23.I WAS a TEEN AGE FRANKENSTIEN + TEENAGE WEREWOLF(1957) "Two of the most inept, degrading things to ever be ground out of Hollywood".
24.JUNGLE CAPTIVE(1945)
25.KING of the ZOMBIES (1941)
26.KING of the ROCKETMEN(1951) "juvenille space opera." Dante likes the term "juvenille".
27.LEECH WOMAN(1960) "contrived bit of nothing."
28. MAD DOCTOR of MARKET ST.(1942)w/Lionel Atwill"plotless."
29.MAN BEAST(1955)
30.MISSLE to the MOON(1959) "didn't take off". This is a personal favorite of mine!
31.MONSTER from GREEN HELL(1957) "grade B children's show."
32.the MAD MONSTER(1942) "awful"
33.the MUMMY'sCURSE(1945)I found it dull,too.
34.the MYSTERIOUS DOCTOR(1943) ???
35.NIGHT of the BLOOD BEAST(1958) "plot was old hat,and the writing amateur" I love this one too!
36.here we go...PLAN 9from OUTER SPACE(1956) "There is the distinct possibilty it was the cheapest film ever made" "awful","laughable","poor". So whats yer point,Joe?
37.REVOLT of the ZOMBIES(1936)"dull"
38.SHE-DEMONS(1959) w/Irish McCulla "formula"
39.the SMILING GHOST (1941)????
40.SOS COASTGUARD(1937) w/Bela Lugosi."very paltry and not a little ridiculous."
41..TEEN-AGE CAVEMAN(1958) "inept". Love this one too!
42.12 to the MOON (1960) 'trite,badly acted" .....ran out of room! Sorry...more to come....(I can hear it now..."NO! PLEASE STOP!")


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on November 16, 2006, 03:47:24 PM
I wonder if Joe Dante has had any second thoughts, some 44 years later, about any of the movies he chose for that list.

I must admit, I have seen only eight of the films on the list,

2
5
19
23 IWATW
26
36
40
41

but, there is not a film of those eight, that I did not enjoy.

On the other hand, while I have seen only two of Joe Dante's films, "Inner Soace" and "Twilight Zone: the Movie," neither one did I find as enjoyable as those eight.


Title: Re: Age of the b-movie
Post by: Andrew on November 16, 2006, 04:45:05 PM
I wonder if the changes to society and entertainment, over time, make it so that those of us who are younger enjoy these films.   Maybe the difference in the way people talk and interact is, in itself, entertaining.  That and what is considered normal.  How many wives get up and fix their husband strawberries and cream for breakfast?  (On the other hand, maybe that was amusing to audiences from the same era as well).  Something to think about. 


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: RCMerchant on November 16, 2006, 10:04:16 PM
Hi. AS warned...cont:
43. MACABRE(1957) Dante sez:"Too grim for real punch". Huh.
44.TWO LOST WORLDS(1950) Joe says it uses too much footage from ONE MILLION BC. I LIKE ONE MILLION BC!!!
45.Now...this one has really got me puzzled...the UNKNOWN TERROR(1957) In fact,I'm going to post it in the WHAT IS THIS heading
46.RODAN (1957) !!!!!!!!
47.the WOMAN EATER(1959) "pretty awful". LOVE that title! never seen the movie.
48.ZOMBIES ON BROADWAY(1945) with Bela Lugosi(again)."Pretty funny except when it's not supposed to be" NOW you got the picture,Joe!!! Thats what makes a BAD MOVIE GOOD!
   Like BSK sed,about second thoughts...when I was a kid and saw DRACULA vs.FRANKENSTIEN, I HATED it. Now 36 years  later, I love it. 36 years....has it been that long....and I'm STILL watching this kinda stuff....wow. I must be mental. I think that bad movies never die...they just have to age...like cheese.


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on November 17, 2006, 01:22:15 AM
We are in the Fourth Age of Bad movies.  The Golden Age was the 1950s Sci-Fi flicks, the Silver Age was 1960s-70s drive in exploitation, the Bronze Age was the late 80's/early 90's low budget Direct to VHS boom, and now we have the DTDVD market where anyone with a camera can get his film released to Blockbuster, we have SciFi Channel making terrible films so fast they premeire more than one a week at times.  Many of these are terrible horror or sci-fi films, but we've also got plenty of DTV sequels in name only to many popular (and unpopular) films, such as extra Single White Females, Wild Things, Roadhouses, Behind Enemy Lines, The Skulls, Species, Hollow Mans, Wargames, Cruel Intensions, Every Disney Film, Air Buds, Dukes of Hazzards, The Nets, and many many more.  It's a great time for bad cinema, which also makes it a horrible time for those caught in the crossfire of love/hate relationships with terrible films.


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: KYGOTC on December 03, 2006, 12:40:01 AM


Ya know, yer right. The possibility of a good b-movie comming out nowadays is often a chance slim to none. What with all the fancy pantsy "special" effects and the lack of interest in aliens and monsters that people have now and every "horror" movie now has to be some sort of slasher flik. Thats why I thank God for "Snakes on a Plane".


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: Dennis on December 03, 2006, 02:41:45 AM
I've seen most of the movies on RCMerchant's list, usually sitting in the dark of a walk-in theater. During the week and on Sunday's they would show the standard A type movies, but on Saturdays they would open at 11 am and show double features like Devil Girl from Mars and Fire Maidens from Outer Space, there would be previews of coming attractions that were usually better than the movies ever would be. I realize that the people who made these movies were trying to make money so low or no budget was the rule but the fx available at the time were limited so it was easy to see that the monster, giant bug etc. was a double exposure or a minature stop motion effect. Now with cg technology it is possible, if you have the budget, to film a very believable creature or what ever it is you want on the screen, unfortunately any one with a camcorder and a personal computer has access to the same stuff, so just about any one who wants to make a movie and put it out on dvd can and apparently does, most of them have no talent at all so they can't make a good bad movie, just bad movies. I have to say that unless a movie is made as a parody of these great B movies all we're going to get are bad movies. I actually find this depressing.       


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: Jack on December 04, 2006, 08:45:07 AM


Ya know, yer right. The possibility of a good b-movie comming out nowadays is often a chance slim to none. What with all the fancy pantsy "special" effects and the lack of interest in aliens and monsters that people have now and every "horror" movie now has to be some sort of slasher flik. Thats why I thank God for "Snakes on a Plane".

I don't know, I think there are a lot of so-bad-they're-good monster movies coming out these days.  Just looking through My DVD collection:

Arachnid
Breeders
Raptor
Centipede
Dragon Storm
Frankenfish
Hammerhead
House of the Dead 1 & 2
Insecticidal
Killer Rats
King of the Lost World
Lethal Target
Pinata:  Survival Island
Python
Spiders
Sasquatch Hunters
Shrieker
Shapeshifter

I'd call all of those movies entertaining, and few if any are "bland".  They're all a lot of fun - at least I think they are.  And I've got a pretty small DVD collection.  There are at least a couple dozen more I'd buy if I had the money.  If I were to add all the boring ones to the list, there would be at least 30 or 40 more.  I'm not sure that the '50s and '60s even had a larger volume of cheesy monster movies, and lets not forget that most of those were bland and boring - we tend to only remember the good ones today.


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: Dennis on December 04, 2006, 10:54:07 PM


Ya know, yer right. The possibility of a good b-movie comming out nowadays is often a chance slim to none. What with all the fancy pantsy "special" effects and the lack of interest in aliens and monsters that people have now and every "horror" movie now has to be some sort of slasher flik. Thats why I thank God for "Snakes on a Plane".

I don't know, I think there are a lot of so-bad-they're-good monster movies coming out these days.  Just looking through My DVD collection:

Arachnid
Breeders
Raptor
Centipede
Dragon Storm
Frankenfish
Hammerhead
House of the Dead 1 & 2
Insecticidal
Killer Rats
King of the Lost World
Lethal Target
Pinata:  Survival Island
Python
Spiders
Sasquatch Hunters
Shrieker
Shapeshifter

I'd call all of those movies entertaining, and few if any are "bland".  They're all a lot of fun - at least I think they are.  And I've got a pretty small DVD collection.  There are at least a couple dozen more I'd buy if I had the money.  If I were to add all the boring ones to the list, there would be at least 30 or 40 more.  I'm not sure that the '50s and '60s even had a larger volume of cheesy monster movies, and lets not forget that most of those were bland and boring - we tend to only remember the good ones today.

I think it's a matter of perception and interaction between the audience and the movie which is rare these days. In the 50's and early 60's at the walk-in when the audience of kids and teenagers got that first look at the cheesey creature or what ever and it caused a I paid my money and waited 40 minutes for this stupid thing reaction there would be hooting and hollering and flying popcorn boxes (the rectangular boxes could be flattened out and flew just like a frisbee) by the same token if something was scary or good it would get a reaction, the audience was involved even if the movie was bad. Over time as the "B" movies slowly changed to what they are today  this involvement faded away, even adults at the "A" movies would applaud if they liked it, I've even seen a movie (A Man For All Seasons) get a standing ovation, now though you pay your $10 or so, watch the movie, and leave, maybe talk about it later or mabe not .
 I've seen about half the movies on the list and while I will remember to look for the ones I haven't seen, I have to say that while most that I've seen were ok only two, Frankenfish and Spiders grabbed me, there should be some more there that will do the same I hope. I think that most horror/sci-fi movies these days are not really good enough to be great, but thanks to the advances in fx are not bad enough to be  considered cheesey.

Now not to change the subject there is a movie that I would recomend, that's Dog Soldiers, if you like werewolves this is a real fun movie, at least I think it is.


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: Famous Mortimer on January 12, 2007, 02:07:59 PM
I just think we've got rose-tinted spectacles about the movies of the past. We don't remember the acres of boring, dull old films because no-one bothers thinking about them or saving them to show to the public. We do see more of the films of now because they're out now (obviously) and the level of true, hilariously bad films is about the same as it ever was.


Title: BAD MOVIE a thing of the past .... NO WAY!
Post by: CheezeFlixz on January 12, 2007, 04:32:44 PM
I watched a film last night , a new release called "SHOCKWAVE!" why was it called Shockwave I have no idea as the movie has nothing to do with the title. The IMDB title is A.I. Assult (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468547/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468547/)) released by LionGate and the Production Company was CineTel (Which puts out a lot of cheap DTV movies) The story is basicily "The Curse of the Komodo" with the word 'Komodo' struck out and the word 'robot' penciled in, same script pretty much.
This movie was so cheap and so bad that I was really laughting out loud. Large boulder that moved when you bumped into them, cheesy dialog, bad acting, over acting and a bunch of Sci-Fi shows 2nd stringers. The Doctor for Voyager, Worf fron ST TNG, Lennier from Babylon 5, Sulu from Star Trek just to name a few. The STARS some 3rd and 4th string actor were weak, the errors were many, the FX was cheesy and it was fun to watch!

So are BAD MOVIE a thing of the past .... NO WAY! 


Title: Re: BAD MOVIE a thing of the past .... NO WAY!
Post by: zombie #1 on January 12, 2007, 04:36:04 PM
I watched a film last night , a new release called "SHOCKWAVE!" why was it called Shockwave I have no idea as the movie has nothing to do with the title. The IMDB title is A.I. Assult ([url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468547/[/url] ([url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468547/[/url])) released by LionGate and the Production Company was CineTel (Which puts out a lot of cheap DTV movies) The story is basicily "The Curse of the Komodo" with the word 'Komodo' struck out and the word 'robot' penciled in, same script pretty much.
This movie was so cheap and so bad that I was really laughting out loud. Large boulder that moved when you bumped into them, cheesy dialog, bad acting, over acting and a bunch of Sci-Fi shows 2nd stringers. The Doctor for Voyager, Worf fron ST TNG, Lennier from Babylon 5, Sulu from Star Trek just to name a few. The STARS some 3rd and 4th string actor were weak, the errors were many, the FX was cheesy and it was fun to watch!

So are BAD MOVIE a thing of the past .... NO WAY! 



sounds good!

locked.


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: JaseSF on January 12, 2007, 07:22:24 PM
The major difference is today's bad movies are often marketed as big budget blockbusters (especially if they happen to be YET ANOTHER POINTLESS REMAKE) whereas yesteryear's hardly had any budget at all and oodles and oodles more charm and oomph in many cases. Besides as long as we have directors like Uwe Boll, we'll have bad movies. 


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: Fausto on January 16, 2007, 10:12:33 AM
Think of it this way-its a damn good thing there are people like us who love and want these kinds of movies to be remembered. We may watch them over and over again, but there will always be a new generation of fans waiting to experience them for the first time. Viva le B-Film!


Title: Re: BAD MOVIE a thing of the past .... NO WAY!
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on January 16, 2007, 06:07:20 PM
I watched a film last night , a new release called "SHOCKWAVE!" why was it called Shockwave I have no idea as the movie has nothing to do with the title. The IMDB title is A.I. Assult ([url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468547/[/url] ([url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468547/[/url])) released by LionGate and the Production Company was CineTel (Which puts out a lot of cheap DTV movies) The story is basicily "The Curse of the Komodo" with the word 'Komodo' struck out and the word 'robot' penciled in, same script pretty much.
This movie was so cheap and so bad that I was really laughting out loud. Large boulder that moved when you bumped into them, cheesy dialog, bad acting, over acting and a bunch of Sci-Fi shows 2nd stringers. The Doctor for Voyager, Worf fron ST TNG, Lennier from Babylon 5, Sulu from Star Trek just to name a few. The STARS some 3rd and 4th string actor were weak, the errors were many, the FX was cheesy and it was fun to watch!

So are BAD MOVIE a thing of the past .... NO WAY! 



Shackwave was originally titled AI Assult, it is directed by Jim Wynorski, who used to do fun movies like Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-o-rama, but now just remakes Curse of the Komodo (http://tarstarkas.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=86&Itemid=46) so he can get free trips to Hawaii.  He also directed Komodo vs Cobra (http://tarstarkas.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=322&Itemid=46), which is almost identical to Curse of the Komodo, even having three os the same actors and the same white house used as a set. (Also, only 30 seconds of Komodo vs. Cobra action)


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: Jack on January 16, 2007, 06:53:25 PM
Curse of the Komodo is a favorite of mine - what can even be said about that blond in the white tank top?  Hubba Hubba.  I loved the way the fighter jets kept changing from single engine to twin engine in every-other scene, and then they fired napalm missiles at their targets (I'm pretty sure napalm only comes in bombs).  And even though the island was at least several miles across and covered in jungle, it was just naturally assumed that two fighter jets could wipe out every last living thing on it. 

I agree entirely about A.I. Assault and Komodo vs. Cobra, they were both extremely weak remakes of Curse.  One of them actually used several pages of the script from Curse of the Komodo.  Imagine my surprise when watching the movie for the first time and being able to recite the dialogue before the characters spoke it.  I used to really like Wynorsky's stuff, but he just seems to be getting lazy now. 


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: CheezeFlixz on January 16, 2007, 07:25:14 PM
Shockwave appeared to have been filmed in Hawaii too. Likely at a state park as they made there way through the dense jungle, you can see the paved path they are walking on. Clearly they couldn't afford a steadi-cam and there was the stock footage of jets and helicopters. I'd guess they were filmed as they flew in and out of the local base they in Hawaii. I need to watch it again, it's a modern day bad movie with moving boulders, bad acting, poor dialog and cheezy characters.


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: Joe on January 17, 2007, 07:17:23 AM
agreed, the bulls**t they put DTDVD isnt even enjoyable(even when your drunk!) they are bad not good-bad just bad bad. the feel of those cheesy 80's flicks( my favs) is over. even if there is a monster in it that is practical(not cgi) it lacks something i think it may be the warm film feel, since all those s**t flicks are shot on digital it feel empty to me. idk but among those DTDVD disasters i think the most painful one i had to sit through yet was "Blood Relic"............ holy f**kin christ, this movie has no redeeming qualities what so ever. the acting is garbage, if you've ever watched anyones home made movies and listened to the way they "Act" picture that times 20. a s**tty looking killer(the beastie on the cover is nowhere to be f**kin found) THE ARTWORK HAS ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE WHAT SO EVER THERE IS NO SKELETON GUY! not to mention THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS MOVIE TAKES PLACE IN A GODDAMNED AIR BASE TURNED MUSEUM! im just so mad cause i cant belive this garbage is released or that the film makers actually think this s**t is anygood! it makes me so angry! i just hope Blockbuster will pick up my flick , that is if it doesnt get anywhere in a film festival.   


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: Torgo on January 17, 2007, 05:32:07 PM
I got to (unfortunately) see Pinata: Survival Island not too long ago.

(http://www.cathuria.com/bcd/pinata02.jpg)

I think that movie can rank up there with some classic awful movies. 


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: WingedSerpent on January 17, 2007, 08:21:29 PM
As long as producers have nephews..there will be bad movies


Title: Re: is the age of the \
Post by: Famous Mortimer on January 18, 2007, 04:47:12 AM
I got to (unfortunately) see Pinata: Survival Island not too long ago.

([url]http://www.cathuria.com/bcd/pinata02.jpg[/url])

I think that movie can rank up there with some classic awful movies. 

We have a channel in the UK that seems to specialise showing terrible films like that - Zone Horror. The Pinata film was especially bad though.