Can You Make a Movie So Bad It's Good On Purpose? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/don...
It's easy to make a bad movie. Budget, talent, time, know-how... there are so many factors that can potentially sink a film. But every once in a while, a movie is so terrible, such an utter failure, that it earns the designation "SO BAD IT'S GOOD". These bizarre entities touch upon our schadenfreude, and allow us to share and celebrate these monstrosities of filmmaking. Troll 2, The Room, and Plan 9 From Outerspace are both horrific and weirdly enjoyable, even becoming cults classics. But can these So-Bad-It's-Good films be created ON PURPOSE? Watch the episode and find out!
Vote for us in the Webby Awards!
pv.webbyawards....
pv.webbyawards....
Babbitt: 7:25
www.palestrant....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets:
0:20 collider.com/be...
1:41 nyfa.edu
1:41 xixax.com/halfb...
2:36 / 456110863963803648
3:27 www.flickr.com...
3:28 www.theguardian...
3:29 collider.com/be...
3:32 www.examiner.co...
3:35 www.kinopoisk.r...
3:36 newempressmagaz...
3:37 www.videogum.co...
3:40 peliculasrancia...
4:13 www.amazon.com/...
4:14 poppedcultr.tum...
4:14 whenmeganmetblo...
4:17 www.nytimes.com...
4:19 / 355500572746579969
4:20 / 355554783073017856
4:23 pajamasandcoffe...
4:27 brewtto.tumblr....
4:28 jimsmash.blogsp...
4:29 blog.smashcave....
4:30 beyondthemarque...
5:17 livingreadgirl....
----------------------------------------------
COMMENTS
docs.google.co...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TWEET OF THE WEEK:
/ 457710787709399040
---------------------------------------
MUSIC:
"Europe" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Level 5" by Room for the Homeless (bit.ly/10N0Ykm)
"Bouncy Castle" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
":P" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Number Cruncher" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Little Birthday Acid" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Topskore" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Anti Vanishing Spray" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Tarty Prash" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Carry on Carillon" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Uptown Tennis Club" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Dream Of Autumn" by Night Shift Master
/ 08-dream-of-autumn-nig...
"Insert Toy For Coin" by Eatme (eatme.pro/music/)
"Dizor" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
"Lets go back to the rock" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
"Something like this" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
Come hang out in the Idea Channel IRC!
bit.ly/138EHBh
Check out the Idea Channel SubReddit!
bit.ly/GNklUq
And the Idea Channel Facebook page!
on. 1eVl4vP
TRANSLATE THINGS @ ideachannel.sub...
Let us know what sorts of crazy ideas you have, about this episode and otherwise:
Tweet at us! @pbsideachannel (yes, the longest twitter username ever)
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
Idea Channel Facebook!
/ pbsideachannel
Hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbr...)
Personally, I believe that any nanar made on purpose is would be better classified as parody. Rather than setting out to make something good and missing the mark, a nanar made on purpose instead tries to be bad, but comically exaggerates its own flaws to the point where it becomes entertaining in itself. Part of the charm of this is that the film presents itself so that you KNOW it isn't supposed to be good, so the flaws that you see come off as refreshingly honest. A nanar made on purpose gives no pretense of being a good film, so there's no inevitable disappointment when you see something that doesn't meet your expectation.
In fact, even a nanar that isn't made on purpose could be influenced by audience expectation: films like The Room or Birdemic have become so notorious for their badness that the audience goes in knowing exactly what to expect, and because of that they can properly adjust their attitudes to obtain maximum enjoyment from the film's badness.
If you cant wow them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit...
GaleGrim What Circus did you get that one from? :P
none, its just a quote I remember from some ware.
T. Barnum, of Barnum and Bailey... the Circus.
Bradley Kell
Sorry never herd of it, I will look into it tho.
This is why I can't stand Sharknado, or any of Asylum's bullshit. What makes things like the Room amazing is the creator's belief that they are making something incredible, or at least relatively normal, rather than the batshit crazy thing they ended up with. Sharknado is just a bunch of guys saying "Look, we made a terrible movie! Isn't that awesome?" to which my response is "No, not really. I could go into my backyard with a cell phone and make an even worse film, is that anything special?" There's no novelty in seeing a movie that sucks, because lots of movies suck. The vast majority of movies from any time period suck. And most of them are boring as hell. The Room isn't funny because it's bad, it's funny because of the surreal dialog, bizarrely structured plot, incompetent acting and directing, and just the general impression that this was made by a person who has no understanding of the human race, let alone film-making. Asylum's knowing, winking, "Hey look! We didn't bother to spend more money on special effects! Those sharks don't look real at all! Isn't that hilarious?" schtick is just stupid and cynical. They deserve no more love than Uve Ball, Adam Sandler, Tyler Perry, or Michael Bay.
I wonder if what you're saying about Sharknado and its makers is true? They probably thought of cool things: Sharks + Tornadoes + explosions would be a good idea.
Ken Zhang
You aren't familiar with Asylum Studios, are you? Check out their filmography. They knew exactly what they were doing.
MagusMirificus Right on the dot.
MagusMirificus Random Shark from the sky just so happen to contain the girl from the helicopter is heading my way, as I defend myself by putting my chainsaw between me and the Shark I somehow manage to not only save myself but also free the girl... instead of also cutting HER in half in the process. Of course, just the idea of actually cutting through the shark in such a manner is laughable, you likely cut into the Shark and then die as it lands on you crushing your soul. I actually watched the entire damn movie just to see what the fuss was about... this was so bad it was just bad.
That's exactly how I feel about it. I couldn't have expressed it better
It seems that we really are the point of failure in our language. A film is good or it is bad. It works or it doesn't work.
Here's where the problem is. To say a film is so bad that it's good presupposes that there *IS* a measuring stick which we can determine the quality of the film - below a certain threshold, the film is bad - above it the film is good. So how can a film fail to meet the quality threshold and still be "good" - doesn't that just mean our measuring stick is broken?
The root of the problem really lies in our definition of what a "bad film" is. What is the criteria to be deemed bad? Is it shoddy technical work? Uninspired story? Bad Acting? But the Nanar examples cited all seem to have those.
The working definition I have found is a bad movie commits the sin of being "boring".
Since most Nanar seem to work on a comedic level - it may be useful to compare them to "bad jokes" - They're groan inducing but when delivered in earnest they are anything but "boring"
Regarding the question of whether it is possible to make a Nanar... not on the level of the ones cited here. It's not for lack of trying. The recent Grindhouse style craze and movies like "Black Dynamite" skewer B-movie tropes of the past. John Waters is a self proclaimed "bad movie director" but his work is mainly just trashy fun.
A lot of what makes true nanar works it has to do with the sheer enthusiasm and revel in the material. It's reckless abandon, and hopefully never boring.
I strongly disagree that a movie is good if it isn't boring, I'd say it has nothing to do with it. I've never seen a boring Michael Bay movie, yet he's my least favorite director because his movies are just flash and lack real substance.
First of all, I didn't say a movie was _good_ if it wasn't boring... just that being boring is makes a movie "bad".
Secondly, it has everything to do with it ;)
Interesting you should pick on Bay - he's an easy target. If a Michael Bay movie, keeps you interested, the explosions and action fun to watch - why would you want to label it a "Bad" movie just because it has no further substance?
We go to Fireworks displays and I haven't seen anybody complaining that they're all "Flash and lack real substance"
Why can't Bay's movies just be as they are - mindless entertainment - and why does that need to be judged as "bad" - because some snooty film critic says so? Because the internet cineastes deem it so?
It either works or it doesn't work - and of course that's going to be subjective for everyone.
You may be right. There is a time and place for simple flash, I wouldn't want to live in a world without it. It may even be that mindless entertainment can be as good as anything else if it's the best at what it does. But, I think I will never see it that way. There's too much potential in a movie. It can inspire any emotion, teach any lesson! It's been estimated that the number of quantum states in the space of a human body is roughly 10^10^70. That's an exponent of a 1 with 70 0s behind it. That's a number that makes a googol look tiny and approaches a googolplex. The possibility of film is even more gigantic. You could make a movie where anyone who watches it becomes an Einstein-like genius. Or you could make a movie so beautiful, even the most hateful person is filled with love for the rest of their life. At least in theory. When it comes to art, I take it to seriously. But, I still feel it's the responsibility of any artist to try and do something important to the viewer's life and I will look down on anyone who doesn't even try. As for Michael Bay, you're right that he is an easy target and probably gets too much hate. There are tons who do the same thing and I simply don't keep track of their names. This is all just my opinion :)
*****
It may be understood by most but it is one of those common wisdom that becomes a linguistic nightmare when you put under a serious microscope - and that is partly because we're using such blunt words like "good" and "bad"
If you derive enjoyment from a "bad" movie - so much so that it's "good" - why do we need to label it "bad" in the first place. Is it a enjoyment of the "bad"? At what point does bad become enjoyment? Is there such a thing as "So bad, it's only so-so" I know it's pedantic, but that's what I mean when it's a linguistic failure.
I think you get closer when you say "unintentionally funny" (though William Hung couldn't be said to be an unintentionally _good_ singer). But then you have the issue of needing to know the filmmaker's original intention. How are we exactly to know that? That may be easier to discern but the question is always there.
It's so much easier to just be able to say that a movie was actually enjoyable despite it's flaws :P
***** I've been really deep in research of "auteur theory" for a video for our channel - especially the debate between Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael. A lot of this comes from Kael's attack on auteur theory - about hidden meanings being pointless - judge the art on it's own merits.
Like I said, it's a pedantic argument - but such is the problem with the concept of "so bad it's good" and if you want to answer the question of whether you can make a nanar intentionally, you need more precision in the wording than just "so bad it's good"
But yes, I acknowledge there's very much an "overthinking" flavor to my argument but that's how you get to the really interesting answers. ;)
The Happening is a so bad it's good movie.
One of the keys is that the director needs to be sincere and honestly believe that they are creating a masterpiece.
The Happening is just bad, a movie can only be so bad it's good if something actually happens in the movie
Maya S
You mean like Birdemic, where it's over an hour before any birds show up?
The happening is great because the director thought he was creating another masterpiece while Mark Wahlberg read the script and saw how stupid it was so blew all his advance on pot.
It's like Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child, a movie made all the better by how much contempt the lead actor had for the film.
modelmajorpita I think you're in denial about The Happening, it was a terrible, terrible film. Birdemic was so bad that it was funny, but The Happening produced no laughs just frustration and annoyance.
Exactly what I thought. A filmmaker has to be earnest in his aspirations, but fail. That is what we admire. A cynical director, seeking to intentionally create a product for acquiring money and/or inciting negative attention, will come off as such.
If you try to make something bad, and you succeed, would that mean that it is inherently good? For example, if my goal was to draw a picture that looked like it was done by a 4 year old and it ended up looking that way that would mean it was a good drawing.
This would mean that Sharknado is actually just a good movie. The people who made it got the result they wanted, and those who watched it got what they went in expecting.
That's an interesting point, but I believe you have to make a distinction between 'bad' and 'exploitation'. Nobody in the world would ever deliberatly make just a 'bad' movie, the financial risk is way too great. It is true that some filmmakers know what they are doing (when making Sharknado f.e.) and their audiences know what they are in for, however the ideas these movies are based on already are living cultural phenomena in some way (like sharks, vampires, zombies,etc) hence they do not succeed in being bad, but in being exploitive. It doesn't inherently make them 'good' (in terms of their succes) but it makes them succesfull in their design. (most of them fail miserably)
Rudy TheHorrorRat But thats also how good movies work. Art always reacts to the culture its in and mirrors it. The Room was a serious attempt at telling a story to an audience that would have an honest emotional reaction to that story. And it was funny because of that because it told you how Tommy Wiseau sees people and drama and film making. The movie itself wasn't funny at all, but what it told you about its creator.
Sharknado on the other hand is much less a "nanar" as it is a parody of movies like The Room. If you would look behind the creation of Sharknado you would see that it turned out right how it was supposed to. So it has to be a funny cult hit by its own right. The Room is a nanar, Sharknado is a parody.
What you're saying is valid, however there's still a HUGE difference between parody and exploitation. Sharknado was not made with the idea to parody or copy something or to even make a good or bad movie. In hindsight that's what it might look like, but movies like Sharknado all start from a basic idea, a concept of what is now popular, that will sell. See it as a low-budget Michael Bay movie.
Rudy TheHorrorRat I don't really see parody and exploit as two exclusive things. Though of course, the makers of Sharknado had less interest in making an entertaining parody, as much as a successive one.
It's true that parody and exploitation are not always exclusive (as in Scary Movie or something) but in this case I think you're wrong. A parody is conceived through an observation and uses that as the set-up (like Scream is an observation of the whole horror genre). However, I don't believe the creators of Sharknado ever intended to do that. I don't see them sitting in a conference room watching 'The Room' and saying "you know, let's make our movie just as bad as this one, it seems to work well'. No, Sharknado is just one of many exploitation movies about sharks, not because sharks are ripe for parody, but because sharks are 'hot' right now. Besides, exploitation movies like Sharknado have been around since the sixties or so. Saying Sharknado is a parody of movies like the Room is almost as ludicrous as claiming James Cameron's Titanic is a parody of Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet.
Having thought about it some more, what do you think about nanar video games? Goat simulator was supposedly made to be deliberately buggy and bad, but it's fun; is it nanar?
You could make the same claims about the game "Deadly Premonition".
Goat simulator was made bad on purpose to gain attention from youtubers like pewdiepie, as that's the sort of game he'd make a video on, and his videos get a lot of views.
***** Mentioning QWOP, with it's main selling point being the terrible controls, brings to mind Octo-Dad. In the case of Octo-Dad, I heard it stemmed from its controls being in beta, but being so entertaining that they remained intentionally bad.
i wouldn't consider goat simulator nanar mostly because it is made mostly for comedic purposes and it succeeds in doing that. i would consider games like desert bus and big rigs off the road racing nanar.
No, the thing that makes a film nanar is it's inability to believe it's bad. You have to believe your film is something people want to see, a good movie by any means. Then when the ham acting, horrible edits, and ridiculous script come out, then it's nanar because you can see the passion. That's what it's about, passion.
what about Showgirl (1995)? Everything in that film is intentionally horrible.
Watching someone fall down the stairs: funny. Watching someone pretending to fall down the stairs: not so much.
A good example of "so bad it's good ON PURPOSE" would be BLACK DYNAMITE...
Rocky Horror Show was so bad it became a cult classic. Ahh Sharknado, the movie we all hate to love. It was so bad. Another terrible film that was hilarious in it's own way was Pirrannah. Oh god, all of these horrible yet entertaining movies come on Saturday nights on the SciFi channel.
Inga Lisa Yes as a science fiction view point it is terrible with a capital T but from a comedy view it is a masterpiece.
EvilNixon I'm pretty sure it was going for the musical comedy category, which it succeeded by leaps and bounds. I don't see how you could call that a bad movie, it was absolutely epic.
RHPS is not a bad movie by any measure. I don't even know how you could suggest that.
Ann Le {Anneorshine} A movie so horrible was Thr33 Days Dead. This was UBER low budget, the lady actually took a Mortgage out on her house to keep shooting, and it took something like 7 Years to shoot. Complete Home-Grown Indy project. But his was people ACTUALLY Trying, and doing it against all odds. So I can respect that. Sci-Fi actually did a Series on the development of the show, and then actually aired the thing when they finished. I have to say, from a Movie stand point it's horrible... but there ARE parts where you will laugh (even if that wasn't the intent) and you'll find yourself comparing it to all the other Zombie Flicks for the different things it tries.
This was a Small Town (Jasper, Al... I was raised just a stone's throw down the road) with Small Town People on $12,000 a Year type Jobs using their own money for the Budget. They tried, really hard, and I give a ton of respect for that.
I do indeed believe this could gather a Cult Following, and on top of that think enough exposure would have people across the country trying to do the same (intending to make something good).
I think _The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra_ is proof enough of intentional nanar. It came out in 2001 and is basically a loving sendup of the shoestring budget B-movies of the 1950s. It embraces everything that made them so memorable, from the terrible writing, terrible effects, and terrible acting, and it's ultimately one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.
I've never seen that movie, so I'm just going on what you've said, but it sounds like it's funny as a **parody** of nanar. Even if it's intentionally bad, that's the whole joke: that it was intentional.
That movie is a piece of art...oh well!
I was going to suggest Lost Skeleton, but it seems it already has been multiple times. Pretty much all of Larry Blamire's films are intentionally bad. Trail of the Screaming Forehead has a premise that is so stupid that it should be bad, but isn't because the terrible acting is done so seriously that it makes the movie hilarious instead.
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra succeeds because, like you said, it's a loving sendup; a lot of effort and care was put into it. The bad effects are especially bad. The bad acting isn't the result of bad actors, but good actors playing bad actors. It's great because it isn't a lazy film, and that's where imitation good-bad films (faux nanar?) can fail.
Another example is Birdemic 2: The Resurrection. James Nguyen became aware of how poorly the first film was received and then deliberately made the sequel even more terrible, and as a result it completely loses its appeal.
The problem I had with Sharknado was it's awkward attempts to be bad. So bad they're good movies excel in their genre because they were trying to be good, it unleashed a unique form of unintentional humor. We the audience play as much of a role in making a bad film funny as does it all on its own.
Sharknado rushed in with that idea and comes out awkwardly dancing in between trying to be terrible and trying to be watchable. That's just how I felt about it.
My granny says you talk too fast.
"He ort to slow down. He just babbles on and on, he probably don't even know what he's talkin' 'bout."
When I was a student filmmaker I did both. I tried to make a Nanar (a faux 50's sci-fi boobfest called 'Robo Pastry Chef Strikes Back') and I unintentionally made one ('Preservation', a apocalyptic drama brought low by questionable acting, a cliched script, and poor decisions made by myself, the director).
What makes a Nanar a, well, a 'Nanar', is its earnestness and lack of self-awareness. My dumb robot boob movie was considered funny and cute, but it was well-received despite being legitimately bad and aware of its 'badness'. Preservation, on the other hand, was made with a tremendous amount of effort and care, and its awful, cliched story was played absolutely straight. Not once did we, while making it, anticipate it would be anything but a success. One cannot intentionally make a Nanar, because trying to do so requires an awareness that most real Nanar filmmakers lack.
www.kickstarter.com/projects/kungfury/kung-fury
I had the strangest feeling of Déjà vu when I saw the video title in my feed. Then I remembered the nostalgia critic also did this exact topic before.
I think it can be done but very few people can be in on it, a director could assemble a horrible crew and simply let the chaos occur, pushing it along in the right areas.
One of the GREATEST things in film is when an actor clearly knows they are in a bad film, think Raul Julia in Street Fighter, watching him chew the scenery is amazing.
I liked this episode, but I'm so disappointed Rocky Horror wasn't at least mentioned.
I think Rocky Horror is less an example of a nanar and more the pinnacle of the camp genre. But there are definitely similarities between these categories
Rocky Horror is a good film
Lindsey B Yes, cheap doesn´t mean bad. The actors are good, the songs are great and the story is good.
I don't think it was included because it was originally a stage production. And because of this, it doesn't truthfully follow the nanar concept because the movie was only trying to stick close to its roots. It did not lack funds, or terrible acting, but it sometimes appeared that way so that it could appear closer to the satirical, purposefully overly-dramatized stage show of its origin.
Army of Darkness. That wins all arguments hands down. Let's face it, Raimey tried with Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2 to truly make a horror movie. These obviously failed as such, but have a cult following. With Army of Darkness, he revisited the whole thing, but with a far more relaxed stance, allowing for it to be a "bad movie", throwing in a ton of intentional comedic value, and never once taking itself too seriously. And it's Amazing. Capital A.
Does this put Sam in a directorial class unto his own? Both hitting the unintentional bad/good movie, and then INTENTIONALLY doing it?
Here's an alternative explanation: Army of Darkness isn't so bad its good, its great satire.
Thank you! When I saw this video intro, I immediately thought, "FALSE! ARMY OF DARKNESS! THE END!"
Raimey and friends thought, Evil Dead: "Wow we are the greatest" Evil Dead 2: "That last one sucked! We are the greatest" Army of Darkness: "Those last two movies were awesome, but let's not kid ourselves...its a comedy! Now we are the greatest!!"
Tobin Risser and they are!
Matt Johnston No, that movie is just good.
Thumbs up if you think Mike should shave his beard for one episode, but make no mention of it and acknowledge no questions about it.
Lord Marcus but also... Can I sit on his face?
Kitch - Failure to be good taste. Camp - celebration of bad taste, an inversion of values.
Crap movies - Failure to tell a story. So why is there no analogy to camp - celebration of storytelling failure? Values can be inverted and the result is not no values, but the inversion of success isn't inverted success.
One TV show came to mind: Garth Marenghi's Darkplace. Deliberately bad, intentionally funny; one of the best comedy shows ever made.
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavera: made in 2001, perfectly nails 1950s cheesy B-movie sci-fi vibe as intended.
"I sleep now!"
yes you can make a so bad it's good movie on purpose it's called a parody lol
No, a parody is something made to be intentionally similar to something else with a few (possibly hilarious) key differences in order to poke fun at it. It's a highly intelligent comedic form.
Cool Cat Saves The Kids is a true masterpiece.
Multiple letters to avoid bot's or anything removing the comment.
DIAGNOSIS: Scam
No! Nooooo! It's not a football, it's an american foot-ball! Oh, yeah I just used america as an improper noun, oh and again! #Burn
HEY EVERYBODY! CHECK OUT HOW EDGY THIS GUY IS!!!
A whole episode without a single verbal reference to Evil Dead 2? Sads.
Also, I think Supernatural is an example of #nanar in the TV format.
***** I would agree with that for season 1 of supernatural, but I'm too emotionally invested in it to think that about the rest of the series. Most of the people who are fans watch it because they believe it is an honestly good show. I don't know of any fans who are united over its badness.
Pretty sure they have been trying to make so bad it's good movies forever
All those parody comedies like vampires suck and etc where attempts at that
A "so-bad-it's-good" film has to be made with some kind of earnest effort, in my opinion. For example, if Tommy Wiseau really had intended to make 'The Room' a cult comedy by conducting every aspect with feigned incompetence, it would lose much of its inherent charm and value. The fact that he deemed this film to be his magnum opus, but failed due to his almost childish ineptitude, is what makes it so great. A film that sets out to be terrible from the beginning cannot have this same impact, because they are NOT "failures." They accomplish exactly what they set out to do, and that's actually quite boring.
Kung Fury!
I'm not sure they made it 'bad' on purpose. I thought it was an amazing film and everyone knew what they were getting in to when watching it. In my opinion a true masterpiece.
a parody/pastiche of the 80's, that's what I would call it. it's great, but I doubt anyone who see it think that the people behind it took themselves very serious at any point in the production. it's "bad" in a sense, but you can tell that it's sort of an over the top, tongue in cheek kind of bad, and not that bizarre, confounding kind of bad like troll 2. None the less, definitely one of the essential feel good movies out there.
Forgot about that one
God, I love this shit. Like, this is my jam. So, here's the thing that gets me about "bad" movies (or as I just learned, nanar movies): Somebody somewhere at some point thought up the idea and thought that it was good. Then they convinced a collective of actors, producers, cameramen, audio techs, and editors to make their vision become tangible. You would think that at some point along the way, somebody would be like, "Nope. I'm out." And I'm sure they do, but for the people that stayed in to completion...I mean, there must have been some small part of them going, "You know, this isn't that bad. I'm willing to tie my name to this production"
It might also be "I'm going to stick this out for my buddy, surely it won't go anywhere," or "I'm just in it for the paycheck."
KUNG POW IS FUCKING AMAZING
Holy crap, my tweet was featured! Hell yes! Thank you, Mike!
As has been said, there is a certain genuine-ness to nanar films. The filmmakers think it's going to be huge. The actors think they have to be dramatic to get a success. The film studio figures it'll do well enough in the box office. These movies are done by amateurs, and the entire thing is just something that's hard to emulate. Compare, say, Bill O'Reilly and Fox New's more hilarious blunders to Stephen Colbert's complete satire of right-wing politics. Both are hilarious, but at times, the former is even better because they have no clue what they're doing.
And, since I haven't seen it much in the comments, KUNG FU MOVIE DUBS. Who needs Comedy Central when you have an expansive DVD/VHS collection of these things?
You absolutely can't make a movie so bad it's good on purpose! That's cheating!
The closest to a purposeful narnar one can get, is a satirically humored movie
That's a very interesting point. What would you give as an example?
Well, closest i can get to an example is South park, but i'm speaking theoretically, not from experience.
*****
i don't think South Park is purposefully bad. It's vulgar and crass and has an animation style to match but it's not something that would qualify as "so bad it's good."
My example of purposeful "so bad it's good" is Showgirls, which does have a satirical streak to it so i don't disagree with your original assessment.
Ok, i was not saying the comedy was of poor quality (I personally like it) but the animation style, is, and done on purpose. I was not using this show as a proper example, because it was the closest I had, but I figured you'd get the point.
***** no your example has made me more confused, do you have any others examples?
'Battle: Los Angeles' comes really close but I was disappointed to learn that it was intentional. It was almost perfect.
Snakes on a Plane. Enough said.
A lot of people say that Flash Gordon is so bad their good. I disagree. It is clear that everyone in the cast and crew knew it was going to be silly, and just had a good time. The cast act in a semi-serious manner, a way which looks like bad acting at first, but isn't bad acting because they're doing it on purpose. Eg, when two characters stare at each other in Flash Gordon, at any moment both of them could burst into laughter and so would everyone else, and everyone knows this. In a sense, it is a comedy without "jokes" because the fact that the actors are being "serious" in comparison to the silliness of the film is the joke. The characters are the straight-men, the situation, the script and the story are the funny men.
HOW DARE YOU suggest that Inland Empire is a bad film!
a good bad move will be bad until a large fan base makes jokes at its expense causing others to feel left out and/or people see the move not as what it is but as what little it has going for it , more or less making it a comedy and laughing at how bad it is, this differs from a comedy because a comedy has you laughing with it and a good bad move has you laughing at it, like a bully making fun of a nerd vs a comedian on a stage
The Goat Simulator video game is exactly this. A game intentionally made so bad that it's good.
One could argue that video games don't apply because they're not movies but said one would be wrong.
A large part of the enjoyment that me and my friends get from nanar is theorising about both the internal logic of the film and the behind the scenes decision making*. Loudly questioning the baffling dialogue, character motivations and indeed the motivations of the film-makers is the best part. If you're not alternately laughing and yelling at the screen, something's not right.
It is also definitely a group activity and I can't imagine ever watching these films alone. The only exception is watching them with the MST3K or RiffTrax commentaries (or watching RLM's "Best of the Worst" series) which vicariously simulate the same group dynamic.
With films by The Asylum, you're robbed of all of this. There are no questions to be asked. You already know that it was made as either a cynical cash grab to capitalise on the bad movie trend or to exploit people's inattention by creating knock-offs with misleadingly similar titles. For me the experience is similar to the disappointment of finding out that a hilarious viral video was in fact staged, but without even the initial enjoyment from before the deception was revealed.
Then there are films like Black Dynamite or Planet Terror, which are loving homages to B movies that delight in subtle details like an actor accidentally including part of the stage directions in his line or "missing" reels of film. These films are parody, but they're obviously made by people who 'get' and love nanar. They're made for the nanar community as a celebration of the terrible classics. Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is a great example because it also features interviews with the fictional cast and crew intercut with the episodes, providing hilarious justifications and self-reverence. It may be not be genuine, but their understanding of the earnest ineptitude that's so essential to real nanar is.
*Was Grandpa Seth returning from Hell in Troll 2?!
What did Johnny and Mark do with Chris R in The Room?!
Did Birdemic's Rob seriously just give a client a 50% discount on a $2 million dollar deal?!
Was the cougar attacking that guy in Buffalo Rider unscripted?!
The SpoonyOne made a really good argument about being able to appreciate bad movies which are made out of sincerity as opposed to blatantly.
An excellent example he mentions being comparing Birdemic to Birdemic II.
You sir have a very similar icon to mine! FOR THIS YOU RECEIVE AN UPVOTE.
Marty Herrick To be exact, Raichu isnt Pikachu. :/
I know that. You will note I said "Very Similar" Not 'exactly the same' And now, STORY TIME: There's an inside joke among me and my friend that I look like a Riachu. When I first saw that photo, I was excited because it was two of my favorite things; Doctor Who and Pokemon, but it wasn't MY Pokemon (Riachu). So, my friend drew her own version with a Riachu and a sonic, inspired by the one that is your Icon.
Marty Herrick Oooooooh! Now it makes sense, its hard to make out the details but your right. :O
Marty Herrick Do you hail from Reddit or Imgur?
I think answer of rather or not you can purposefully make a bad movie good partially comes with the answer to where the "Killer Tomatoes" series fits on the scale. The first Attack of the Killer Tomatoes was a legitimate low budget B movie but it was made with the intention to attack and satire the ludicrousy of the low budget B movie genre specifically the B movie horror. The creators stunned by how well it worked, realized they have to make a sequel but to do that they have to up the ante and make it even more ludicrous. Which made the movie legitimately better than the first (plus that had George Clooney in it, still blows my mind). Which later led to a third movie, an animated TV show, and massive love for the series by many viewers. If we can understand the unique nature of a low budget movie designed to satire low budget movies because it is a low budget movie then maybe we can understand what makes a bad movie good.
Nanar nanar nanar nanar Batman.
here's another idea
maybe what makes it ether a guilty plusher, or cult classic is the publicity around it.
like a lot of people know about 'the room' because it's controversy with the nostalgia critic.
or, by extinction, the critics themselves telling us about them when we may never have heard of them
You really really want to coin the term "nanar" in English, right? :-)
Mike, you guys do a stellar job here. I hope you don't suffer from Thanksgiving Chef syndrome, where what takes you days to make seems ungratefully consumed in ten minutes. Because this is me every week:
"Oh hey, new Idea channel vid. Its only ten minutes long, I'll just watch this really fast."
Ten minutes later: "Well I have to pause so I can read these comments..."
And ten more: "Whew, that's done. Oh wait, Tweet of the Week!..."
An hour later: "Well that was intense. But oh man, I think I have something to add to the comments, I'll just post one real quick..."
And another: "Well, I can't really finish this comment right until I slog through some obscure continental philosophy..."
And more and more. So basically, your Thanksgiving dinner may be gone in ten minutes, but after factoring the hours of processing and weeks of thoughtfully munching on leftovers, your offering spends as much time in the savoring as in the making.
garth marenghi's darkplace deserves a mention
That was a good show, but it's more of a parody than it was meant to be so bad its good. Some of the stuff in there was pretty clever.
It would be disastrous if every film in the future was a nanar. Films would be a lost art form.
I'll just say this: Nicholas Cage.
ARGH! I totally resent the reference to Inland Empire as "art house nonsense" - films that follow a purely emotional or tonal arch rather than a narrative one are so frequently dismissed as pretentious or stupid. I personally find it very freeing to experience a rollercoaster like Inland Empire, Funky Forest or Holy Motors without the constraints and busywork of having to follow a plot. I think audiences can be a little closed minded when it comes to departures from "normal" narrative driven logic. Life doesn't have a tidy three-act structure, in many ways typical film structures are much more contrived than avant-garde narratives. Anyway, i love your show so much, that just hit a nerve for me as a lover of "experimental" art.
I think the key is a delusional director
Mike! This is ... really darn old, but I realized a way in which the Filter Bubble changes! Having friends over. My little sister visited me, and suggested I play a song she didn't own, so I looked it up on youtube, and it changed many of my search results! Sorry, 'super excited. Anyhow, I've been thinking perhaps there is no real filter bubble for the heavily social persons out there. Or, at least, there is less of an isolation in the filter bubble for many socialites.
Kung Pow is one of the best movies I've ever watched, this can't be argued with.
I absolutely love Troll 2 so I'm really glad you tackled this subject. Like you said, part of what makes these films great is the lore surrounding them, including the sad/tragic documentary aspect of their creation. Maybe it's because these films fail at hiding their seams that we as an audience are so interested in exploring the actual reality behind them? It's like when you hear about a terrible accident - you want to flinch and feel bad, but at the same time you want to discover the cause and details of the accident, whether to understand it better or simply as a cathartic response mechanism.
schadenfreude, was für ein schönes Wort :D
Nein.
I think a large part of what makes Nanar movies so interesting is that the filmmakers have an intensity and pride about their work, almost a sort of "glorious hubris." I'm in a high school film class right now where we watch a few movies, practice screenwriting and then direct, produce, edit and star in them and I noticed how I when I was in screenwriting mode I got this incredible fantasy about the "movie" I was writing and then that fantasy turned into a sort of bizarre pride wherein I thought that I was the only one who could perfectly pull off this idea. Now I'm in the editing stage and I am completely overwhelmed and I am starting to wonder how I could ever imagine creating a unnecessarily complex movie without any professional actors or experience in directing and editing. While this is a little different then an actual Nanar film which has a budget, production company etc, I think it speaks to how many filmmakers early on assume that if they have a camera, script and some friends and they can make an incredible movie without any actual experience in the field. I also don't think movies like Sharknado have this hubris because they knew they were making a bad movie and just didn't care.
i would say "hobo with a shotgun" was a pretty good nanar, even if it was (i'm assuming) intentionally made to be "so bad its good" and some of peter jackson's early movies were super cheap and cheesy horror movies that were pretty wonderful too, especially "braindead". but that might be for a slightly different reason as they feel like something closer to an honest homage to terrible horror movies. but in general i'd agree most movies that attempt to be nanars on purpose fail.
Braindead (aka Dead Alive) is, for my money, the best movie P.J. ever made. Not that I did not like his 'big' movies, I just liked Braindead more. (Now please excuse me as I hide under my desk, until the angry mob with the torches and the pitchforks goes away.)
trexpaddock
After the LotR movies, my favorite Peter Jackson film is Bad Taste.
Though I haven't seen MacGruber, I did see Batman & Robin, and Kung Pow shouldn't be grouped anywhere near it, there is nothing guilty about enjoying Kung Pow, it is awesome and kinda unique, so says BETTY THE GREAT MAGICIAN!!!
Kung Pow is great.
Say Doobly Doo again, Mike. I dare. I double dare you!
Haha! Yes. As per my favorite nanar, Manos: The Hands Of Fate, there exists that certain something that makes it worse than bad. The desperation, the not knowing that what they were making was bad, but yet the heart and effort that went into it all lead to such a viewer experience that you can't discover elsewhere. Or as you would say, a celebration of its badness.
As Dan Neil points out in his article "Why We Love Bad Movies", we enjoy them because they are made by "very ambitious, strange people" and they leave behind something of their mind, or "cinematically transferred subconscious". articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/07/magazine/tm-neil32
I think we also sense some sort of endearment towards these movies as well, Maybe because I'm a wanna-be writer and philosopher/artist type, but I almost have a sense of camaraderie towards the creators of these nanar. Because we all fear the reaction of the audience to our work, our masterpiece. We know they poured their soul into these movies and so we can't hate them, so we love them instead.
I liked Mannos. it set u the creepy atmosphere of a nightmare really well. the flat line delivery thereppetion the awkward pauses, the movie did it's job
*****
I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again: MANOS, THE HANDS OF FATE is the seed of a genuinely good and unsettling horror-movie idea, completely wasted on a lack of time, budget, and talent.
Jacob C. I disagree that it was wasted. High budgets kill movies.I think the lack of talent poor equipment actually helped the movie.I don't think that the servant, (what's his face) would be creepier, had he not paused and repeated himself over and over.
The dialogue was unnatural and delivered unnaturally, by definition this is not a thing that could be improved by better planing.
Manos is, to some degree, effectively creepy -- but it's not quite the well-orchestrated creepiness of movies like THE EXORCIST or the original HALLOWEEN (the latter of which proves that you can be VERY effective on a small budget). It's closer to the I-don't-know-if-I-should-be-watching-this creepiness of a Hershell Gordon Lewis film, but with less blood.
It does sit close to the intersection of incompetence and earnestness that makes for "so bad it's good" entertainment, but IMHO it's just not quite there.
Jacob C. I see your point. Personally I think the lack of polish makes it charming. the poor camera quality almost gives it a "found footage" vibe only without the shakiness.
I think you're right in a way when you say nanar can't be made intentionally, and I used to scoff films that tried to do so because the fact that the films want to be good is an important part of the humor. However, I think you CAN at least get very close to intentionally making Nanar, if not actually succeed. My example is The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra. They get so many subtle nuances you see in old sci fi flicks right; playing them up perhaps a bit more than their source material, but keeps true to what it emulates all the same. The redundancies in script, wooden acting, and bad special effects are all there, and while what they're making fun of is very obvious, that is what makes the movie more enjoyable. Too many old nanar flicks get dragged down because of long exposition scenes and so on, bit lost skeleton distills what made those movies entertaining and presents it fluidly. It also has some of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie; the dinner scene still gets me. TL;DR watch The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra.
Take a look at "birdemic" that is all...
All I know is that inland empire wasn't nonsense. Sure, it was convoluted but the surrealism worked for me on a aesthetic level (entertained me, not pretentiously endured) and conceptually it was followable in context of Lynch's internal logic. Sorry, I know that's a ways to go from one split second picture.
Stop trying to make nanar happen.
You guys always make great stuff! Although I can't keep up with your various links (as it leads me down a long rabbit hole), I can appreciate that you stimulate my mind in new and unusual ways.
Picasso said: "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child." Now, he started out his career during a time when the photograph was more popular for documentation and painters were having an existentialist crisis over what art is supposed to be anymore. Instead of replicating the world that they see with a great deal of skill; skill is now being reinvented in new visual theories, many of which have been deemed immature-looking.
I think that the same can be done in film; however, there is not enough of a crisis of character and purpose for the director's/actor's/etc skill to be put into losing their skill. Maybe if Good movies become far too easy to make (somehow... mental-digital-reading-super-technology-entertainment), then the existentialist crisis will begin. I look forward to it.
The look on his face when he is showing Birdemic is priceless. Far and away my favorite part of this video 2:22-2:28
The lost skeleton of cadavra. just wanted to put that one out there.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the GRINDHOUSE films. That was a really high-profile attempt to deliberately create nanar -- both in terms of quality and the social event aspect -- and it failed. I saw the double-bill at a midnight screening with a crowd ready to participate in the experience, and it was fun, but because we all knew it was deliberately constructed by two filmmakers who generally know better you didn't walk out with the breathless, we've-just-witnessed-something-incredible-here energy that you get from a movie you know the filmmakers honestly thought they were pulling off.
This same phenomenon is all over the internet especially RUclips.
I think you can make a good bad movie on purpose but it loses the mystique of the epic failure of the films that were not supposed to fail
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra is very much a movie meant to be bad, it even has Bronson Cave in it, which is like a requirement.
My sister was a PA on an Asylum/SyFy film, and she explained how they fund their movies: Drum up interest and investment, and then take half of whatever they earn to make the movie. This ensures they always profit, and that they are always bad.
A family friend had a tiny role in that same movie. It's become something of a family joke and we enthusiastically bought the DVD.
These films appeal operate on a sense of irony. Good sound and video quality along with a convincing argument for suspension of disbelief within the movie are what we expect. When those are absent or poorly done we no longer watch it for whatever the movie is about, but for what the movie is. We watch to see the extent it has deviated from our expectations and look for humor.
The movie itself is a mockery of what a movie should be. It fails to be immersive and and instead makes us question not only its methods but its existence. I feel like "sharknado" differs from things like "the room" because "sharknado" made exactly what they intended to, but wasn't compelling. "the room" simply left us questioning why we're watching it. "It doesn't get better, but isn't it funny how it never gets better."
My favorite example of this is Foodfight!. If you haven't seen it before go see it now. It's incredible.
Please don't call Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE 'arthouse nonsense'. Thank You.
This topic kind of expands beyond movies and encompasses all art, or rather the experience of art. The way I see it, there are generally three levels of experiencing a piece of art: the immediate experience of invoked thoughts and emotions, the subsequent thoughts and conversations about such invocations, and the eventual referencing of such invocations.
Take for example a good comedy; any decent one can make you at least chuckle upon reminiscing about it, but the best ones give you one liners that can make all your friends laugh time and time again. Similarly, a good narrative can be discussed and speculated about to no end, but the best ones can make you feel as excited as when you saw it the first time, whether you're re-watching it or just discussing a favorite scene.
Basically, art is an experience that taps into our social lives and imaginations, so it is only possible to intentionally make a movie so bad it's good through deception. The only way is to completely fool your audience into experiencing the idea of watching a spectacular failure that was genuinely intended to be a success and, in most cases, thought of as a success by the creator right up until its release.
However, this has been done; most recently with Jimmy Kimmel's twerking video stunt. The video was a viral hit when released without any affiliation to Kimmel, but he then revealed that it was his own work, which shattered the lie of it being an unintentional failure.
In summation, it's possible, and has been done, but once the intention is revealed, it would loose its charm.
Hey, hey, HEY. You leave 'Inland Empire' alone.
Yeah, I did not enjoy Sharknado nearly as much I did when I saw The Room. For me Sharknado ended up being in the dreaded "not smart or dumb enough" to make an impact on me.
The Asylum in general do not make very entertaining movies because they are too aware of their ridiculousness so they are always intentionally bad, so while they have hilarious concepts they always just make mediocre movies. On the other hand, as strange as it sounds I was also hoping they could realize that and instead try to make it a disaster comedy movie that would be entertaining, like Evil Dead 2.
Let's talk about the Howling III. By this point in the series, the makers knew that their movies were headed downhill and they embraced it with all the gusto of a marsupial werewolf. They make in-jokes about horror movies and they leave the actors to their own devices. But they're low-budget and proud. Though they laugh at themselves and know they're making a nanar, they somehow pull it off anyway. After multiple watch-throughs, I believe whole-heartedly that the producers knew what they were doing and somehow made a good bad movie on purpose.
I know it's impossible to know about every cult classic in existence, but if you have the time and the energy, I can't suggest the Howling III enough. Where else will you see a live marsupial werewolf birth? Nowhere.
Meeting Tommy Wiseau was everything I ever wanted.
I would be offended by the "student films, art-house nonsense" remark but my films have been shit so far.
Preach.
You forgot the greatest Asylum film EVER: Sherlock Holmes takes on Giant Robot T-REX in a Hot Air Balloon to stop his brother from blaming it on Inspector Lestrade.
Intentional so bad it's good film: Lost Skeleton of Cadavra.
Exactly what I thought, Lost Skeleton of Cadavra is definitely an intentional so bad it's good film!!
www.imdb.com/title/tt0307109/
Yeah, but that's a parody, right? Hmm. Anyway, it's a movie any vintage nanar-o-phile needs to see.
I love that there isn't any ads b4 the videos still!
I highly object to lumping Inland Empire into the category of "just plain bad". But that's just my opinion, man.
The developers of Goat Simulator need to learn this lesson.
I think the sincerity and naivete is a really important ingredient. It's the worldview and awkwardness manifested as a work making it adorable.
Cherry 2000, Space Hunter, Remo Williams, Ishtar, North, and Hell Comes to Frogtown.
Can an entertaining bad movie be made on purpose? Yes.
Can a cult classic be made on purpose? No.
These are two separate things.
When Sam Raimi made Army of Darkness, I think he knew what he was doing!
Nanar has to come naturally. It's obvious when a movie is just unwatchable because they're trying to produce Nanar.
It's so strange for me because this has been a phenomenon that I've been fixated on for quite some time but no one I know can relate to it. Any time I do try to explain it, someone will think of a Damien Dante Wayans movie or more popularly, and as mentioned, "Sharknado".
However, no one besides my brother can grasp the beauty of something like "Undefeatable". I need new friends.
You guys (Idea Channel) are doing a wonderful job at making a list of different scenarios where the nature of meaning is being expressed. It is what all of your videos are about, from math to music to art. Meaning is all around us. But why do we make meaning from nothing? Who benefits from something having meaning? Why does everything have to have a meaning? Us as humans have both individual and collective versions of meaning. For example what I call a pineapple you might call an orange, but does that mean that one of us is wrong? We both know what it looks like. One person might be allergic to peanuts, and see's it as the food of death while another loves them their snickers. Though they both know it is the same object, it has drastically different meanings to them. Or computer code, to the average joe it may seem to be a semi-random list of numbers letters and symbols, but to a learned programmer, it has meaning, or even more curiously, beauty. With that I move into a new idea, what makes something attractive? We accept that it can be viewed in different ways, but what makes you see beauty in something? People say the beauty is in the simplicity, but how can that be said for some forms of art? What are us as humans attracted to? And why does it change from time period to time period, from culture to culture? It's obvious we yearn to be attractive to other humans, to make our meaning to them something positive, to make a positive impact on their lives, even though we will never be able to know our true meaning is to them. People say humans are selfish cruel creatures, but all I see are the most selfless being to have every existed on earth. I firmly believe that to see the beauty of anything, to love it, you have to accept it as something that can be loved. Anyone who loves anything is selfless. Open mindedness however, is impossible. We make rules out of what we see to keep track of things. Many rules we made for ourselves in infancy. Things fall when you drop them, sound is made when you blow through your vocal cords, you stand by contracting muscles in your legs, et cetera, but what about rules that are wrong? One can't comprehend a situation where one's rules wouldn't apply, therefor those situations don't exist to one's self. Even if they might exist for another, they do not apply to our reality. However, people can change their rules if an external force presents an idea where their rules are contradicted. Scientists are those who see if they can break the rules, and make new rules to follow. Politicians fall in the same category. As do your parents. What would a lone human be? Useless. People like to have a meaning for their work. But where it gets interesting is what they choose their meaning to be. Doctors become doctors to help people(disregarding other variables). They value saving lives and providing assistance. Police officers value order and law. The help people follow the rules of their governing body. But why do people choose different meanings? What about that person made him/her choose to become a police officer over a doctor? Disregarding pay or training, what made up their mind? They both are occupations that value human life, and serving humanity as a whole. That person may value peacefulness. But why would one person value that and not another? What part of their reality is different? What rule do they follow that is not observed by the other? How they were raised? A traumatic experience? A family tradition? These are all meanings. Intelligence? Where does that play in? People who can process information better tend to move from the group. Humans like to be collective, like a herd, they gather in groups of like ideals, or rules if you will, and they follow the rules (ideals/laws/theories whatever) of a singular leader. It makes people feel secure in their beliefs. Those people yearn for a collective reality, to have others constantly reaffirm their beliefs. But some people, generally the smarter people seek out different answers. They decide that their rules are unacceptable. But what makes them decide that? Why aren't they happy? What causes human happiness? I guess thats the ultimate question. Above all else. We make meaning because we want to be happy. We make rules so that we can call our lives at peace. We allow ourselves to be blind to all the unexplainable so that it can be quiet. Thats what all humans want. To be happy. Some make others unhappy on their way to happiness, but that is the ultimate human goal. We see beauty in what makes others happy. We see reflected in ourselves the happiness of the creator. Beauty is empathy. Happiness is the reason. Perspective is what makes us individuals, and valuable as a whole, and to answer the biggest question posed, why does everything have to have meaning? Because life would be pretty boring without it.
I feel like what you're describing is two separate genres of movie. On the one hand you have those movies that are made with the intention of being serious pieces of art, but somewhere along the way everyone involved seem to stop caring, or lose touch with reality. On the other hand, you have those movies that are a parody of those movies. To me the difference is like when you see a mentally challenged person who is unintentionally funny, but then realizes it, and owns it, and the person who pretends to be mentally challenged, in order to be funny.
So... where do the Star Wars prequels fall on the hierarchy of bad movies?
Bad. Just incredibly bad.
When the meme said pissing it looked like piss in the glasses.
This channel asks the questions that I didn't even know to ask. Whatever you guys are doing, keep it up.