Badmovies.org Forum

What is the borderline between a very good bad movie and a bad good movie?
I am really curious to know, since some pretty famous movies are imo actually very bad ones (E.G The Signs) and some bad movies are actually more fun.

How do you define a 'Bad Movie'?

There are a few qualifiers
1) Is there legitimate talent behind the camera (ex. Peter Jackson did all of the special effects for his early films and they are low-budget for sure, but it also shows how dedicated he was to his craft)

2) Is the movie entertaining in the manner that it is meant to be (ex. Pieces is a Texas Chainsaw Massacre clone, but it's so ineptly done that you can't help but laugh, so it fails in this category)

3) Does the low budget help or hinder the movie (Some movies, like The Gate, try for special effects that are above their capability; while others like Halloween rely on minimal effects and more on other things a director can control, like atmosphere)
and

4) Is the movie well-written enough to work toward the desired effect (Plan 9 from Outer Space's script is a good example of too much didacticism and bad dialogue to fill out the "story" that goes on when the stock footage runs out. Army of Darkness, on the other hand, is meant to be a B-movie tribute to Harryhausen and the dialogue, particularly Ash's, is an important part of his character, although it doesn't really follow his behavior in the previous films.)

Goal vs. Execution, is a standard Standard by which to judge --
Ed Wood, who is and should be the basic touchstone in all of this, should act as a bellwether --
Watch "Bride of The Monster" carefully.  Listen to the dialogue and see how the scenes were presented.  Did the director/writer care that his "helmet" for the machine looks no better than a vegetable collander?  No!  Not for one minute!!  Is the dialogue stentorian and super-serious?  Yes!!  Is there no intentional humour at all, and does this movie take itself very very seriously?  Yes!!!  It does!!!
See all the films of Ed Wood.  Watch them carefully.  See the disparity between vision and execution.  Then watch "Robot Monster".  Get the drift? 
peter helpful/denny crane

It depends too of the number of beers that you drink watching the movie... :teddyr:

 :drink:

For me it's simple, do I like the movie, even if it's really awful, if it entertains me then it's a good movie, and yes, some movies, like Flesh Gordon and the Rapist Robots, are a lot funnier with a liberal application of beer. While others, like any of Mr. Wood's, are just so ridiculously stupid that they are fun to watch all by themselves. I think that the borderline would have to be very flexible because it would be different for each one of us, and that's what makes the world an interesting place. :teddyr:

Important point.
Intention Vs. end resault. The funnier it is, dispite its intentions, the better "Good Bad". "Bad good"...maby TITANIC....excelent FX and supporting characters, bad leads. "Sleep with the fishes, Leo!

I can't really describe it. Usually its when they are trying something serious and it comes off bady and the result is just funny. That's why I hate Troma, it like they are just trying to be corny and offensive and it just doesnt work for me.

Then again a lot of classics made by Fred Olen Ray and Don Dohler are pretty goofy but still entertaining, they know its not going to be a great movie but they're still trying.

I don't think you can make a good bad movie, as it's up to the viewer to decide the end quality. Many bad movies aren't labeled good until long after their era and are rediscovered by the next generation for what they are. Most good bad movies are labors of love, someones dream and that gives them a little something extra that not readily seen. A film they get there friends help them make and invest it all to get it done.

Bad movies are just that bad, big money behind them, big names and all the glits and glamor to go with it and it still sucks. It's hard to put your finger on it, but you know it when you see it.

Low budget helps, though it ultimately is not a factor -- As Frank Zappa says in "Cheepniz", which should be the theme song of this website, as I've championed before, "It has nothing whatever to do with the budget of the film, ALTHOUGH IT HELPS!!"

. . . and, of course, I hit the wrong button before I was done . . .
ANYWAY, take a thing like "Starcrash", which is simply odd from beginning to end:  These people had some money to spend.  Did they spend it wisely?  NO!! 
When you watch a film like "Starcrash", you must know that there had to have been dozens of different people involved in making the decisions for this film.  Production meetings HAD to have taken place -- it is impossible that they did not.  Therefore, every scene in that film, including the shooting of soldiers in bronze coffins into spaceships flying in the vacuume of space, and then have no consequence beyond broken glass, re. no outward rush of air, etc. -- This decision had to have been made with multiple people giving consent.
Wow.
Does this describe a "Borderline of Bad" or what? :tongueout:
peter johnson/denny crane