Is my definition of a "bad movie" skewed?

[Intangible Skeleton]

Of course to me, anything entertaining is no longer bad, and I don't use the term "so bad it's good" anymore, but traditionally speaking I can recognize say, Troll 2, as a "bad movie".

See Mortal Kombat Annihilation is what I would classify as a "Z movie", as compared to just a budget (b) movie, Thirteen Ghosts remake, say. Two different levels of "bad" there. This site seems to be mostly focused on Abominations of Cinema, like Troll 2, and so it should.

What's different I think is that I classify things as "bad movies" not only if they are ineptly filmed, but they could just have a ridiculous low concept, and/or be completely over the top (like an action movie where Chuck Norris slaps a time bomb on someone's ass).

I would describe things like Rambo 2 and 3 as bad movies despite high production values and good cinematography. Or Steven Seagal movies. Movies like The Mummy 2 or Resident Evil.

[Patient7]

To me any cult or low budget movie is a bad movie, especially if I like it while few others do so I find bad movies and b-movies to be the same.  Now a BAD movie is just all around crappy and nobody likes it.

[Rev. Powell]

I think there are at least three ways a movie can be "bad."  First, you have your technically inept movies: PLAN 9. ROBOT MONSTER, MANOS, etc.  These may or may not be entertaining (usually, in fact, they're not).  Big budget Hollywood movies can be bad in this way, usually because of bad directing choices.  See GIGLI, SHOWGIRLS or HEAVEN'S GATE.

Then, you have the low-budget movies that are not "bad" in that they est out to do what they tried to do---effective b-movies.  These are often considered "bad" by critics and the public because they deal with outre subjects, like women's prisons or misogynist slashers or competitions to run down pedestrians, in a shamelessly exploitative way.  The same people who love the inept movies tend to love these ones as well,

Then you have movies that are TRULY bad--forgettable, uninspiring, bland.  Remakes of television shows or predictable genre fare.  Just look at the top 10 grossing movies any week and you'll usually find at least two or three of these.

So, no, I don't really think your definition is skewed.  It's just that the term "bad movie" is sort of like the word "pornography": we can't define it, but we know it when we see it.

[Cult Movie Mania]

Rev. Powell,
Nice summation of what could be considered "bad" movies.  I would disagree with critics' and the public's perception that a work such as Death Race 2000 would be considered "bad" simply due to its outrageous nature.  It actually is a very good, memorable film, as are other blatantly outrageous, low-budget movies (Savage Sisters, NOTLD, Frogs, etc.), but not "bad".  Sure, some of those films had questionable acting, and at times the low budget really showed, but as you stated they did what they set out to do.  It would be great as fans if we were to aid in altering these perceptions.

[Intangible Skeleton]

One way I changed my perceptions was when I started calling "bad" movies good movies, cause if they're entertaining, they're good at the end of the day. That's the purpose of movies, to entertain. Many movies people recognize as being bad are indeed entertaining because they are bad ("So bad it's good"), but aren't these movies then paradoxically good? I don't feel the need to qualify with "so bad it's good" or "it's awesome in a retarded way" anymore. If somethings good, it's as simple as that.

A good example is comparing Street Fighter to Titanic. In terms of directing, set design, acting, hell practically every quantifiable thing, Titanic is superior. Except it's nowhere near as entertaining as Street Fighter. Yes, the entertainment value of Street Fighter is due to it's ineptitude and the fact that it seemingly goes out of it's way to s**t on the videogame franchise that spawned it, but as a film (a medium of entertainment) it's superior to Titanic, yet you'd be laughed at for saying something so absurd. The only entertainment to be had from Titanic is naked Kate Winslet, that guy smacking his leg off the propeller, and Leonardo Di Caprio dying.

[Torgo]

To me a lot of people equate a movie being a B-movie with being a "bad" movie. That couldn't be farther from the truth IMO in many cases.

For instance, The Road Warrior is a B movie, but it's also considered one of the classics of action cinema in general.

[Scott]

For me there are two kinds of "bad" films in my opinion.

1) One is it's so bad that it's fun and entertaining.

2) The other is that it's just bad as in dull and boring.

Now it's true they can take a good film idea and make it bad with CGI, but perhaps that falls into my catagory #2 where I become disinterested. I still find it hard to get into most CGI films. It's like watching cartoons and I always had trouble watching cartoons as a kid. 

[sideorderofninjas]

Some people use b-movies and bad movies interchangeably.  Or bad movie is one of the things that b-movie stands for other than genre specific or budget... 

[AndyC]

Yeah, I tend to use "bad movie" to describe anything of interest that might not be considered conventionally good. It might be bad, it might be obscure, it might have been an actual b-movie (the cheaper half of a double feature) when released.

It might be one of many very entertaining movies of genres that don't traditionally win major awards - lowbrow comedy, science fiction, horror, etc. They're not important movies, but they don't pretend to be.

Maybe a better term would be "misfit movies." Think of it as a high school class. You have the honour students, the athletes, the popular kids, and even the average kids. Then you have the misfits - the headbangers, the stoners, the not-too-bright kids, the bright-but-lazy kids, the jokers, the uber geeks, etc. They're the non-conformists, either deliberately or in spite of themselves. Every class has a few. They are a diverse lot - smart, dumb, hardworking, lazy, clean, dirty, overachieving, underachieving, flamboyant, reserved, likeable or despicable.

In movie terms, those are the ones I call bad.

[Intangible Skeleton]

"misfit movies"

It would be interesting if this term caught on.

[Underbelly]

There are bad movies and there are B-Movies and both get confused on this site.

[The Dungeonmaster]

There are so many levels on which to enjoy a piece of cinema (or cinematic trash) that no one can give the one true definition of a "bad movie". I could probably write 15 different ways to define it and those would be just for me. You just either get it or you don't. My friends and I love to sit around, drink beers and watch movie disasters of old. But there are a few people who have come to the camp and just not gotten why we enjoy it so much. "Bad movies" are like an inside joke. You can tell the ones who see it and it's a waste of time trying to explain it to those that don't.