Sharp observations within the article and I agree with the rest of the comments here.
I'll just add to all this and say that bad movies are better than bland movies because they have an identity, a vision. They can also be a good source of inspiration for many creators who can take a second chance to properly execute their ideas unlike bland movies that have nothing new to say.
I think there's a further distinction to be made in terms of the "bad bang for your buck" phenomenon, where a low-budget effort that fails is kind of heroic and cool no matter what, but a big budget epic that is a failure - not the bottom line but the overall aesthetic result - is always more worthy of derision.
So you'll never not convince me that the worst films ever made were "Gods of Egypt" (2016) by Alex Proyas and "The Final Skywalker" (2019), or whatever it's called, by J.J. Abrams. Perhaps pound for pound the Star Wars film is the worst ever but its absolute lack of charm means that the Gerard Butler one beats it for watchability.
You could consider the question also in relation to kitsch and camp. Some while back we discussed some texts on that, but I think Sontag has some interesting aphorisms on badness in film.
An underrated factor in why Hollywood movies are rarely so-bad-it's-good is that studios can and do change movies according to public opinion and weed out the weirdness that would make these movies cult classics: I'm thinking in particular here of the CGI Sonic the Hedgehog's freaky teeth, or editing the infamous "he was in the Amazon with my mom researching spiders right before she died" line from the Madame Web trailer out of the final film. (I think that I ended up kind of enjoying Madame Web is proof my taste is permanently warped.) And of course, Goodhart's law applies here: there are plenty of Syfy original movies about lavalantulanados that are aiming for so-bad-it's-good and just end up sucking, because what's the fun in being intentionally bad?
FWIW I can think of one transcendently good-terrible Hollywood sequel: I think Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is even more arresting than the original in some ways. (An Oingo Boingo needle drop helps!)
It's not surprising that the good-bad movies are not Hollywood products. Because they are not products at all, as you say, but realizations of love. Apropos @A.P. Murhy's comment, what I think is worthy of derision in the unsuccessful expensive production is not the sheer expenditure, as if the higher the budget the more impressive the failure, but the intention. What makes the bad-bad movies bad, I think, is their craft-iness, their lack of spirit, the fact that they imitate art and not life. Derivative in the worst kind of way. These are investments that are meant to yield in the box office.
There are movies that are considered flops because the revenue, though exceeding the budget, was not high enough. This is a case by case matter, but it's a pity that to have introduced a good movie into the world is not deemed worthy enough.
Funny, just this morning I wrote an imdb review of Aliens Abducted My Parents. I was trying to put into words what made it bad in a good way. I even mentioned Mystery Science Theater and The Room (and recommended watching with friends while cognitively hampered). Your article nails it! The sincerity is key... it has to look like a sincere attempt to be good and then fail, but in a slightly endearing way. Thanks for writing this! It is good in a good way, lol.
"The best bad movies, then, are generally the ones most like feature-length versions of our own youthful amateur movies"
Ain't it the truth— one of humanity's most enduring joys is that joy of watching someone else screw up, far more colosally than even we could have done.
Sharp observations within the article and I agree with the rest of the comments here.
I'll just add to all this and say that bad movies are better than bland movies because they have an identity, a vision. They can also be a good source of inspiration for many creators who can take a second chance to properly execute their ideas unlike bland movies that have nothing new to say.
I think there's a further distinction to be made in terms of the "bad bang for your buck" phenomenon, where a low-budget effort that fails is kind of heroic and cool no matter what, but a big budget epic that is a failure - not the bottom line but the overall aesthetic result - is always more worthy of derision.
So you'll never not convince me that the worst films ever made were "Gods of Egypt" (2016) by Alex Proyas and "The Final Skywalker" (2019), or whatever it's called, by J.J. Abrams. Perhaps pound for pound the Star Wars film is the worst ever but its absolute lack of charm means that the Gerard Butler one beats it for watchability.
You could consider the question also in relation to kitsch and camp. Some while back we discussed some texts on that, but I think Sontag has some interesting aphorisms on badness in film.
An underrated factor in why Hollywood movies are rarely so-bad-it's-good is that studios can and do change movies according to public opinion and weed out the weirdness that would make these movies cult classics: I'm thinking in particular here of the CGI Sonic the Hedgehog's freaky teeth, or editing the infamous "he was in the Amazon with my mom researching spiders right before she died" line from the Madame Web trailer out of the final film. (I think that I ended up kind of enjoying Madame Web is proof my taste is permanently warped.) And of course, Goodhart's law applies here: there are plenty of Syfy original movies about lavalantulanados that are aiming for so-bad-it's-good and just end up sucking, because what's the fun in being intentionally bad?
FWIW I can think of one transcendently good-terrible Hollywood sequel: I think Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is even more arresting than the original in some ways. (An Oingo Boingo needle drop helps!)
It's not surprising that the good-bad movies are not Hollywood products. Because they are not products at all, as you say, but realizations of love. Apropos @A.P. Murhy's comment, what I think is worthy of derision in the unsuccessful expensive production is not the sheer expenditure, as if the higher the budget the more impressive the failure, but the intention. What makes the bad-bad movies bad, I think, is their craft-iness, their lack of spirit, the fact that they imitate art and not life. Derivative in the worst kind of way. These are investments that are meant to yield in the box office.
There are movies that are considered flops because the revenue, though exceeding the budget, was not high enough. This is a case by case matter, but it's a pity that to have introduced a good movie into the world is not deemed worthy enough.
Funny, just this morning I wrote an imdb review of Aliens Abducted My Parents. I was trying to put into words what made it bad in a good way. I even mentioned Mystery Science Theater and The Room (and recommended watching with friends while cognitively hampered). Your article nails it! The sincerity is key... it has to look like a sincere attempt to be good and then fail, but in a slightly endearing way. Thanks for writing this! It is good in a good way, lol.
"The best bad movies, then, are generally the ones most like feature-length versions of our own youthful amateur movies"
Ain't it the truth— one of humanity's most enduring joys is that joy of watching someone else screw up, far more colosally than even we could have done.