Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: masterdebater on August 20, 2008, 06:35:06 AM



Title: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: masterdebater on August 20, 2008, 06:35:06 AM
 I have loved B-Movies and film in general since childhood. Like everyone else here its someting that provides entertainment, a hobby, a collection and the talking point for a reasonable percentage of my interaction with friends and on the net.
 During some of those conversations and while reading the posts here I have been aware of the distinction the purist will make between the 'B-movie' proper and the other, forgotten, low budget or 'out of the mainstream' movies that we all lump together under the banner of B-movies.
 I think that we need a better general term for this particular niche of film that we find ourselves attracted to.
 I think the terms B-movie, bad movie or kitsch movie dont really cover the spectrum fully. What do you think is the best term to describe the kind of films we are talking about on this site?


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Psycho Circus on August 20, 2008, 07:12:29 AM
Trash  :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Dennis on August 20, 2008, 08:44:38 AM
I've always liked my wife's term for the movies I watch, "Class Z S%#**y Film"


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 20, 2008, 11:39:53 AM
I have loved B-Movies and film in general since childhood. Like everyone else here its someting that provides entertainment, a hobby, a collection and the talking point for a reasonable percentage of my interaction with friends and on the net.
 During some of those conversations and while reading the posts here I have been aware of the distinction the purist will make between the 'B-movie' proper and the other, forgotten, low budget or 'out of the mainstream' movies that we all lump together under the banner of B-movies.
 I think that we need a better general term for this particular niche of film that we find ourselves attracted to.
 I think the terms B-movie, bad movie or kitsch movie dont really cover the spectrum fully. What do you think is the best term to describe the kind of films we are talking about on this site?
The term "B Movie" is certainly banded about this forum quite a lot, but BAD does not necessarily mean "B."  For example, XANADU is a truly BAD movie that had an "A" budget.  On the other hand, CARNIVAL OF SOULS is a truly low-budget "B" movie that despite it's many shortcomings and technical flaws could be described as "bad", but really is not BAD at all! 


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Kester Pelagius on August 20, 2008, 11:52:56 AM
Bad is subjective.  Not everyone has seen Xanadu.  The again not everyone has seen Zardoz.  I think Zardoz is great.  It's essential SF viewing.

Xanadu?  Never cared.  It's, what, a roller skating musical?  Doesn't appeal to me. Then again that's just me, it's a matter of taste.  OTOH some might say that anyone who likes Zardoz lacks taste.  Me, I say anyone who can't see the humor of the flick is taking life (and the movie) way to seriously.  It's an absurdist fantasy that just plain hilariously bad.   Now if anyone besides Sean Connery was in it I may feel differently.  I think that's really what makes Zardos must viewing, the fact it stars Jame Bond.  :teddyr:


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 20, 2008, 12:46:01 PM
Bad is subjective... 
That's certainly the case with your... er, "our" list in your thread about SF B movies...

...Not everyone has seen Xanadu.  The again not everyone has seen Zardoz.  I think Zardoz is great.  It's essential SF viewing.Xanadu?  Never cared.  It's, what, a roller skating musical?  Doesn't appeal to me. Then again that's just me, it's a matter of taste.  OTOH some might say that anyone who likes Zardoz lacks taste.  Me, I say anyone who can't see the humor of the flick is taking life (and the movie) way to seriously.  It's an absurdist fantasy that just plain hilariously bad.   Now if anyone besides Sean Connery was in it I may feel differently.  I think that's really what makes Zardos must viewing, the fact it stars Jame Bond.  :teddyr:
Why are we on SF again?  What's your point?  It's not about who's seen the movies or not.  If you'd seen XANADU, I'm confident you'd agree it's BAD.  Nonetheless, this thread is about defining a term.  My point is that "B" is not necessarily "BAD." 


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: masterdebater on August 20, 2008, 12:49:10 PM
I certainly agree with your views on Zardoz Kester, I love Zardoz but the fact that I love it means it's not bad. Cant say I've seen Xanadu.

I really feel that the term B-movie is a purist term for those films made as supporting features. I really feel that calling movies that fit into a this niche 'bad' is also wrong. Some of the films reviewed here I hold as classics of thier genre.

Guilty pleasures is the best way I can explain how I feel about these films but that makes them sound like sex aids!

Trash and Z-list too, feel like we arent giving these hidden gems thier full credit.

I think we need something more positive.

 


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: JaseSF on August 20, 2008, 01:16:27 PM
I like "Cult Movies" myself although one could argue that's too wide-ranging. Then again, I'm a lover of blaxploitation, exploitation, kung fu, sci-fi, fantasy, horror, animation, heck sometimes even film noir, mystery, western and war films get lumped into the equation.  I do believe "B-movie" ties into the classic "B-picture", a lower budget film added as a bonus that played in addition to an A-picture at theaters in the old days. Nowadays we tend to think of B-movies as any film that includes certain elements (be it a monster of some sort, Kung Fu fighting, a hero with his shirt ripped off, scantily clad women to up the exploitation factor, much of its media promising thrills most often the film can never truly deliver upon) and often consider Drive-In fare and direct to video releases to be Bs too.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Underbelly on August 20, 2008, 01:16:27 PM
This is a pointless thread but I will say don't confuse B-movie with Bad movie. They are not the same thing. A b movie can be a good or even great movie. The thing is, if you are trying to categorizing films you will end up with 200 different categories and still that won't be enough, so give it up.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: AnubisVonMojo on August 20, 2008, 01:18:28 PM
Meh, I don't see the need to define terms. Anymore I think "B-movie" is a blanket term that applies to anything with less than a Hollywood budget, while "bad movie" is anything cheesy or goofy that most people would watch and either turn off or just come away from scratching their heads and wondering why such a thing would be made in the first place. Those are my definitions. Everybody's definition varies from person to person and no new blanket term needs to be made, because that term will have the same issue.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Kester Pelagius on August 20, 2008, 01:51:58 PM
AnubisVonMojo,

Love the avatar.  And you're right, it's ALL pretty much subjective.

Allhallowsday,

Uhm, what?  "It's not about who's seen the movies or not." You counter your own argument: "If you'd seen XANADU, I'm confident you'd agree it's BAD."

As the old saying goes: SEEING is believing.  Whether a movie is considered "good" or "bad" is largely a judgement call, which makes it subjective, ergo my attempt to illustrate the point citing the movie you mentioned (Xanadu) with Zardoz.

However Underbelly states the point even more clearly.  Bad DOES NOT EQUATE TO B-Movie.  A B-movie can be bad, but not ALL B-movies are bad.  However some b-movies are so bad that they get a "cult" following and thus become cult movies, witness TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.  There was a time that only hardcore gore hounds liked that movie and movies like it, which were few and far between.  Today we have an entire new cinematic genre, the "torture porn" horror.

Is that a good thing?  I'd say not.  Are the movies good?  Again it's a matter of opinion, which makes it subjective.  But are they "B-movies"?

Yes and no.  They are "B" style movies produced by major studios with "A" budgets.

But what does that mean?

As I stated in the 100 essential SF B-movies thread all that "B" meant, in it's original coinage, was that a moivie was a second string production using second string talent and costumes either inherited or "borrowed" from other productions.  Thus when a "A" feature wrapped a "B" movie might get the use of it's costumes and/or sets.  A prime example of this is the first ISLA movie, which used, IIRC, the sets from Hogan's Heroes just prior to their slated demolition.

Klar?


Title: It's not about who's seen any movie or not.
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 20, 2008, 03:59:15 PM
Allhallowsday, Uhm, what?  "It's not about who's seen the movies or not." You counter your own argument: "If you'd seen XANADU, I'm confident you'd agree it's BAD."
First, I made no argument.  Second, I wrote "If you'd..." as in "If you had..."  the operative word being "had."  We both cite examples (though I've seen yours and don't think, for one, it's all that "bad.")  :wink:  (I know I know!)  I state again, the point isn't who has seen a particular film or not, regardless of what anyone - or everyone - thinks about any such film, whether "good" or "bad".  The point was to define the term "B-movie."  Defining a term is not "subjective."  Use of the term, however, may be "subjective."  Third, that's some handy editing you got there, ignoring the point of part of what you quote.   :lookingup: Here:
... Nonetheless, this thread is about defining a term.  My point is that "B" is not necessarily "BAD."


As the old saying goes: SEEING is believing.  Whether a movie is considered "good" or "bad" is largely a judgement call, which makes it subjective, ergo my attempt to illustrate the point citing the movie you mentioned (Xanadu) with Zardoz.
As I wrote, what's yer point?  It seems beside the purpose of this thread.  Additionally, and believe you me, everybody knows XANADU is bad.  But that was not my point.  Maybe there are people who think it's good!  If you haven't seen any particular film, refraining from an opinion is just good sense, so I think we agree there. 

However Underbelly states the point even more clearly.  Bad DOES NOT EQUATE TO B-Movie.  A B-movie can be bad, but not ALL B-movies are bad.  However some b-movies are so bad that they get a "cult" following and thus become cult movies, witness TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.  There was a time that only hardcore gore hounds liked that movie and movies like it, which were few and far between.  Today we have an entire new cinematic genre, the "torture porn" horror.  Is that a good thing?  I'd say not.  Are the movies good?  Again it's a matter of opinion, which makes it subjective.  But are they "B-movies"?  Yes and no.  They are "B" style movies produced by major studios with "A" budgets.  But what does that mean?

As I stated in the 100 essential SF B-movies thread all that "B" meant, in it's original coinage, was that a moivie was a second string production using second string talent and costumes either inherited or "borrowed" from other productions.  Thus when a "A" feature wrapped a "B" movie might get the use of it's costumes and/or sets.  A prime example of this is the first ISLA movie, which used, IIRC, the sets from Hogan's Heroes just prior to their slated demolition.  Klar?
About as "klar" as the use of that "word."  You aren't quoting Underbelly (whose posting is a bit rude) so he didn't actually state "Bad DOES NOT EQUATE TO B-Movie."  Again, this thread was about defining a term, an oft-used term, "B-MOVIE."  If you read my original response here, you will see that I wrote the same point in what you agree with what Underbelly wrote, though I do not agree with your commentary about TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (I wouldn't call it "torture porn"):

The term "B Movie" is certainly banded about this forum quite a lot, but BAD does not necessarily mean "B."  For example, XANADU is a truly BAD movie that had an "A" budget.  On the other hand, CARNIVAL OF SOULS is a truly low-budget "B" movie that despite it's many shortcomings and technical flaws could be described as "bad", but really is not BAD at all! 
And then repeated myself:

...Nonetheless, this thread is about defining a term.  My point is that "B" is not necessarily "BAD." 
KP, How many times must I state that which you stated you agree with?  Masterdebater was looking to define the term "B-movie" and I applaud his effort. 


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 20, 2008, 04:50:26 PM
This is a pointless thread...
I think that's rude. 
...but I will say don't confuse B-movie with Bad movie. They are not the same thing. A b movie can be a good or even great movie. The thing is, if you are trying to categorizing films you will end up with 200 different categories and still that won't be enough, so give it up.
If a thread is "pointless" why respond?  The idea was not to "categorize" movies, but to define the term "B-movie" a term valid for every genre of film, whether it be Horror, SciFi, Romance, Action... 

Meh, I don't see the need to define terms. Anymore I think "B-movie" is a blanket term that applies to anything with less than a Hollywood budget, while "bad movie" is anything cheesy or goofy that most people would watch and either turn off or just come away from scratching their heads and wondering why such a thing would be made in the first place. Those are my definitions. Everybody's definition varies from person to person and no new blanket term needs to be made, because that term will have the same issue.
There is always a need to define terms, whether you see it or not (with all due respect AnubisVonMojo, you know I love you!)  If we don't define our terms, how will we understand one another? 



Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: BixDugan on August 20, 2008, 05:07:47 PM
"NoLo Movies"??

as in No or Low Budget Movies.


"Drive Off Movies"??

as in they were the second movie shown at the Drive-In, but it was getting late and we drove off...


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: AnubisVonMojo on August 20, 2008, 05:09:49 PM
Quote from: Allhallowsday link=topic=120667.msg210021#msg210021
Meh, I don't see the need to define terms. Anymore I think "B-movie" is a blanket term that applies to anything with less than a Hollywood budget, while "bad movie" is anything cheesy or goofy that most people would watch and either turn off or just come away from scratching their heads and wondering why such a thing would be made in the first place. Those are my definitions. Everybody's definition varies from person to person and no new blanket term needs to be made, because that term will have the same issue.
There is always a need to define terms, whether you see it or not (with all due respect AnubisVonMojo, you know I love you!)  If we don't define our terms, how will we understand one another? 

No offense taken at all Wonka. I just find that the definitions given to something like a "b-movie" or a "bad movie" vary from person to person and as such simply cause discourse when the matter is addressed. When Andrew posted his El Topo review last month, I remember someone posting angry comments about how Andrew should remove the review immediately because it didn't fit the poster's definition of a "bad movie" and therefore putting it up at badmovies.org was some kind of horrible insult. I don't know. Aside from delving into the various genre and sub-genre classifications for movies, I don't think a universal agreement can be had. Then again, I'm an anti-social pessimist for the most part, so every thing I say should be taken with a grain of nevermind anyway.  :tongueout:


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Patient7 on August 20, 2008, 05:20:33 PM
Although I find B-Movie to be a fine term it does get get confusing if a movie is supposedly good-bad or bad bad because people just say bad.  I think a good term would be Unknown Movies because even the most famous of B-Movies, (Evil Dead, Plan 9, etc.) aren't known by a lot of people.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Andrew on August 20, 2008, 05:25:44 PM
Michael Weldon's term "psychotronic", which he uses to describe low budget efforts, strange science fiction films, inexplicable mainstream movies, cheap horror flicks, martial arts films, and the like, seems to cover many of the same films I tend to like.  I've been reading through his "Psychotronic Video Guide" and found that what he likes to write about and what I like to write about seems to fall into the same normally-used categories, though I am not so much into music-background films as he.

"Late night movies" is what I would call them.  In the past, I had considered another URL for the site, latenightmovies.com.  It was not registered back then, but it looks like a domain squatter has registered it (and sat on it, hoping to make a profit) since about 2000.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Patient7 on August 20, 2008, 05:29:59 PM
Although I find B-Movie to be a fine term it does get get confusing if a movie is supposedly good-bad or bad bad because people just say bad.  I think a good term would be Unknown Movies because even the most famous of B-Movies, (Evil Dead, Plan 9, etc.) aren't known by a lot of people.

I should note that there is The Unknown Movies Page which is on Andrew's links list.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 20, 2008, 05:31:36 PM
Quote from: Allhallowsday link=topic=120667.msg210021#msg210021
Meh, I don't see the need to define terms. Anymore I think "B-movie" is a blanket term that applies to anything with less than a Hollywood budget, while "bad movie" is anything cheesy or goofy that most people would watch and either turn off or just come away from scratching their heads and wondering why such a thing would be made in the first place. Those are my definitions. Everybody's definition varies from person to person and no new blanket term needs to be made, because that term will have the same issue.
There is always a need to define terms, whether you see it or not (with all due respect AnubisVonMojo, you know I love you!)  If we don't define our terms, how will we understand one another?  
No offense taken at all Wonka. I just find that the definitions given to something like a "b-movie" or a "bad movie" vary from person to person and as such simply cause discourse when the matter is addressed. When Andrew posted his El Topo review last month, I remember someone posting angry comments about how Andrew should remove the review immediately because it didn't fit the poster's definition of a "bad movie" and therefore putting it up at badmovies.org was some kind of horrible insult. I don't know. Aside from delving into the various genre and sub-genre classifications for movies, I don't think a universal agreement can be had. Then again, I'm an anti-social pessimist for the most part, so every thing I say should be taken with a grain of nevermind anyway.  :tongueout:
Well, I don't see the point of that commentary, that posting was by a guest, I think, and Andrew was right to correct that nose!  We're not considering whether any one movie is bad or not.  Aside from that, the idea was not to define "genre classifications" but to define the term "B-movie."  We seem to all agree a "B-movie" could be "good" or "bad."  So, "B" ness must mean something else...  :thumbup: for being an "anti-social pessimist..."  


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: ulthar on August 20, 2008, 05:59:01 PM

 Aside from that, the idea was not to define "genre classifications" but to define the term "B-movie."  We seem to all agree a "B-movie" could be "good" or "bad."  So, "B" ness must mean something else...  :thumbup: for being an "anti-social pessimist..." 


I guess I'm a bit confused...because I don't find the term "B Movie" confusing at all.

It's an umbrella term (and thus a little fluid in meaning from use to use) used to say one or more of the following:

Low Budget
Low Production Value
Poorly Executed visual and/or sound effects
Poor Direction
Poor Acting
Poor Script
Poor Concept
Amateurish in any other respect

Any or all of these can be on purpose, but they sure don't have to be.  Thus, a film can be intentionally "B."  Low Budget grabs a lot of films to the "B" label that are good in the ways on that list.

I'm sorry; I don't get all the angst over the term.  We ALL seem to agree "B" is not "Bad."

Therefore, I think "B" is a good term as we use it, and it is "Bad" that gives us trouble when it comes to defining it.  Look at how many threads we have had over the years on this forum alone on the topic of "What does BAD mean to you?"

My two cents....and not authoritative in ANY way, shape or form.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: masterdebater on August 20, 2008, 06:33:57 PM
Thanks for the healthy debate. Nice to see some active responders to my first topic.


 Aside from that, the idea was not to define "genre classifications" but to define the term "B-movie."  We seem to all agree a "B-movie" could be "good" or "bad."  So, "B" ness must mean something else...  :thumbup: for being an "anti-social pessimist..." 


I guess I'm a bit confused...because I don't find the term "B Movie" confusing at all.

It's an umbrella term (and thus a little fluid in meaning from use to use) used to say one or more of the following:

Low Budget
Low Production Value
Poorly Executed visual and/or sound effects
Poor Direction
Poor Acting
Poor Script
Poor Concept
Amateurish in any other respect

Any or all of these can be on purpose, but they sure don't have to be.  Thus, a film can be intentionally "B."  Low Budget grabs a lot of films to the "B" label that are good in the ways on that list.

I'm sorry; I don't get all the angst over the term.  We ALL seem to agree "B" is not "Bad."

Therefore, I think "B" is a good term as we use it, and it is "Bad" that gives us trouble when it comes to defining it.  Look at how many threads we have had over the years on this forum alone on the topic of "What does BAD mean to you?"

My two cents....and not authoritative in ANY way, shape or form.
A 'B-movie' is a second feature movie. It doesnt have to fit into your list at all. For example Fobidden Planet doesnt fit your list but is still a 'B-movie'. I do agree that the umbrella status of the term suffices for those already into these kind of films. To the uninitiated the term is a derogatory one and that is what I was trying to get away from.

I like Bixdugans 'Driveoff Movies' and I also agree with Andrew about psychotronic as term. I did wonder how many names he'd gone through before deciding on Badmovies.org. 'Late night movies' again sounds like a range of cheap porn flicks. Which in some cases is totally acurate.

This is a pointless thread but I will say don't confuse B-movie with Bad movie. They are not the same thing. A b movie can be a good or even great movie. The thing is, if you are trying to categorizing films you will end up with 200 different categories and still that won't be enough, so give it up.
As Allhallowsday said this is a little rude. This is not pointless, not massively important I'll grant you. It started because I wanted to describe the kind of movies I collect to a person who was only interested in the most mainstream films possible. He did'nt watch anything unless it was brand new and had a 5* rating. I wanted a term that sufficiently did justice to my favourite films and was interesting enough for him to try one or two out. B-movies wasnt it, bad movies definately wasnt it, camp, kitsch, or any other genre or sub-genre name only descibed part of my collection.

I think that whatever term we use should come from the gratification and enjoyment we get from these movies. It shouldnt come from any actual description of any particular movies because that just leads to people getting caught up arguing wether a particular example is bad or not. This is definately a very well defined niche I'm talking about so it shouldnt be impossible.

I think that the term 'Niche Movies' is positive or at least not negative and gives the impression that thier is something about these movies that is interesting but different from the mainstream. It doesnt label anything as good or bad and is not genre specific. At worst it may be a little eliteist, Yes, I'm a 'niche movie' fan (I think).




Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Dr_Malavaqua on August 20, 2008, 06:53:08 PM
Interesting thread, I have many times thought of this myself and although I am content with the term B-movie(NOT the Jerry Seinfeld one..) I agree it is rather wide..
For example: Some people would consider it films that involves kung-fu/martial arts in any silly way, and others would say they have to be in B/W. Thus categorizing the term in not only different ways(which is inevitable) but on different kinds of merits(plot VS production technique, in this made up case)!

How about:
"Obscure Cinema"? (..or does that exist already?) It let's you know that there is something off tilt with the title although not necessarily bad!
"Niche Movies" is fairly good IMHO, but it sounds a bit too cute for my taste, although the movies we talk about(Starting to sound like Harry Potter, "He-who-must-not-be-mentioned" he he) certainly CAN be cute!

And for the films we consider "so bad they are BAD", how about:
"NPW" Not-Pause-Worthy... 'nuff said.  :smile:
(In this pile I would put films like "Glen or Glenda", "Flesh for Frankenstein" "Kill Bill 1 & 2", "Shortbus" and so on..)   


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 20, 2008, 07:00:56 PM
Aside from that, the idea was not to define "genre classifications" but to define the term "B-movie."  We seem to all agree a "B-movie" could be "good" or "bad."  So, "B" ness must mean something else...  :thumbup: for being an "anti-social pessimist..." 
I guess I'm a bit confused...because I don't find the term "B Movie" confusing at all.  It's an umbrella term (and thus a little fluid in meaning from use to use) used to say one or more of the following:  Low Budget Low Production Value Poorly Executed visual and/or sound effects Poor Direction Poor Acting Poor Script Poor Concept Amateurish in any other respect
You're "a bit confused" because you don't find the term "B-Movie" confusing at all?   :buggedout:  Who said anybody was confused?  (Though I'll grant you some sure are.) 

I don't think your terms, used together or exclusively, define a "B" movie.  Certainly a "B" movie could be any one of those things, but hardly necessarily.  A low budget movie could include good production values, good script, good acting... etc. 

Any or all of these can be on purpose, but they sure don't have to be.  Thus, a film can be intentionally "B."  Low Budget grabs a lot of films to the "B" label that are good in the ways on that list. 
I'm sorry; I don't get all the angst over the term.  We ALL seem to agree "B" is not "Bad."
No.  I think we all agree "B" is not necessarily bad. 

Therefore, I think "B" is a good term as we use it, and it is "Bad" that gives us trouble when it comes to defining it.  Look at how many threads we have had over the years on this forum alone on the topic of "What does BAD mean to you?"  My two cents....and not authoritative in ANY way, shape or form.
Well, you and I agree your comments are certainly not authoritative.  I also agree the use of "Bad" is troubling as interchangeable for "B-movie."

...A 'B-movie' is a second feature movie...
That's well noted, but apparently no longer true, or certainly not necessarily true on this forum, for instance. 

...It doesnt have to fit into your list at all. For example Fobidden Planet doesnt fit your list but is still a 'B-movie'.
FORBIDDEN PLANET is not a "B-movie" if using this definition, as it originally had an "A" budget and had a major star (WALTER PIDGEON).  I'm beginning to understand why some think this thread is pointless. 

...And for the films we consider "so bad they are BAD", how about:
"NPW" Not-Pause-Worthy... 'nuff said.  ...(In this pile I would put films like "Glen or Glenda", "Flesh for Frankenstein" "Kill Bill 1 & 2", "Shortbus" and so on..)
KILL BILL VOL 1 & 2 is [a] great movie...(s)


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: RCMerchant on August 20, 2008, 07:04:56 PM
Though I have issues...all personal,not as far as talent goes, with Micheal Weldon,- I DO like the term PSYCHOTRONIC.
It covers a spectrum of film that only lovers of it's type can spot. It's like....I dunno...it has a lot to do with nostalgia,a sense of humor, a certain sense of artistic thinking (writers,musicians,artists...have a certain 6th "sense" about some things...I think...)

IMAGINATION.  I think that kinda covers it. NON -BIASED imagination. That kinda covers it...for me at least.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: masterdebater on August 20, 2008, 07:17:35 PM
Firstly, to address Allhallowsday, I dont know about the U.S. but in the U.K. this film was advertised on a re-release under the tagline of 'The greatest B-Movie Ever Made'. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but that is where that statement comes from.

Though I have issues...all personal,not as far as talent goes, with Micheal Weldon,- I DO like the term PSYCHOTRONIC.
It covers a spectrum of film that only lovers of it's type can spot. It's like....I dunno...it has a lot to do with nostalgia,a sense of humor, a certain sense of artistic thinking (writers,musicians,artists...have a certain 6th "sense" about some things...I think...)

IMAGINATION.  I think that kinda covers it. NON -BIASED imagination. That kinda covers it...for me at least.

I very much agree with this idea of the 6th sense. I think that is what we are all tapping into here. Perhaps 'Sense Movies' would work as a term.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: ulthar on August 20, 2008, 07:55:50 PM
You're "a bit confused" because you don't find the term "B-Movie" confusing at all?   :buggedout:  Who said anybody was confused?  (Though I'll grant you some sure are.) 


I'll try to clarify for you AHD.  I am confused about the term "B" movie needs 'defining.'  We've been using it for decades and everyone seems to know what it means.

Now, the OP gave the case for when this term has caused a problem - a specific case.

Quote

I don't think your terms, used together or exclusively, define a "B" movie.  Certainly a "B" movie could be any one of those things, but hardly necessarily.  A low budget movie could include good production values, good script, good acting... etc. 


 :bluesad:

I did say one or more...meaning, of course, a low budget could be the ONLY thing on the list that a particular film met.  I think I even explicitly stated that this was indeed sometimes the case.

My list was not all-inclusive, by the way.  I banged it out in a hurry, and certainly left off qualities that could be on there.  The point is that what we call "B" generally DOES have one OR more of those qualities.

Quote

No.  I think we all agree "B" is not necessarily bad. 


Okay, I see where the 'fun' is coming from...this is a semantics debate.

Next, we'll probably be discussing what "is" is.   :lookingup:
 


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: RCMerchant on August 20, 2008, 08:01:16 PM


[/quote]



Next, we'll probably be discussing what "is" is.   :lookingup:
 
[/quote]

Charles Fort would!  :teddyr:


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 20, 2008, 10:49:46 PM
You're "a bit confused" because you don't find the term "B-Movie" confusing at all?   :buggedout:  Who said anybody was confused?  (Though I'll grant you some sure are.)
I'll try to clarify for you AHD.  I am confused about the term "B" movie needs 'defining.'  We've been using it for decades and everyone seems to know what it means.
Everyone?  That statement I do not agree with, because someone started this thread... I just pointed out to you that I, for one, do not agree with your assertions of the defining aspects of a "B-Movie."  That now makes someone else

Now, the OP gave the case for when this term has caused a problem - a specific case.
Quote
I don't think your terms, used together or exclusively, define a "B" movie.  Certainly a "B" movie could be any one of those things, but hardly necessarily.  A low budget movie could include good production values, good script, good acting... etc.
:bluesad: I did say one or more...meaning, of course, a low budget could be the ONLY thing on the list that a particular film met.  I think I even explicitly stated that this was indeed sometimes the case.  My list was not all-inclusive, by the way.  I banged it out in a hurry, and certainly left off qualities that could be on there.  The point is that what we call "B" generally DOES have one OR more of those qualities.
I don't think your statement is explicit:
Low Budget grabs a lot of films to the "B" label that are good in the ways on that list.
Huh?  And I think your list was "shortcomings" not "qualities." 

Quote
No.  I think we all agree "B" is not necessarily bad. 
Okay, I see where the 'fun' is coming from...this is a semantics debate.  Next, we'll probably be discussing what "is" is.   :lookingup:
No, Ulthar.  So, you've appointed yourself to speak for everyone for what is encyclopedically correct?  Don't try to obscure my point by suggesting I'm pedantic.  It's this simple: "Bad" is not "Good."  And a "B" film is not necessarily bad, which is close to what you stated, but not exactly.  As a scientist, you should appreciate my being exact. 
BTW, what is, "is?" 


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: JaseSF on August 21, 2008, 02:42:12 AM
While it might be somewhat pointless and after all, how one categorizes movies will ultimately prove entirely subjective, I've enjoying reading this thread. For the most part, it's been a good natured debate/discussion although I actually prefer the discussion element of what fits into your own mind when you think about the movies you love. I love Sherlock Holmes films, Bulldog Drummond movies, Bruce Lee films, Jackie Chan films (especially his pre-Hollywood ones), 50s SF, 30s Universal Horror, 50s Hammer Horror, 50s-60s AIP Drive-In fare, 70s exploitation, 40s Film Noir and Mystery, anything that's a bit off the beaten path, most of which doesn't get much play on today's mainstream TV. That's how my mind has always categorized my favourites. Films off the beaten path. lol  :bouncegiggle:

I'll be gone a few days and hopefully I'll find even more cinematic gems to add to my vast ever-growing collection be it Western, War, SF, Horror, Fantasy, Animation, TV classic, Film Noir, Mystery, whathaveyou. Of course, what qualifies as my "off the beaten path" may well be seen by someone else as mainstream. It's truly very subjective.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Psycho Circus on August 21, 2008, 05:39:08 AM
To me, "B" has always meant Budget - "Low Budget" filmaking. Not Hollywood, no A-List stars. In other words, second rate. A bad movie can be either a "B" movie or a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster that just out-and-out sucks.

It's down to each individuals opinion, I don't think everyone is going to agree at all, no matter what phrase is used. Some that have been mentioned can be used to cover a few different genres that "B" and bad movies encompass, some phrases/terms mentioned would be hard to get used to and thus take more explaining.

I'd stick with "B" and stick with the 'ol double meaning of "budget" and "bad" dependant on the film.

To each his own..... :thumbup:


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: frank on August 21, 2008, 06:19:38 AM

If I wasn't confident with "B-movie", which I am, I'd offer "offstream movie".

Just for the kicks...



Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: ghouck on August 21, 2008, 10:57:59 AM
I'm a lover of blaxploitation, exploitation, kung fu, sci-fi, fantasy, horror, animation, film noir, mystery, western war films. 

I'd like to see one of those, , It'd be more convoluted than "Sparrow Fey's Catfood Traumafest". .


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Underbelly on August 21, 2008, 11:54:53 AM
Again I'll point out that the term B-Movie is nothing to do with Bad. That in not what "B" stands for. B refers to the class of the film. the "A" files are you big budget movies that the studio's would promote the hell out of and try to make the big money, where the "B" movie would be more like the second movie in a bill,or released for Drive-ins.

All of Val Lewton's films were considered "B" movies, yet these are great films. He just made them quickly and with small budgets for showing like 2nd billing and drive-ins.



Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: AndyC on August 21, 2008, 12:00:54 PM
As others have said, this is a very difficult idea to wrap up in one term.

B-movies are a specific thing, although the definition can be expanded to other films in the same spirit. It still doesn't apply everywhere.

Many of the movies we like are obscure, but many are not. Likewise, not all have the devoted following to be called cult films.

Most are older movies, but not all, and they don't come from any particular decade. Budgets vary as well. Not all of them are bad movies, some of them are tongue-in-cheek bad (and thus good in their own way), some are well-made but kind of odd. That would include art films and foreign films.

Some were perfectly good movies in their day, but have gotten old and dated.

Some genres are more represented than others, but there are still too many to define by genre.

And on and on it goes.

In another thread, I suggested the term "misfit movies" to apply to anything that didn't really fit into the current mainstream movie scene. It's analogous to a high-school classroom. You have the kids who fit in – the jocks, the good-looking and popular kids, and the average kids. Then you have the misfits - the geeks, stoners, headbangers, underachievers, socially-inept kids and so on. A diverse group, but united in their deviance from the norm.

I like "misfit" because it implies something is out of place, but does not necessarily have negative connotations. Misfits can be lovable. As Rudolph and Hermie said, "What's the matter with misfits? That's where we fit in!" That certainly seems to apply to the movies we like, not to mention our attitude about them.


Title: Re: It's not about who's seen any movie or not.
Post by: Kester Pelagius on August 21, 2008, 12:26:58 PM
We'll always be categorizing and re-categorizing movies.  I think that's some primordial hunter-gatherer instinct we have, to gather things together in a semblance of order.

Just as is our penchance for subjectively debating things. . .   :wink:

###

<...>the point isn't who has seen a particular film or not, regardless of what anyone - or everyone - thinks about any such film, whether "good" or "bad".  The point was to define the term "B-movie."   Defining a term is not "subjective."

The SHORT concise answer:

Yes, it is.

The LONG boring dithering pseudo-philosophical answer:

Since reality is a subjective experience and thus any experience we attempt to relate to another is based on our experiences and how we relate to the object in question that, by definition, makes any attempt to define anything subjective.  The purpose of a definition is to abstract a subjective experience into something codifiable based on a shared objective reality.  What tastes good?  Some people like spinach, some do not.  Every individual has their own tastes based on subjective experience.  So, too, how we define what is bad is similarly rooted in the same.

How would you explain what an "orgasm" is to, say, an asexual ALIEN being from Mars?  Their is only ONE way and that is through seeking out shared subjective experiences to relate meaning, or at least attempt to create a objectifiable set of shared subjective experiences.  But if the ALIEN species has no sex, as we understand it, how do you explain sexual matters (which are subjective) to them?

###

What's great about the "b-movie" label is it's a broad enough subjective tag that it can encompass late night movies, psychotronic cinema, horror, science fiction, drama, comedy, mainstream movies, underground cinema, and just about anything in between.

But that also the problem it's a subjective definition.  Considering how times change, and movies with them, that's probably for the best.  Can you imagine anyone making GALAXY OF TERROR or INSEMINOID today?  Those were grand B-movies.  But whether they're "bad" is a matter of opinion, which doesn't change their "B" status one whit.

###

Two quick points. . .

1) "Late Night (Movies)" is, or was, for the most part, a broad umbrella term used to categorize cable and DTV softcore flicks, which usually played "after hours" late at night on skinemax.

Why?

Rumour has it that, once upon a time not that many decades ago when cable was young, that channels like skinemax used to actually have hardcore movies on late at night.  Thus "late night" = "gratuitous nudity" not necessarily "b-movie" though most of the "good" bad b-movies, and more than a few of the "bad" good b-movies, according to some, have gratuitous nudity.

2) re: Psychotronic.

From their home page: "Michael Weldon did not invent the word "Psychotronic." It is a word to describe mind control by electronic means."

Which is fine and dandy but as most movies in his movie guide tend to be either bizarre, shocking, or just out and out strange I've always found it easier to just equate psychotronic cinema with things psychotropic.   :teddyr:

###

But, if we must have a definition of B-MOVIE, how about. . .

B-MOVIE:  Those movies we love to hate and hate to love, the movies we watch for their subtle appeal to something indefinable that transends mere entertainment value; in short that which has to be experienced to be understood.


Title: Re: It's not about who's seen any movie or not.
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 21, 2008, 01:06:26 PM
<...>the point isn't who has seen a particular film or not, regardless of what anyone - or everyone - thinks about any such film, whether "good" or "bad".  The point was to define the term "B-movie."   Defining a term is not "subjective."

The SHORT concise answer:
Yes, it is.
I skip your "LONG boring dithering pseudo-philosophical answer" for the sake of space, and I see your point, but I re-assert that terminology is not intended to be subjective. 


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: masterdebater on August 21, 2008, 02:12:42 PM
Some of you seem to be missing the point here.

To simplify, I want to find a word to fit in this sentence
"I have a _______ movie collection."
Now without resorting to jokes, B-movie is wrong, bad is wrong and most of the other terms I've heard just dont do justice to it.
I know what a b-movie is and I dont have a collection of them.

I like Kester's 'Misfit movies' and I still like 'Niche'

What term best describes the movie collection in your house?


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: CheezeFlixz on August 21, 2008, 02:43:22 PM
Some of you seem to be missing the point here.

To simplify, I want to find a word to fit in this sentence
"I have a _______ movie collection."
Now without resorting to jokes, B-movie is wrong, bad is wrong and most of the other terms I've heard just dont do justice to it.
I know what a b-movie is and I dont have a collection of them.

I like Kester's 'Misfit movies' and I still like 'Niche'

What term best describes the movie collection in your house?

"I have a cult, mondo, sexploitation, exploitation, blackploitation, low budget, no budget, experimental, indy, nudie cutie, basement, cheap, crap, B to Z movie collection."


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Psycho Circus on August 21, 2008, 02:58:16 PM
I have a Retro-Junk movie collection


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 21, 2008, 03:16:35 PM
Again I'll point out that the term B-Movie is nothing to do with Bad. That in not what "B" stands for. B refers to the class of the film. the "A" files are you big budget movies that the studio's would promote the hell out of and try to make the big money, where the "B" movie would be more like the second movie in a bill,or released for Drive-ins.

All of Val Lewton's films were considered "B" movies, yet these are great films. He just made them quickly and with small budgets for showing like 2nd billing and drive-ins.
Underbelly, you don't have to point out "again" that "B-Movie" has nothing to do with "bad."  We know that.  However, please note the website you're on and you may understand why it's difficult for some contributors to separate the two concepts. 


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Underbelly on August 21, 2008, 04:02:46 PM
Allhallowsday, you say "We know that." and "some contributors to separate the two concepts" Well, maybe I'm talking to those who have trouble. I've read many of all of these post and many people have trouble separating the two, otherwise I wouldn't have repeated myself.



Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Rev. Powell on August 21, 2008, 05:38:08 PM
Some of you seem to be missing the point here.

To simplify, I want to find a word to fit in this sentence
"I have a _______ movie collection."
Now without resorting to jokes, B-movie is wrong, bad is wrong and most of the other terms I've heard just dont do justice to it.
I know what a b-movie is and I dont have a collection of them.

I like Kester's 'Misfit movies' and I still like 'Niche'

What term best describes the movie collection in your house?

I have a "weird" movie collection.  Both in the sense that I like films that are literally weird, surreal, bizarre, and just make you say "WTF?", and in the sense that I would expect a schoolmarm or grandmother to screw up her face when she looked at my DVD shelf and say, "That's a weird collection."

"B-movies" is a good descriptor and is relatively well understood, but isn't wide enough.  Most of us love many movies that fall outside the technical meaning of "B" movie.  And I don't love B-movies just because they were made on a low budget; I love them because they have a tendency to contain some other ingredient that I enjoy.

I would probably use the term "cult movies" to an outsider as the best known term to describe the films I love.  Unfortunately, "cult" implies a film that is ignored by most but loved by a devoted few, and it catches lots of films that play to mainstream tastes but were simply overlooked.  Alongside movies like PLAN 9, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, and DETOUR, Danny Peary's original list of 100 CULT MOVIES also caught films like ALL ABOUT EVE and DANCE, GIRL, DANCE and 42ND STREET that don't fit the aesthetic we're talking about at all.

"Psychotronic" is probably the best word to describe this type of movie, but it isn't well known enough.  Try telling people at a cocktail party that you collect "psychotronic" movies and watch their eyes glaze over.

"Niche" movies doesn't really work.  Anything that's aimed at a small audience is aimed at a "niche" market.  It would include movies aimed specifically at women, specifically at men, specifically at blacks, specifically at foot fetishists.  It's too wide.

I like the idea behind AndyC's "misfit movies," but I don't think the term will ever catch on. 

The French have a term, "fantastique", that describes the horror, science fiction, and fantasy genres all together.  The genre emphasizes imagery, mood and atmosphere over linear, rational plots.  It's a useful term, but it technically leaves out blaxsploitation.

There is no perfect term; and all of our tastes differ a little anyway, even though they overlap significantly.  I'm sticking with I have a "weird" movie collection.



Title: YAY, a mad lib!
Post by: Kester Pelagius on August 21, 2008, 05:57:52 PM
Some of you seem to be missing the point here.

To simplify, I want to find a word to fit in this sentence
"I have a _______ movie collection."

"I have a AWESOME movie collection."

"I have a ECLECTIC movie collection."

"I have a DIVERSE movie collection."

"I have a GREAT movie collection."

"I have a 2 PLY TISSUE movie collection."

:bouncegiggle:

But, seriously, it might help if we knew some of the titles that have you baffled as to how to best categorize them.  Don't worry there's nothing to be ashamed of, unless that LAST mad lib actually applies.  :wink:


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Dr_Malavaqua on August 22, 2008, 06:26:10 AM
"I have an intriguing movie collection!"

Plus, see below.. :teddyr:


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: AndyC on August 22, 2008, 09:08:07 AM
I'm thinking b-movie is probably as good a blanket term as we're going to find. Yes, it originally had a specific meaning in the industry, but meanings do evolve through usage.

Consider tabloid newspapers. Most papers I see nowadays are tabloids. I've mostly written for tabloids, but none of them contain celebrity gossip or aliens. Tabloid is a page size. The gossip rags were called tabloids because they used that format rather than the broadsheet format typical of the mainstream papers. Today, tabloid has come to mean a gossip rag to the general public, although the term is still used properly in the industry.

B-movie, similarly, has a technical meaning and a popular meaning. And it has the advantage of being something of an archaic term in its original use. It's nice to have that specific meaning for purposes of discussion amongst fans, but the general public has its own definition of what a b-movie is, based on the common attributes of those original, proper b-movies. There isn't really anything wrong with that.

That is also why we will probably not find an alternate term that will replace it. The public has some idea what a b-movie is, whether purists agree or not. No other blanket term is likely to register with the average person in the same way. And that is why many on this board, myself included, use b-movie in that broader sense. Not because we aren't aware of its history, but rather to be understood. I tell people I like b-movies, and they understand what that is. If they want to know more, that's the time for specifics. Otherwise, there's really no point in communicating more than that.

B-movie, as a blanket term, is fine with me. Fellow enthusiasts won't be confused by it, and other folks will understand it (and not really know or care that it's used improperly).

My view on the matter is that the improper use of the term is really only an issue with folks who get off on correcting other people. "I know what this word really means, 'cause I'm smarter than you."

Here's a question for everyone. Does it really matter to you if b-movie is used as a blanket term?


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Rev. Powell on August 22, 2008, 02:39:42 PM

Here's a question for everyone. Does it really matter to you if b-movie is used as a blanket term?

Doesn't really bother me, although it grates me when people assume the B stands for "bad".  The presumption in some people's minds that there's a direct relationship between budget and quality irks me.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Raffine on August 22, 2008, 03:04:37 PM
I have a movie collection.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Patient7 on August 22, 2008, 03:51:38 PM
Here's a question for everyone. Does it really matter to you if b-movie is used as a blanket term?

No, it actually describes pretty well what you should expect from a movie.  It's short, sweet and to the point.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: RCMerchant on August 22, 2008, 06:11:52 PM
I have a movie collection.

I like moo-bies too.! I got some!  :teddyr:


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 22, 2008, 09:25:06 PM
I have a movie collection.
I like moo-bies too.! I got some!  :teddyr:
Moon Pies??  I jus' luv Moon Pies!!!  :teddyr:


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 22, 2008, 09:36:43 PM
Here's a question for everyone. Does it really matter to you if b-movie is used as a blanket term?
Doesn't really bother me, although it grates me when people assume the B stands for "bad".  The presumption in some people's minds that there's a direct relationship between budget and quality irks me.
That's pretty much how I feel.  Such presumption happens often right here. 

Here's a question for everyone. Does it really matter to you if b-movie is used as a blanket term?
No, it actually describes pretty well what you should expect from a movie.  It's short, sweet and to the point.
Fair remarks. 


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Raffine on August 23, 2008, 12:14:59 PM
I have a movie collection.
I like moo-bies too.! I got some!  :teddyr:
Moon Pies??  I jus' luv Moon Pies!!!  :teddyr:

And we all know what Moon Pies go best with:

(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/morrisawilliams/RCCola.png)

 :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr:


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: masterdebater on August 23, 2008, 12:20:11 PM
Actually, despite thr drift off topic I really like 'Moon Pie Movie' as a term. LOL


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: RCMerchant on August 23, 2008, 01:09:54 PM
I have a movie collection.
I like moo-bies too.! I got some!  :teddyr:
Moon Pies??  I jus' luv Moon Pies!!!  :teddyr:

And we all know what Moon Pies go best with:

([url]http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/morrisawilliams/RCCola.png[/url])

 :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr:



THAT SETTLES IT! Fer me,at least! For now on,I am going to refer to them as 'Moon Pie Moo-bies."! No joke! I like MOON PIE MOO-BIES! If I ever start a movie web site...it will be titled as thus! Unless someone beats me to it...and if they do...I will gladly contribute!  :smile:


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: masterdebater on August 23, 2008, 04:21:27 PM
I'm regestering that name right now! Moon Pie Movies! It just says it all.


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: RCMerchant on August 23, 2008, 04:28:13 PM
I'm regestering that name right now! Moon Pie Movies! It just says it all.

 Cool!!!!  :thumbup:

 If you build it...they will come. (or they won't-or versa visa!)


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Psycho Circus on August 23, 2008, 04:30:24 PM
I'm regestering that name right now! Moon Pie Movies! It just says it all.

 Cool!!!!  :thumbup:

 If you build it...they will come. (or they won't-or versa visa!)

HAHAHAHAHAHAH  :teddyr:

That said then, I'm taking Smiley Pies


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: RCMerchant on August 23, 2008, 04:44:02 PM
I'm regestering that name right now! Moon Pie Movies! It just says it all.

 Cool!!!!  :thumbup:

 If you build it...they will come. (or they won't-or versa visa!)

HAHAHAHAHAHAH  :teddyr:

That said then, I'm taking Smiley Pies

Of course you will! Your an evil clown!

(But arn't we all) insert introspective smily icon here.>   .....


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Scott on September 01, 2008, 04:01:54 PM
I've read all the post and have to agree with "Psychotronic" as these films have an intangibly mental something to them. In some cases they expand your mind, bewilder, and in other cases they can dull the mind. These films occasionally "speak" an incomprehensible language when viewed and make us say "What did I just watch?".

The strange, the weird, the odd, and enigmatic mixed with our instinct to discover the unknown and the sometimes effectively unintentional realms of treasured images that push the viewer across great expanses. Any film that can twist and suspend reality. A kind of pure and therapeutic escapism at its finest.

For me it's been a kind of fantasy that maybe someday with a low budget I to could make successful films and this dream all started with the film ED WOOD and the idea that if he could do it so could I.

There's nothing quite like going out without much of a plan, start filming stuff, without resources, time, or even a crew, and then trying to put something together out of pure nothing.

Sergio Leone said "It has something to do with death". In all these films there is some kind of danger, the meeting with the other side.

Or as Criswell would say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xes0F36eTJA



Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Psycho Circus on September 05, 2008, 03:27:22 PM
Of course you will! Your an evil clown!
(But arn't we all) insert introspective smily icon here.>   .....


(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/EPH/8140~Evil-Clowns-Posters.jpg)


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Scott on September 05, 2008, 07:04:11 PM
One of the most sinister clowns was the original Doink The Clown (Matt Borne) and his theme music. For as goofy as this gimmick was it was just as disturbing to watch him enter and exit the ring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhRnWMBcNQQ&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhRnWMBcNQQ&feature=related)


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Psycho Circus on September 05, 2008, 07:13:22 PM
-Sorry as we have totally moved off topic, but this is probably the greatest 3mins and 19 seconds in proffessional wrestling history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF4ZTcuhixc


Title: Re: Do We Need A New Term for B-Movie?
Post by: Scott on September 05, 2008, 07:21:20 PM
Buzz Sawyer (not to mention the career of Kevin Sullivan)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOabqAiqqUM