The term "It's so bad that it is good" does not literaly exist

[Chris K.]

We all have heard the term "It's so bad that it is good" when it is associated with B-films. The term means that the film is so bad in every corner that it is good to watch. I feel that this so called "term" is highly exaggerated and simply out of place. For example, BATTLEFIELD EARTH is a bad B-movie. It is horrible, disgusting, and just plain bad. So lets say that I say to myself "BATTLEFIELD EARTH is so bad it is good" and it makes me want to watch it again because of it's sureal badness. The trouble is, if it is so bad why would I want to watch it again? And indeed BATTLEFIELD EARTH is really a bad film that I do not want to watch ever again. So how is it "It's so bad that it is good" when in reality it is awful.

Basically, a film is either good or bad. If the film is good, you will say it is good. If a film is bad, you will say it is bad. But to say a film is so bad that it is good is completely off. Hell, why don't we just use the other term it's so good it is bad?
It is just a confusing term that seemed to have been invented by producers who felt that if their film fails they can drag their audience back in by saying it's so bad that it is good to watch and thus the producers make more money.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me on this one, but what are your feeling towards this term?

[Nathan]

Shucks, I can't agree with that, although I'll admit that the phrase is vague.  "So bad it's good" could be interpreted to impute quality as arising from a state of non-quality, nonsensical at best.  But the insider understanding of the phrase is that a movie can be so severely flawed in such a rare way that the incompetance actually becomes entertaining.  Plan 9 is the usual example for this; Zombie Nightmare is also high on that list, as is Starcrash.

But it's not simply a matter of "more than X flaws = enjoyable."  There's a certain unquantifiable something that turns a mass of dross into an unintentional masterpiece, and there are movies that simply stay dross.  You can put anything by the Polonia Brothers in this category.

Nathan

[Scott Davis]

cause it  does fall into the "So Bad Its Good" category in my books.

Hell, I would watch it every day if I had a copy of it.

I have quite a few movie in my collection that I label bad, but because I'm a fan of the movie genre there in (we're talking Zombies).

The phrase "So bad its good" should be used when comparing it to other movies and its movie genre.

Battlefield Earth is a bad movie, but as a entry into the Sci-fi genre it's quite good.

[Flangepart]

Hummmm....Its a hard term to pin down. It needs more ...specificity. Maby the word that explains the term is realy, Attitude. "Plan 9 from outer space" is bad, yet  its like a family member...Uncle Joe is a nice guy, but you do hope he gets over the "Pull my finger" routine. Like in Star Trek Paryodes, some of the best are written by fans, they know the details, and can focus on the bits they want to rib. hummm...ya know,it tougher then i thought! If Attitude is the term, perhaps final effect is the thing to focus on. I like Godzilla and friends, but don't overlook the silly aspects of the concept. I ...i can "Live with it". If id don't make me run screaming from the theater...it and i can still br friends...if that makes any sense.

[Gerry]

Maybe a better way to phrase it would be "bad entertainment" and the opposite "bad non-entertainment."

Some movies are really bad, but at the same time quite entertaining, like REPTILICUS or IT CONQUERED THE WORLD.  Other movies are bad and not even remotely entertaining like DYING YOUNG with Julia Roberts.  Needless to say, I like the former, and would rather poke my eyes out with a hot stick than watch the later.

[Josh Leman]

It would probably take an entire book to pin down all the underlying reasons why, but there are different kinds of bad.  There's good bad and bad bad.  Good bad is when the movie is inept or poorly executed or too low budget for its own good, but in a fun, goofy way that you can laugh at.  When you sit down to Robot Monster or The Alligator People, you know you're watching crap, and because of that you can relax and make sarcastic remarks or just laugh at the overall silliness of everything.  

Last week at a world affairs panel discussing monsters and the supernatural in the movies, someone asked Roger Ebert why bad monster movies are so much fun to watch.  I think he summed it up nicely: "Because you get the same things you get in a good monster movie, but without the distraction of quality."

Bad bad is when everything is inept or poorly executed, but for some reason it's just not fun.  Maybe the movie takes itself too seriously (like Manos: The Hands of Fate), maybe it doesn't take itself seriously enough (Severed Ties, Dude Where's My Car), or maybe it's got way too much dialog and not enough cheesy special effects to make it all worthwhile.  Maybe it's a big expensive studio movie and you just sit there thinking about how they could have given those millions of dollars to starving children in Africa instead of making such a terrible film (Battlefield Earth, Wing Commander, The Haunting).  But for whatever reason, some bad movies are fun and others aren't.

[Dr. Freex]

Well, the actual phrase "so bad it's good" was doubtless originally meant as sarcastic hyperbole, but we co-opted that sucker right up and made it our battlecry.  

Take two movies that have already shown up in this thread - "Battlefield Earth" and "Starcrash".  They are both science-fiction action flicks.  "Battlefield Earth", however, had the benefit of multi-million dollar special effects and "name" actors, but is generally considered to be a tedious mess.  "Starcrash" was made for chump change, has actors only genre fans would recognize, yet is generally considered to be an entertaining mess (you can't call it tedious by any stretch of the imagination).

Starcrash is one of those bad films whose ambitions far outstrip its means.  It earnestly wants to out-do Star Wars, and has no idea of how to do that, even if it had the cash.  It's tremendously cheeky, and Battlefield Earth seems stodgy and self-important in comparison.

[Curtis]

My thoughts on this subject line run along the lines of the term being highly applicable and positive. I used to say there are good- goodmovies, good badmovies, bad goodmovies, and bad badmovies. Andrew summed up my criteria very quickly in an interview recently. For me the worst thing a film can do to an audience is bore them.  I often feel as though critics tend to review movies like they are looking for art projects without ever considering the target audience.  Dude, where's my car and Road Trip were designed for young audiences, not a bunch of brandy sniffing country club members. For me film and music for that matter are about entertainment, not necessarily a art contest to see who can introduce the most change for High Art's sake. I don't think film's like Road Trip don't really fit in my definition or search criteria for my unending quest of bad film, the film centers around silly antics and gag jokes. A good bad film should have the production crew taking the film very seriously no matter how disjointed or misguided the intentions are or at the very least present the film in a serious manner. I think a number of what I consider to be bad goodmovies are those that are written for one single solitary actor, take a Tom Hanks film for example, Forest Gump is the only film I can think of his that I liked and it was not written for him. I think there is little talent in playing the role of yourself all the time, like Michael J Fox and Jack Nicholson. Then there is the boring film, if I can fall asleep in it has to go. I think the term "it is so bad it good" suits my tastes to a T.
I live to be thrilled by inept flaws, terrible acting, plot holes, and by the seat of the pants budgets. It is kind of funny; I have numbed myself so much I can sit through drek like Prince of Space without flinching. I sit through regular movies and wait for them (the production) crew to do something stupid, like it s supposed to turn cheesy at any point. I think it can be said I have now expectations.
Curtis

[Apostic]

Along with all the other literate answers given in this thread, I'd also like to recommend "Why Bad Movies?" by Ken Begg:

http://www.jabootu.com/kwamarchive/whybad.htm

Dang, where's that guy from Entertainment Weekly when you need him?

regards,

Apostic