is the age of the "bad movie" over?

[zombie no.one]

lilcerberus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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

...just had a look at that link...looks promising :(

[Yaddo 42]

The problem with that version of War of the Worlds is that it is a hard movie to "share" with others. You can convince people to throw away 90 minutes or so of their time for an entertainingly bad movie, even less time for some of the stuff out there now and not just those Charles Band cut-and-paste clip show re-edits. But three frickin' hours that feels even longer! It's an oddity that stands out, but will people watch it down the line other than as an endurance contest?

From what I've read Hines seemed to think, or at least claim, he made the best film he could for the money. The cynic in me can't decide if he was sincere in his misguided effort (the length argues in favor of it) or was giving the finger to anyone who bought it (and I'm one of the ones who paid their $8.76 at Wal-Mart) or tried to sit through it (the FX and the endless and padded credits argue for this to me).

While I wouldn't want scads of films like "Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter", I can at least respect the makers honesty on the commentary that they were making a fun, stupid, cheap film in their spare time and were trying to have fun doing it.

Plus lionizing the good old days in misguided in any area. Many of the films we discuss and adore here were made by cynical producers who often had a title, poster, and/or ad campaign in mind and cranked out the film to fit, They didn't want (good or "bad") art they wanted a good return on their money, just like many, if not most, of the kids attending the movies originally couldn't have cared less about the story, effects, etc. They just wanted to get away from the parents, sit in the dark theater or the back of a car at a drive-in, and neck or more if they could get away with it.

[Flangepart]

Foywonder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

You make a great poind, Scott, about Blandness.
PLAN 9 is bad, but never bland! Its has a spirited feel, even as you realise "He said what!?" or "Dudly Manlove? Who's he?" The closest a Sci-Fi channel flick is the MAMMOTH! flick, as that had some good lines, a cast with a taste for cheese, and a sence of fun...yet, even that did not totaly meet the description, did it?
Ah weel, it beat out most of the crap they show!
Production values may improve, but concepts, acting, and attitude can still amuse.

[BeyondTheGrave]

One thing that I don't see in B-Movies anymore is female nudity. I'm not trying to come out as a perv or anything but I could watch a B-movie from late 70s and 80s and 95% of the time their would be nudity .Now theirs none. Wonder what happened.

[Derf]

rich andrini Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing that I don't see in B-Movies anymore is
> female nudity. I'm not trying to come out as a
> perv or anything but I could watch a B-movie from
> late 70s and 80s and 95% of the time their would
> be nudity .Now theirs none. Wonder what happened.


It passed "out of style" with the feminist movement's claim that it degrades women. I'm not arguing this point, but now films seem to go out of their way to show naked men (at least men's backsides). Is that degrading, too?

Anyway, as Yaddo 42 pointed out, we are too aware of camp these days, so too many low-budget film makers see that they have no real chance to compete with the big studios, so they go for "camp" instead, trying to make an intentionally bad movie. I've seen the same type of thing happening all too often (and have been guilty of it myself) in other areas: When I know I am about to mess something up, I will try to make it hilariously bad. For example, if I am singing and miss a note, I'll then go into a bad Shatner impression or a bad operatic bass impression, as if to tell my audience, "Yes, I can't do this well, so let me show you instead just how cornball I can be." This works occasionally, in small doses. In a 90-minute movie, it is painful. I wanted to like The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra when I read about it. I really did. Then I saw that, instead of staying true to the monster movies of the fifties that they claimed to be honoring, they went for campy comedy instead, and they simply were not skillful enough performers to pull off camp at that level. Comedy is difficult to write and very difficult to perform well, and while I'll chuckle a bit at a 10-30 second "look at how much I can ham it up" shtick, I just don't find it amusing for 90 minutes at a stretch. Ed Wood wasn't going for camp; he was just trying to make the best movies he could on the budget he had; he believed he was making good movies. That's what makes them so delightfully bad. The makers of Scream and its sequels were going for camp, and it just got old, fast.

[LilCerberus]

Okay, so maybe the best example I could come up with wasn't the best example.

Still, I feel somewhat optimistic about the future of the laughably bad.

For example, I recall reading an article in TV Guide back in the mid '90s in which Joel & The Bots lamented that they were running out of classic baddies to mock. At the time, I recall thinking to myself, "Has this guy ever been to a video store, or had insomnia & had to watch whatever the hell was on?" And they still kept finding material after that.

As for the concerns over the unwatchably bad films of today, I'd have to say that I've endured my fare share of classic dulloramas like The Wizard of Mars, with more punishment to come.

Finally, concerning the issue over the future of intended cheese, it's my opinion that Donald Pleasence addressed this back in 1984 in Terror in the Aisles during a clip from Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.

These things come in cycles.

[raj]

I don't know if we'll ever see another "golden age" of bad or B movies, but there are people out there trying.  Charles Band, as has already been pointed out, has made some wonderfully bad movies -- heck at the end of Puppetmaster they used a stuffed dog.  You can't get much cheesier than that.

And the folks who made Vamps: Deadly Dreamgirls and its sequel (which features copious amounts of female toplessness) and the folks at timewarp films http://www.timewarpfilms.com/HomePage.html
are working on low budget b movies.

[Yaddo 42]

But will they be enjoyed and appreciated the way some of the bad classics from the past still are? Or rediscovered by new fans later on?

There are way more infomercials, lousy syndicated reruns, crappy talk shows, and stuff like "Cheaters" on late at night than "late late movie" shows or horror host shows. Although this site has shown me there are more of them out there than I would have guessed. Even those are working from mostly the same pool of older films. Maybe if there were a new wave of local independent stations with schedules to fill.

There are tons of specialty and niche movie channels on digital cable and satellite now, when I hang out with a friend of mine who has it I sometimes check channels like Showtime Beyond. Yet I find myself saying "I've seen this" way more than I should. To me, since channel ownership has consolidated in the US and with the rise of Fox and the "netlets" (WB and UPN, now CW and MY network), I seem to "discover" films I like (good or bad) on TV less and less. Video on demand and stuff like Netflix allows you to sample offbeat or unknown movies, but that's seeking something out as opposed to running across it while flipping through the channels late at night or on a lazy rainy Sunday afternoon.

Even the way we find out about movies has changed. There are people who seem to be much better at generating interest and hype for their movies than they are at making them, see Timothy Hines for one. I'm not even thinking about studio films here. Maybe this just makes them the new William Castles and David Friedmans, but it sure doesn't feel like it.

[Jack]

Personally I think we are in a golden age of bad movies.  We've got this whole direct-to-video market that didn't even exist way back when, and I, for one, am positively in heaven.  Sure, the vast majority of these aren't memorable, and you couldn't really get a group of friends together to laugh at them, but they're still plenty good enough for a bad movie lover to fill up lots of shelf space with DVD's.  Between the Sci-Fi Channel, Charles Band, Jim Wynorski, The Asylum, Unified Film Organization, etc., I don't see that we've got anything to worry about. 

[RCMerchant]

I dunno-I saw a fairly recent movie called VAMPIRELLA with Roger Daltrey,of all people,and it was actually an entertaing piece of slop.Jim Wyorinski did it I think. Its odd, but the classic cheese of today was ignored as total garbage in its time. I was looking through an old issue of FAMOUS MONSTERS mag from 1962,and Joe(GREMLINS) Dante wrote an articale on the worst horror films of all time.Many are favorites among B-movie fans now,others just dull,and some I've never even heard of-
1.ADVENTURE ISLAND(1947) w/Rory(MOTEL HELL) Calhoun and Rhonda Fleming.(?)
2.A-Haunting We Will Go(1941) w/Laurel and Hardy
3.the AMAZING TRANSPARENT MAN(1957) I rember seeing this years and years ago-but can't recall alot.
4.ATTACK of the 50 foot WOMAN(1958) Need I commenT? A beloved CLASSIC of B-cinema! ''SILLY"
5.the BLOB(1958) Even people who arn't B movie freaks like this one! "How low can you get?''
6.the BRAIN EATERS(1958) I can't comment,as Ive never seen it."grade z quickie"
7.BRIDE of the MONSTER(1955) See other thread. "card-boring"
8.the CAT CREEPS (1946)
9.CRY of the WEREWOLF (1944) Dante deems it dull-I agree.
10.the CYCLOPS (1955) I LOVED this movie
11.DEVIL GIRL from MARS(1955) I enjoyed this one...kinda slow. Dante calls it "juvenille".
12.FIRE MAIDENS from OUTER SPACE (1955) 
13.FRANKENSTIEN'S DAUGHTER (1958) CLASSIC.
14.GENUIS at WORK(1946) Brown +Carny,and Lugosi.Never seen it.
15.GIGANTIS,theFIRE MONSTER (1959) aka GODZILLA,s REVENGE.I like ALL the Godzilla movies.Dante-"another juvenile monster epic.
16.GIANT from the UNKNOWN(1960) Dante-"tiresome."
17.the GIRL from SCOTLAND YARD(1937) HUH?
18.GOLIATH and the DRAGON(1961) -"--loaded with phoney monsters,snake pits,and gushing blood." I GOTTA SEE IT.
19.HAVE ROCKET WILL TRAVEL(1959) 3 Stooges + cheezy fx.Dante-"What a bore!"
20.the HIDEOUS SUN DEMON(1959)A cult classic!Dante-"Routine D science fiction."
21.HOW to MAKE a MONSTER(1958) Dante-''a grim procession of horrible faces". YEAH!
22.INVASION of the SAUCERMEN(1957) Dante thought it didn't make sense.
23.I WAS a TEEN AGE FRANKENSTIEN + TEENAGE WEREWOLF(1957) "Two of the most inept, degrading things to ever be ground out of Hollywood".
24.JUNGLE CAPTIVE(1945)
25.KING of the ZOMBIES (1941)
26.KING of the ROCKETMEN(1951) "juvenille space opera." Dante likes the term "juvenille".
27.LEECH WOMAN(1960) "contrived bit of nothing."
28. MAD DOCTOR of MARKET ST.(1942)w/Lionel Atwill"plotless."
29.MAN BEAST(1955)
30.MISSLE to the MOON(1959) "didn't take off". This is a personal favorite of mine!
31.MONSTER from GREEN HELL(1957) "grade B children's show."
32.the MAD MONSTER(1942) "awful"
33.the MUMMY'sCURSE(1945)I found it dull,too.
34.the MYSTERIOUS DOCTOR(1943) ???
35.NIGHT of the BLOOD BEAST(1958) "plot was old hat,and the writing amateur" I love this one too!
36.here we go...PLAN 9from OUTER SPACE(1956) "There is the distinct possibilty it was the cheapest film ever made" "awful","laughable","poor". So whats yer point,Joe?
37.REVOLT of the ZOMBIES(1936)"dull"
38.SHE-DEMONS(1959) w/Irish McCulla "formula"
39.the SMILING GHOST (1941)????
40.SOS COASTGUARD(1937) w/Bela Lugosi."very paltry and not a little ridiculous."
41..TEEN-AGE CAVEMAN(1958) "inept". Love this one too!
42.12 to the MOON (1960) 'trite,badly acted" .....ran out of room! Sorry...more to come....(I can hear it now..."NO! PLEASE STOP!")

[BoyScoutKevin]

I wonder if Joe Dante has had any second thoughts, some 44 years later, about any of the movies he chose for that list.

I must admit, I have seen only eight of the films on the list,

2
5
19
23 IWATW
26
36
40
41

but, there is not a film of those eight, that I did not enjoy.

On the other hand, while I have seen only two of Joe Dante's films, "Inner Soace" and "Twilight Zone: the Movie," neither one did I find as enjoyable as those eight.

[Andrew]

I wonder if the changes to society and entertainment, over time, make it so that those of us who are younger enjoy these films.   Maybe the difference in the way people talk and interact is, in itself, entertaining.  That and what is considered normal.  How many wives get up and fix their husband strawberries and cream for breakfast?  (On the other hand, maybe that was amusing to audiences from the same era as well).  Something to think about. 

[RCMerchant]

Hi. AS warned...cont:
43. MACABRE(1957) Dante sez:"Too grim for real punch". Huh.
44.TWO LOST WORLDS(1950) Joe says it uses too much footage from ONE MILLION BC. I LIKE ONE MILLION BC!!!
45.Now...this one has really got me puzzled...the UNKNOWN TERROR(1957) In fact,I'm going to post it in the WHAT IS THIS heading
46.RODAN (1957) !!!!!!!!
47.the WOMAN EATER(1959) "pretty awful". LOVE that title! never seen the movie.
48.ZOMBIES ON BROADWAY(1945) with Bela Lugosi(again)."Pretty funny except when it's not supposed to be" NOW you got the picture,Joe!!! Thats what makes a BAD MOVIE GOOD!
   Like BSK sed,about second thoughts...when I was a kid and saw DRACULA vs.FRANKENSTIEN, I HATED it. Now 36 years  later, I love it. 36 years....has it been that long....and I'm STILL watching this kinda stuff....wow. I must be mental. I think that bad movies never die...they just have to age...like cheese.

[Captain Tars Tarkas]

We are in the Fourth Age of Bad movies.  The Golden Age was the 1950s Sci-Fi flicks, the Silver Age was 1960s-70s drive in exploitation, the Bronze Age was the late 80's/early 90's low budget Direct to VHS boom, and now we have the DTDVD market where anyone with a camera can get his film released to Blockbuster, we have SciFi Channel making terrible films so fast they premeire more than one a week at times.  Many of these are terrible horror or sci-fi films, but we've also got plenty of DTV sequels in name only to many popular (and unpopular) films, such as extra Single White Females, Wild Things, Roadhouses, Behind Enemy Lines, The Skulls, Species, Hollow Mans, Wargames, Cruel Intensions, Every Disney Film, Air Buds, Dukes of Hazzards, The Nets, and many many more.  It's a great time for bad cinema, which also makes it a horrible time for those caught in the crossfire of love/hate relationships with terrible films.

[KYGOTC]

Ya know, yer right. The possibility of a good b-movie comming out nowadays is often a chance slim to none. What with all the fancy pantsy "special" effects and the lack of interest in aliens and monsters that people have now and every "horror" movie now has to be some sort of slasher flik. Thats why I thank God for "Snakes on a Plane".