is the age of the "bad movie" over?

[zombie no.one]

Do any of you think the capacity for the production so-called "bad movies" is possible anymore?

I mean think about it... 70's style crap special effects that don't quite work...dialogue that is so badly overdubbed that you can't help but laugh...plot twists that are so inconceivable that only a prosthetic dummy would fall for them.......etc. etc....

Film making has got to the stage now where all these "unintentional" mistakes can be  ironed out and glossed over during the editing stage with technology. even on a low budget.

when was the last time you saw a film that made you laugh out loud due to it's sheer incompetence?

the only "bad movies" that are made today are the ones that are genuinely bad, i.e. you really wouldn't want to see them again...not in the traditional "bad movie" sense.

[Ash]

Is it over??
No way!

Just look at filmmakers like our beloved Uwe Boll & Paul Anderson.
They have elevated bad movie making to a whole new level!

Yes they're bad...but not "bad..bad" like the oldies.

Bad filmmaking will never stop...it will only evolve into a newer kind of badness.

[LilCerberus]

As a fan of shorts, indie productions & student films, I believe that if one is patient enough, with just the right level of idle curiosity, it is still possible.

With the advent of the newer editing & sfx technologies that you mentioned, as well as their affordability & ease of use, it's my opinion that we are now beginning to see examples of people & companies putting a little too much faith in them.

The most prominent recent example I can think of would be Timothy Hines version of The War of the Worlds. There are quite a few people on the imdb boards who just can't leave this film alone.

And let's not forget that some of the now classic films that Andrew's reviewed, such as The Creeping Terror & Manos - The Hands of Fate, were made by small timers who really had no idea what they were doing. I believe that we are now seeing something similar with home video productions, such as the works of the Polonia Brothers & Ikuzo Studios, and the Internet is dotted with all sorts of examples of rather promising looking works from "parent's garage" types of productions.

Also, with the advent of the internet, it's getting easier to find obscure productions, even recent ones, that someone wishes they'd never done.

[Ash]

Lilcerberus is right.
I've collected several friends on the Badmovies.org Myspace page who produced, directed or starred in current B-movies.

Myspace has an entire seperate area titled, "Myspace Film".
In it, you can find all kinds of seriously BAD films!

Just check out our friends list on Myspace.
"The Ghastly Love of Johnny X"
"The Horror of Cornhole Cove"
"Pot Zombies"

Yes....they're still making horrible B-movies!

[Andrew]

Ken Begg and I have talked about this a few times.  What it comes down to is that studio productions, no matter how small, are often competent enough to be boring bad - rather than gloriously awful.  A big problem with no budget films these days is that they are such half-hearted efforts as to be unappealing.  "The Creeping Terror" had no budget, but the people who made it did expend some effort.  You can tell that they were trying to make a movie.

[daveblackeye15]

There will always be crappily made movies. I think you have nothing to worry about.

[Doc Daneeka]

The age of the 70's/80's style b-film (some of which were actually pretty good) is over. Nowadays, when people look for bad movies all they need do is turn to ASSylum productions. All include bad dialogue/acting, obviously ripped-off plots, technobabble, plotholes, and to top it all off, halfassed digital monsters to replace the halfassed rubber suits in days of yore. In a way, Leigh Scott and David Michael Latt are the new Corman and Arkoff, just without the creativity and social messages.

And remember, commercials for DVDs that you haven't seen gracing any local matinees are usually purty bad bets.

Oh wait! I change my mind, there may be a FEW old-school B-Movies still around if "The Gingerdead Man" is any indication!

[Yaddo 42]

The unintentional "bad movie" is harder to find as the awareness of camp and kitsch has gone up and irony has pervaded our pop culture. Many of the people making low budgets films these days grew up as fans of bad movies and are versed in the cliches, formulas, and references of the past. It's reached the point that throwing the names of directors good and bad into movies has become old.

There are still the well-intentioned amateurs and people with more money and access to quality equipment than talent out there. They just don't have the drive-ins and grindhouses anymore to have their stuff dumped out onto by folks out to make a buck. Like it was said above they go straight to video, direct market them, or sell or distribute them online.

There also the folks like the ones who made "Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter" who made a bad movie on purpose, to be enjoyed by fans, or be mocked by ones who think they failed , and to confuse and outrage people who either wouldn't "get" it to begin with or have a lower threshold of shock than they thought.

Bad movies are still out there, it's probably the case of that the old rules just don't apply so much. Will fans be discussing, appreciating, and having festivals around those SciFi "originals" and other recent films some day? I have no idea, the lifecycle for anything in pop culture is so much shorter now as we bombard our shortening attention spans with more and more stuff.

[zombie no.one]

word, that was really well put yaddo42, cant front on anything you said there -  except I never want to see "jesus christ:vampire hunter", that really sounds like a move in the wrong direction, bad-movie wise, . :o(

who knows, maybe in 2040 kids will be in hysterics at Jurrasic Park and Terminator II, et al. that remains to be seen. all that we can hope for is a worldwide total nuclear meltdown and folks having to start from scratch making films on super 8 with half written scripts again...they say things go in cycles, I guess.

[Foywonder]

Sounds like what I've been talking about a lot in my reviews of late. Even the bad movies these days tend to be bad in the same uninspired ways. Its rare that you come across a film of spectacular badness these days. Most a bad but in a bland way. I can personally think of no better example than the Sci-Fi Channel's original movies. They're almost consistantly terrible but rarely in memorable fashion.

To answer the question that started this thread, as long as there are movies there will always be bad movies, but finding a true "so bad it's good" movie is becoming harder and rarer.

[Zapranoth]

I agree that entertainingly bad is becoming a narrower mark to hit.
Campy is hard to hit upon as a fluke occurrence.

We're in broad agreement that there will always be crap movies out there, but the awesomely bad ones (the ones that are stunningly bad, when there are the clear hallmarks of "good" intentions) are not coming up as often.

Bad CG, bad acting, bad writing will last forever of course.  But I don't think that's what we're really talking about here.

Are there many indie films that are really, awesomely suck-ass bad?   Like "Kiss and the Phantom of the Park" bad?  Like the Star Wars Christmas special bad?    I'm talking serious HP Lovecraft level blasphemy from beyond the stars bad...

[zombie no.one]

> Are there many indie films that are really,
> awesomely suck-ass bad?   Like "Kiss and the
> Phantom of the Park" bad?  Like the Star Wars
> Christmas special bad?    I'm talking serious HP
> Lovecraft level blasphemy from beyond the stars
> bad...


actually i read this thread again and Mr. Briggs makes a good point: "The Gingerdead man" . I forgot I saw this. its a new film, and it fits into the category pretty well. it's "bad" bad. check that one out.

overall though, I think my point stands.

[ulthar]

When someone DOES try to make a campy, just-for-fun 'bad' movie, look at the reaction it gets.  My example is SNAKES ON A PLANE.  Some get it, many don't.  I think it's possible filmmakers are looking at the response and saying:

"uh uh, I am not going to waste my time.  Let me just re-hash AMERICAN PIE or pump out yet another DIE HARD-esque actioner and earn a living."

The question I think can be rephrased as "what motivates film makers into making films."  The B movies we love came largely from the love of making films.  The director might have had a message (all the anti-nuke 50's giant insect movies, for example) or simply had a story to tell, or simply wanted to tell an old story in a new visual way.  What motivates contemporary film making?

Money.  And not that from the box-office or DVD rentals.  Nah.  The modern era of film is a 90-150 minute commercial.  There is often product tie-in like action figures, McD's happy meals, and of course a BIGGIE, video games.  It all too often is not about the film anymore - the film is just the vehicle.

Just some thoughts.

[Ash]

Ulthar was pretty much right on in his last post.

The one exception I'd say is the guys over at Troma.
Those guys don't seem to care what anybody thinks.  They'll make tons of Grade Z movies and money never really seems to be a factor.
I like that about them.
They seem to be out to make the best/worst films they can despite obvious budget restrictions.

[LilCerberus]

Pardon me for getting all whiney & everything here, but how come I'm the only one on this board who ever brings up Hines' WOTW?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638
This guy wasn't going for the whole "intentional camp" thing, he was actually serious, and pretty narcissistic about it, too.

I just don't see how anyone can believe that there are no more laughably bad movies when I've seen a three hour "epic" based on a classic novel that features a guy with a fake mustache who's somehow able to overact & mumble at the same time while watching inept extras turn into dancing skeletons.