Bad Movies --- Drawing the Line

[KINGDINOSAUR]

I'm looking for opinions from "bad movie" fans.  Do you make a distinction between movies that unintentionally bad and movies that flaunt their inadequacy?

My feeling is that a movie being unintentionally made in the tradition of the real "B-movies" of the 1950s is a true "bad movie" and nothing like the later T&A films of the 1980s.

The main difference between the decades of no-budget movies is that in the 1950s and 1960s producer/directors did the best they could with little time and money even though their plots were complicated and needed a lot of special effects or good monster makeup. Since filmstock was pricey they often went with one take unless it was too screwed up.  The old school of filmmaking is that if you wait for perfection you'll never get the job done on time and on budget. You use what you can get and hope editing will make the flaws unnoticeable (but that never works).

Starting in the 1970s, producer/directors began to poke fun at themselves to prevent others from doing it first. Then it got to be the audiences for these movies were teenage boys who just wanted nudity so plots were just thrown together as a cheap framework for softcore porn.

I think "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" was the first movie to gain major attention by knowly crossing the barrier from serious to silly (sure others pre-date it like John Landis' "Schlock", but they didn't gain mass attention). Most hardcore "B-movie" fans I know don't consider it a true "bad" movie since that was the intention of the producer/director from the outset.

Opinions?

[The Burgomaster]

I enjoy both movies that are intentionally bad, as well as unitentionally bad. However, I think that the unintentionally bad ones are generally funnier and more interesting to watch.

In either case, the "badness" must be funny. If a movie is bad and it is BORING (intentionally OR unintentionally), THAT'S where I have a big problem.

I have ranted about the "badness" of the movie CURSE OF THE HEADLESS HORSEMAN numerous times in this forum. It is bad . . . VERY bad . . . the WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN . . . but it is also excruciatingly boring. The only part that you might chuckle at is a shootout scene that looks about as realistic as a bunch of kids playing "cowboys and indians" and shooting each other with their fingers.

I can enjoy ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES almost as much as PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE because both of them make me laugh.



Post Edited (10-21-03 15:42)

[raj]

I consider "Tomatoes" to be a true bad/b-movie.  Sure the producers of more modern movies know about earlier efforts and sometimes try to emulate them in a tongue-in-cheek manner, but they're also working with limited budgets & talent, and try to produce the best they can.  Mars Attacks is filled with references to 1950s b-movies, but to me it's more of an homage to those films than an actual b-movie (I thought it was a good "good" movie, not a good "bad" movie).

Both the earlier and later b-movies are products put out with relatively limited resources, designed to entertain.  It's not later directors' fault that they came later and already had this body of work out there.  To me it's more dishonest to ignore the past than the acknowledge it.

[KINGDINOSAUR]

raj wrote:> > Both the earlier and later b-movies are products put out with> relatively limited resources, designed to entertain.  It's not> later directors' fault that they came later and already had> this body of work out there.  To me it's more dishonest to> ignore the past than the acknowledge it. >

For me, if you are going to make a comedy it better be damn funny.  But if you are making any other type genre then unintentional humor is forgiven.  There are many classic "good" movies that have unintentionally funny spots because of the difference in time periods.  Most notably are the demeaning and subservient roles of women or misconceptions about science.

Having little money to make a war or a science fiction movie, but doing it anyway is laudable.  Putting faith in your audience to suspend their disbelief is a cornerstone in movies.  Making a movie with serious elements while poking fun at yourself tells me the filmmakers need a crutch and have no confidence in their audience.  Television shows that insert comic relief while striving for legitimacy like the 1970s BUCK ROGERS with that friggin' "Tweaky" annoy the hell out of me!

ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES is a comedy and not a "so bad it's good" movie.  When most people think of the LOST IN SPACE television series they think of Dr. Smith and the Robot's comic relief.  The end of the series was a huge departure from it's beginnings.  I think we have the Adam West BATMAN series to blame for the entire 'laugh at yourself before the critics laugh at you' method.  It even had an effect on the original STAR TREK series by the second season.  I believe that's one of the reasons why Gene Roddenbury wanted more control when creating STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION.  He wanted to keep it in a much more serious vein.

[Scott]

As Burgomaster said. Both the intentional and unintentional can be entertaining. Boring will kill any film.