- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#2
Off Topic Discussion / Re: Is anyone else finding tha...
Last post by Rev. Powell - Today at 10:26:56 AMI'm not sure if this is AI or a real person, but no spam links in posts, even if they're on topic. Next time is a ban.
#3
Off Topic Discussion / Re: The New Happy Birthday Thr...
Last post by LilCerberus - Today at 10:21:16 AMQuote from: Rev. Powell on Today at 09:38:01 AMHappy birthday Lil' Cerb!
Quote from: Trevor on Today at 02:07:57 AMHappy birthday Lil Cerb 🎉 🎁 🎈 🎂 🎁 🎂🐢
Thanks! #4
Games / Re: Movie Title Chains
Last post by Rev. Powell - Today at 10:14:34 AMUnder the Yum Yum Tree (1963)
#5
Off Topic Discussion / Is anyone else finding that mo...
Last post by xahefig900 - Today at 10:10:17 AMI've been spending a lot of time lately diving back into the archives of 80s and 90s B-movies, and it's led me down a bit of a rabbit hole regarding how the "so bad it's good" genre has changed. I grew up on a steady diet of local video store rentals—the kind where the cover art was almost always a lie, and you knew within five minutes if you were looking at a masterpiece of incompetence or just a boring slog.
Lately, I've been trying to digitize and upscale some of my old VHS collection. I recently put together a bit of a "Frankenstein" home server to handle the heavy lifting of video encoding and AI upscaling. I managed to get my hands on an [spam link removed]EPYC 32-core processor/s[pam] running at 2.6GHz, which is honestly complete overkill for my needs, but it makes the rendering process fly by. It's funny, though—there's a massive irony in using a 32-core server-grade beast to process a movie that was clearly shot on a shoestring budget with a handheld camcorder and zero lighting equipment. You see every grain of film and every smudge on the lens in horrifyingly high definition.
One specific point I've been thinking about is the "soul" of the failure. In the older stuff, you can feel the earnestness. Someone really tried to make a great sci-fi epic, but they only had $50 and a bag of flour for "snow." Today, it feels like a lot of "bad" movies are being made that way on purpose, leaning into the meme culture. They use cheap digital assets and stock CGI that look intentionally terrible.
To me, a 3D monster rendered in five minutes doesn't have the same charm as a guy in a clearly visible rubber suit, no matter how much processing power you throw at it. Digital laziness just doesn't hit the same way as creative desperation does.
I'm curious to know where everyone else stands on this. Do you think the shift to digital effects has killed the "lovable" bad movie, or am I just being a bit too nostalgic for the days of physical squibs and cardboard sets? Does anyone actually prefer the modern, self-aware "Sharknado" style of bad filmmaking?
Lately, I've been trying to digitize and upscale some of my old VHS collection. I recently put together a bit of a "Frankenstein" home server to handle the heavy lifting of video encoding and AI upscaling. I managed to get my hands on an [spam link removed]EPYC 32-core processor/s[pam] running at 2.6GHz, which is honestly complete overkill for my needs, but it makes the rendering process fly by. It's funny, though—there's a massive irony in using a 32-core server-grade beast to process a movie that was clearly shot on a shoestring budget with a handheld camcorder and zero lighting equipment. You see every grain of film and every smudge on the lens in horrifyingly high definition.
One specific point I've been thinking about is the "soul" of the failure. In the older stuff, you can feel the earnestness. Someone really tried to make a great sci-fi epic, but they only had $50 and a bag of flour for "snow." Today, it feels like a lot of "bad" movies are being made that way on purpose, leaning into the meme culture. They use cheap digital assets and stock CGI that look intentionally terrible.
To me, a 3D monster rendered in five minutes doesn't have the same charm as a guy in a clearly visible rubber suit, no matter how much processing power you throw at it. Digital laziness just doesn't hit the same way as creative desperation does.
I'm curious to know where everyone else stands on this. Do you think the shift to digital effects has killed the "lovable" bad movie, or am I just being a bit too nostalgic for the days of physical squibs and cardboard sets? Does anyone actually prefer the modern, self-aware "Sharknado" style of bad filmmaking?
#6
Games / Re: Answer the question with a...
Last post by Rev. Powell - Today at 10:09:59 AM
What test are you performing there?
#8
Games / Re: Answer the question with a...
Last post by bob - Today at 10:02:19 AM
Why did you ski without me?
#9
Entertainment / Re: What have you been listeni...
Last post by Rev. Powell - Today at 09:42:12 AM
#10
Off Topic Discussion / Re: The New Happy Birthday Thr...
Last post by Rev. Powell - Today at 09:38:01 AMHappy birthday Lil' Cerb!