Retro Bad Movies vs. Modern Bad Movies

[Flick James]

Retro - but I'd go back a bit further than 2000 for the cut-off date.  I think the "Golden Age" of bad movies ended in the early 1960s and the "Silver Age" ended around 1989.

I'll go with that. I like the topic, but the 2000 cutoff makes the decision too easy.

[voltron]

Definately retro all the way. I'm a snob when it comes to movies past 1989. I don't exactly know why, but I hate the way newer movies look and they just don't do a damn thing for me.

[Raffine]

Retro - but I'd go back a bit further than 2000 for the cut-off date.  I think the "Golden Age" of bad movies ended in the early 1960s and the "Silver Age" ended around 1989.

I'll go with that. I like the topic, but the 2000 cutoff makes the decision too easy.

Me, three.

I got socks older than that. They're still in pretty good shape, too.

[Flick James]

Retro - but I'd go back a bit further than 2000 for the cut-off date.  I think the "Golden Age" of bad movies ended in the early 1960s and the "Silver Age" ended around 1989.

I'll go with that. I like the topic, but the 2000 cutoff makes the decision too easy.

Me, three.

I got socks older than that. They're still in pretty good shape, too.

But are they cheesy socks?

[Robocop]

You guys are right, 2000 is too soon a cut off date which has probably impacted the quantity of the poll, but I doubt it would influence the result. 

[Couchtr26]

Retro - I generally don't watch many newer bad movies and have felt nostalgic the past few years.  I prefer my earlier life in the '90s and miss watching those bad movies and feeling more carefree.  Although, I may sound a bit like I wish for that time again and I do.  I kind of just like to not think about things so hard and take life more in stride and easier. 

[diamondwaspvenom]

Retro hands down for me. If I were to compare them by two important b-movie categories (Acting and FX), it would go like this:

Acting: Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of cringe worthy acting in most retro b-movies. But to be honest, the actors in the retro movies are fun to watch because they try too hard to be serious, therefore adding more hilarity to the experience. Modern bad actors barely attempt to put any kind of effort or passion into their performances. Retro bad actors try to make the best of the situation when starring in a cheesy movie. Modern crap actors rely too much on looking good for the camera instead of actual acting skills.

Special FX: The monsters of yesteryear were brought to life through puppetry, stop motion animation or by costume. It's easier to laugh at a bad movie with p**s poor puppetry (Hobgoblins), laughable stop motion (Winterbeast) or lousy suits (Robot Monster) because of how incredibly cheap and fake looking they are. Despite certainly looking more comical than terrifying, one can't help but admire the effort (or lack thereof) that was put into creating these creatures. Modern bad movies rely heavily on CGI to create their monsters, and in every single case (Curse of the Komodo, Boa vs Python, Manticore, etc.) the monster is incredibly pathetic looking because they resemble low resolution PC graphics. Unlike the monsters of the past, these newer creatures look much more half assed than their contemporaries. Once again, it feels like a case where the special effects technicians really don't care for the art of creature FX. They're just in it to get payed.