In defence of the so-called Worst Movie Ever Made
April 4, 2017 1:07 AM Subscribe
Here's the deal as I see it. The concept of "so bad it's good" simply doesn't work on the face of it without the idea of conventions being deemed more important than viewer engagement.
It's the notion that there is a "right way" to make a movie and that anything that doesn't reach that set of conventions one accepts as "right" is then bad. And if bad enough, or rather, if far enough outside the conventional norms, then the movie becomes enjoyable again by dint of its alleged failings.
However, if one ignores conventional expectations or received ideas on what is or isn't acceptable as a baseline for engagement, then many movies that are deemed bad can be instead seen as providing greater engagement from viewers because they flout conventions, intentionally or otherwise.
In painting, folk art has come into greater appreciation over the decades due, in part, to trained artists championing it and choosing to ignore previously valued conventions in their own work. By pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in "high art", "low art" gained greater appreciation for the things it did successfully rather than being mocked for its alleged failings.
Movies, however, adhere to much narrower set of conventions driven by ideas of 'realism" largely shaped by Hollywood (that may not be all that realistic). This includes things like invisibility of the film making apparatus, certain expectations of craft, storytelling techniques, and actor/character behavior. These values aren't universal, Godard, for just one example, eschewed many of them repeatedly in his films, but they are the standards for Hollywood and other mass media empires which benefit from audiences seeing their production styles as the standard by which all others are judged.
The question I'd ask then is if one is engaged with, enjoys, or otherwise finds meaningful or significant a film that is outside standard conventions, why place that film in a separate category from the more usual films one sees as "so bad its good" rather than wonder about those usual films one sees which aren't as enjoyable? If the goal of engaging with films or art is in the reaction of the viewer, in whatever manner one chooses to talk about that, then why subjugate one's engagement to the conventional demands of others?
You can tell me that Plan 9 is somehow a worse movie than whatever the current action sci-fi film du jour might be, but if you aren't getting more pleasure from that current big budget monstrosity than is it actually any better? What indeed would make it so? It isn't generally going to be any deep moral values being put across or even much improvement in basic form or ideals, it's mostly just craft and convention. The devotion to convention is what drives repetition in Hollywood product, and continues to maintain a narrow set of possibilities for what will be considered "worth seeing" good and bad.
Personally, I find Plan 9 to be mildly enjoyable, or provide some modest engagement, but I think Wood's film Glen or Glenda is fantastic and should be celebrated for being such a singular work rather than laughed at in some unearned air of viewer superiority. So bad it's good, at its root, is an ugly sort of way to view the creative endeavors of others as it does come from such a narrow place of judgment, at least that's how it reads to me.
posted by gusottertrout at 2:39 AM on April 4, 2017 [18 favorites]
It's the notion that there is a "right way" to make a movie and that anything that doesn't reach that set of conventions one accepts as "right" is then bad. And if bad enough, or rather, if far enough outside the conventional norms, then the movie becomes enjoyable again by dint of its alleged failings.
However, if one ignores conventional expectations or received ideas on what is or isn't acceptable as a baseline for engagement, then many movies that are deemed bad can be instead seen as providing greater engagement from viewers because they flout conventions, intentionally or otherwise.
In painting, folk art has come into greater appreciation over the decades due, in part, to trained artists championing it and choosing to ignore previously valued conventions in their own work. By pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in "high art", "low art" gained greater appreciation for the things it did successfully rather than being mocked for its alleged failings.
Movies, however, adhere to much narrower set of conventions driven by ideas of 'realism" largely shaped by Hollywood (that may not be all that realistic). This includes things like invisibility of the film making apparatus, certain expectations of craft, storytelling techniques, and actor/character behavior. These values aren't universal, Godard, for just one example, eschewed many of them repeatedly in his films, but they are the standards for Hollywood and other mass media empires which benefit from audiences seeing their production styles as the standard by which all others are judged.
The question I'd ask then is if one is engaged with, enjoys, or otherwise finds meaningful or significant a film that is outside standard conventions, why place that film in a separate category from the more usual films one sees as "so bad its good" rather than wonder about those usual films one sees which aren't as enjoyable? If the goal of engaging with films or art is in the reaction of the viewer, in whatever manner one chooses to talk about that, then why subjugate one's engagement to the conventional demands of others?
You can tell me that Plan 9 is somehow a worse movie than whatever the current action sci-fi film du jour might be, but if you aren't getting more pleasure from that current big budget monstrosity than is it actually any better? What indeed would make it so? It isn't generally going to be any deep moral values being put across or even much improvement in basic form or ideals, it's mostly just craft and convention. The devotion to convention is what drives repetition in Hollywood product, and continues to maintain a narrow set of possibilities for what will be considered "worth seeing" good and bad.
Personally, I find Plan 9 to be mildly enjoyable, or provide some modest engagement, but I think Wood's film Glen or Glenda is fantastic and should be celebrated for being such a singular work rather than laughed at in some unearned air of viewer superiority. So bad it's good, at its root, is an ugly sort of way to view the creative endeavors of others as it does come from such a narrow place of judgment, at least that's how it reads to me.
posted by gusottertrout at 2:39 AM on April 4, 2017 [18 favorites]
The Dissolve covered Plan 9 a few years ago, couple of nice pieces:
How Plan 9 From Outer Space earned, and lost, the title of worst movie of all time.
Grave robbers, flying saucers, and Plan 9 From Outer Space’s other delights.
The Awful, Wonderful Integrity of Plan 9 From Outer Space.
(I need to re-watch Burton's Ed Wood now; as far as I can remember, it's one of the finest biopics made.)
posted by sapagan at 2:41 AM on April 4, 2017 [8 favorites]
How Plan 9 From Outer Space earned, and lost, the title of worst movie of all time.
Grave robbers, flying saucers, and Plan 9 From Outer Space’s other delights.
The Awful, Wonderful Integrity of Plan 9 From Outer Space.
(I need to re-watch Burton's Ed Wood now; as far as I can remember, it's one of the finest biopics made.)
posted by sapagan at 2:41 AM on April 4, 2017 [8 favorites]
These days "The Worst Movie Ever Made" is a hype line rather than an evaluation. There are far more inept movies, and far worse movies in terms of artistic merit. The Medveds needed a really bad movie for their book about bad movies, but it was on behalf of a cheap coffee-table book rather than critical scholarship so I suspect they decided to err towards lending top rank to flicks that are entertainingly bad rather than those lacking any entertainment value. The reputation of the movie has outlived the popularity of their books, to the extent that "Plan 9" is reflexively thought of as "worst movie" without much consideration on the part of people who utters it. It's the worst movie in the way that [name of baseball team you hate the most] is the worst team: There are provably worse, up to and including the minor league farm teams affiliated with that team.
There are also thousands of movies that've been made in the 37 years since the Medveds' book -- Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" seems to be a popular contender -- and there are plenty of movies from the 50s and 60s that were too obscure for the Medveds to have known about or bothered to track down at the time -- "Manos", for a glaringly obvious example, which is arguably a hobby project that got out of hand and unlike "Plan 9" is pretty hard to sit through.
posted by ardgedee at 3:09 AM on April 4, 2017 [6 favorites]
There are also thousands of movies that've been made in the 37 years since the Medveds' book -- Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" seems to be a popular contender -- and there are plenty of movies from the 50s and 60s that were too obscure for the Medveds to have known about or bothered to track down at the time -- "Manos", for a glaringly obvious example, which is arguably a hobby project that got out of hand and unlike "Plan 9" is pretty hard to sit through.
posted by ardgedee at 3:09 AM on April 4, 2017 [6 favorites]
There are big projects with talented people that get to a viewing and are put in storage as "unreleasable" or "not a movie". There a lot of indie films that have germ of an idea (perhaps important or even great) with actors can't be heard or distracting continuity (colors of the walls or faces of the actors changing randomly) and many that are just so boring and have nothing to say that no one would even comment about them (the Lifetime channel :-)
Ed Wood's films are remembered essentially due to the fame of being labeled. And low budget bad with questionable taste but there are elements that make his films worth watching. They were releasable movies (in the sub-B market) and bad but watchable. But there were a lot of B's that no one bothers to look at that are on par but never got a label.
posted by sammyo at 3:40 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Ed Wood's films are remembered essentially due to the fame of being labeled. And low budget bad with questionable taste but there are elements that make his films worth watching. They were releasable movies (in the sub-B market) and bad but watchable. But there were a lot of B's that no one bothers to look at that are on par but never got a label.
posted by sammyo at 3:40 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
I find it a much more damning fate to be truly mediocre — not bad enough to be interesting. There's some value to be gleaned from most failed efforts.
posted by DoctorFedora at 4:07 AM on April 4, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by DoctorFedora at 4:07 AM on April 4, 2017 [5 favorites]
(I need to re-watch Burton's Ed Wood now; as far as I can remember, it's one of the finest biopics made.)
Two in one. IRRC Martin Landau won like 6 awards for his role, including an Oscar and Golden Globe...
posted by mikelieman at 4:29 AM on April 4, 2017 [8 favorites]
Two in one. IRRC Martin Landau won like 6 awards for his role, including an Oscar and Golden Globe...
posted by mikelieman at 4:29 AM on April 4, 2017 [8 favorites]
Well, it's no Manos: The Hands of Fate...
posted by Gelatin at 4:31 AM on April 4, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 4:31 AM on April 4, 2017 [2 favorites]
I think it is impossible practically, to determine what is the worst movie ever. You'd have to watch all of them, and nobody lives long enough to do that. I did appreciate Top Gun getting slammed; it is one of my least favorite movies.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:38 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:38 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
I find it a much more damning fate to be truly mediocre — not bad enough to be interesting.
Seconded.
When I was doing scriptreading, the mediocre scripts were the ones it was hardest to get through. The good ones were easy to read, for obvious reasons - but the TRULY bad ones also got a following. There's a couple scripts I saved for a couple years longer than necessary just for the degree of their badness. At the scriptreading parties we had for my old theater company, it was the bad scripts that people compared notes on - I remember one script party where there were a bunch of people gathered in a corner laughing hysterically about something, and discovered that they were having a dramatic reading of one of the really bad scripts.
I think the fascination is that you can tell how much the cast and crew care about what they're doing - you can tell that in their own heads, they're making the next Ben Hur or something, and they just have an enormous blind spot that is keeping them from seeing just how badly things are going wrong. And that amount of naked faith is ultimately endearing. You also want to see just how much further it's going to go into the realm of bad.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:53 AM on April 4, 2017 [4 favorites]
Seconded.
When I was doing scriptreading, the mediocre scripts were the ones it was hardest to get through. The good ones were easy to read, for obvious reasons - but the TRULY bad ones also got a following. There's a couple scripts I saved for a couple years longer than necessary just for the degree of their badness. At the scriptreading parties we had for my old theater company, it was the bad scripts that people compared notes on - I remember one script party where there were a bunch of people gathered in a corner laughing hysterically about something, and discovered that they were having a dramatic reading of one of the really bad scripts.
I think the fascination is that you can tell how much the cast and crew care about what they're doing - you can tell that in their own heads, they're making the next Ben Hur or something, and they just have an enormous blind spot that is keeping them from seeing just how badly things are going wrong. And that amount of naked faith is ultimately endearing. You also want to see just how much further it's going to go into the realm of bad.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:53 AM on April 4, 2017 [4 favorites]
Plan 9 is what Manos isn't - it's lovable. There's nothing hateful that happens in it. It's a delight to make fun of, but it's completely there for you, no doubt about that. This is something it shares with The Room. All the passion and belief in The Room is wrapped up in Tommy Wiseau's performance, but what a performance. The weird misogyny in the script of The Room doesn't upset or even reach me, because the whole thing is so childish - so childlike - a man who has found the freedom to play pretend on a vast scale.
Michael Bay has made vast sums from movies worse than Wood's or even Wiseau's, because they lacked that sense of play.
posted by Countess Elena at 5:44 AM on April 4, 2017 [7 favorites]
Michael Bay has made vast sums from movies worse than Wood's or even Wiseau's, because they lacked that sense of play.
posted by Countess Elena at 5:44 AM on April 4, 2017 [7 favorites]
If you buy "TV's Frank" Conniff's recent book 25 MST3K Films that Changed My Life in No Way Whatsoever (I think that's the title) for no other reason, buy it for his excellent chapter in which he defends Ed Wood as a genuine, admirable outsider artist. It changed my opinion of…some of his films, at least. And it puts Ed Wood (which is indeed a great, great biopic) into new light.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 6:17 AM on April 4, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 6:17 AM on April 4, 2017 [5 favorites]
The Medveds needed a really bad movie for their book about bad movies, but it was on behalf of a cheap coffee-table book rather than critical scholarship so I suspect they decided to err towards lending top rank to flicks that are entertainingly bad rather than those lacking any entertainment value. The reputation of the movie has outlived the popularity of their books, to the extent that "Plan 9" is reflexively thought of as "worst movie" without much consideration on the part of people who utters it.
Right. Michael Medved has made a long and successful career out of being a cultural lightweight. He made his pop culture bones by co-authoring What Really Happened to the Class of '65?, which is predicated entirely on the premise that the post-graduation fate of his high school class was particularly interesting because they'd been featured in a Time magazine article once. (Surprise, many of them ended up doing something different than they thought they would as teenagers.) I was surprised to find out that he was on Sneak Previews, actually for longer than the two guys it was really known for. His occasional mention by lefty bloggers when the usual suspects haven't done anything particularly outrageous that week is the only way that I'm reminded that he's still alive.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:25 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Right. Michael Medved has made a long and successful career out of being a cultural lightweight. He made his pop culture bones by co-authoring What Really Happened to the Class of '65?, which is predicated entirely on the premise that the post-graduation fate of his high school class was particularly interesting because they'd been featured in a Time magazine article once. (Surprise, many of them ended up doing something different than they thought they would as teenagers.) I was surprised to find out that he was on Sneak Previews, actually for longer than the two guys it was really known for. His occasional mention by lefty bloggers when the usual suspects haven't done anything particularly outrageous that week is the only way that I'm reminded that he's still alive.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:25 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Youtube has the full movie.
Alternate Link
Alternate alternate link
posted by zarq at 6:49 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Alternate Link
Alternate alternate link
posted by zarq at 6:49 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Michael Medved has made a long and successful career out of being a cultural lightweight
Most of his film reviews have a politically conservative bias. Sometimes they're not at all subtle about it.
I suspect that one's impression of him will probably depend on what media they consume. He used to be a guest host for Rush Limbaugh before getting his own show, which is now syndicated on 180 stations with a devoted following of around 5 million listeners. That puts him in the top ten in audience size. He's a vocal proponent of the religious "intelligent design" movement and made a lot of waves last year when he came out against Donald Trump.
posted by zarq at 7:10 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Most of his film reviews have a politically conservative bias. Sometimes they're not at all subtle about it.
I suspect that one's impression of him will probably depend on what media they consume. He used to be a guest host for Rush Limbaugh before getting his own show, which is now syndicated on 180 stations with a devoted following of around 5 million listeners. That puts him in the top ten in audience size. He's a vocal proponent of the religious "intelligent design" movement and made a lot of waves last year when he came out against Donald Trump.
posted by zarq at 7:10 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
There is no way Plan 9 can be the worst movie ever because it provided me with an entire movie's worth of joyful laughter. Seriously one of my favorite movie-watching experiences. I also love Manos, so take my opinion with a grain of salt the size of Torgo's thigh.
posted by altopower at 7:10 AM on April 4, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by altopower at 7:10 AM on April 4, 2017 [2 favorites]
Danny Peary (whatever happened to him?) had the same take on it 25 years ago or so. His thesis was that was worthy of some respect because it actually did address interesting philosophical questions about nukes, even if it did so in Ed Wood's inimitable way.
And of course, everyone knows the worst movie ever made is actually The Creeping Terror, so.
posted by holborne at 7:49 AM on April 4, 2017 [2 favorites]
And of course, everyone knows the worst movie ever made is actually The Creeping Terror, so.
posted by holborne at 7:49 AM on April 4, 2017 [2 favorites]
"So bad it's good" gets a new name with each generation. It was the the camp aesthetic in the 70s, postmodern appropriation in the 80s, hipster irony in the 90s. Not sure what the kids are calling it these days.
posted by bhnyc at 7:56 AM on April 4, 2017
posted by bhnyc at 7:56 AM on April 4, 2017
"You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!"
posted by seiryuu at 8:12 AM on April 4, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by seiryuu at 8:12 AM on April 4, 2017 [7 favorites]
Yeah, it does deserve it. It is a bad movie. It is celluloid garbage. I know it is posh to find value in any manure slopped together just to be contrarian as you establish some sort of contrived pecking order where you magically and conveniently cast yourself as the One who sees something the rest of the peasants are incapable of doing, but I do not enable or indulge self-absorbed fantasy.
As one wise 80s rocker crooned, sometimes bad is bad.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:48 AM on April 4, 2017
As one wise 80s rocker crooned, sometimes bad is bad.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:48 AM on April 4, 2017
Not sure what the kids are calling it these days.
I'm a fan of The Flop House Podcast, which uses a flexible ratings scale that articulates the paradox of relative movie quality:
1) Good-Bad Movie: A movie that transcends mere badness to become watchably fun and/or hilarious.
EX: Plan 9 From Outer Space, The Room, Neil Breen's entire oeuvre
2) Bad-Bad Movie: A movie that is simply poorly executed, but not in a particularly entertaining way.
EX: Gigli, Adam Sandler movies on Netflix
3) A Movie I Kinda Liked: A movie that might be bad in spots, but has enough conventionally-redeeming qualities to qualify as a genuine non-ironic fave.
EX: Escape From New York, Mortdecai, Gremlins 2: The New Batch
posted by Strange Interlude at 8:59 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm a fan of The Flop House Podcast, which uses a flexible ratings scale that articulates the paradox of relative movie quality:
1) Good-Bad Movie: A movie that transcends mere badness to become watchably fun and/or hilarious.
EX: Plan 9 From Outer Space, The Room, Neil Breen's entire oeuvre
2) Bad-Bad Movie: A movie that is simply poorly executed, but not in a particularly entertaining way.
EX: Gigli, Adam Sandler movies on Netflix
3) A Movie I Kinda Liked: A movie that might be bad in spots, but has enough conventionally-redeeming qualities to qualify as a genuine non-ironic fave.
EX: Escape From New York, Mortdecai, Gremlins 2: The New Batch
posted by Strange Interlude at 8:59 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
I’ve never particular bought into the cult of “Plan 9” as “worst movie evar”. When I read discussions about it the attention is always placed on the aspects where the film breaks the artifice of filmmaking (corpsing actors, unintentional camera misdirection, obvious or clunky edits, awkward dialogue, etc.) and I feel that these are the wrong kind of things to focus on. To me it is comparable to looking a painting and focusing on the quality of the brush used to make the brush strokes and type the canvas rather than the appreciation of the work and whether it speaks to you or doesn’t. To me the laughing at a "so bad its good" film is a lot like poking fun at a malapropism from a non-native speaker; intellectually lazy and a cheap laugh.
I think of films (and art in general) as having a grammar, of form and one which reflects its respective culture. When a film upsets an ingrained grammar, whether intentionally or through misadventure, that as casual viewers we've been uncritically taught to accept (say linear narrative, action beats every 11 minutes, clear male/female and racial roles) the film ends up not seeming to be "right". A casual & uncritical viewer might see it as "wrong", like a mangled sentence from a non-native speaker which is decisively labeled as being "poor" & “confusing”.
It takes time, the will and the effort to learn or appreciate alternative grammars. When I approach a film, any film frankly, something I look for is "intent", the direction the makers are trying to achieve. Is there clarity of vision? Is there an internal consistency? You can say a lot of things about Ed Wood but I think he has vision and is mostly consistent. Like comments on forum, I think sometimes we are too quick to judge and to unwilling to give something a more generous reading. Life and art are rarely as black and white as all that.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:01 AM on April 4, 2017 [3 favorites]
I think of films (and art in general) as having a grammar, of form and one which reflects its respective culture. When a film upsets an ingrained grammar, whether intentionally or through misadventure, that as casual viewers we've been uncritically taught to accept (say linear narrative, action beats every 11 minutes, clear male/female and racial roles) the film ends up not seeming to be "right". A casual & uncritical viewer might see it as "wrong", like a mangled sentence from a non-native speaker which is decisively labeled as being "poor" & “confusing”.
It takes time, the will and the effort to learn or appreciate alternative grammars. When I approach a film, any film frankly, something I look for is "intent", the direction the makers are trying to achieve. Is there clarity of vision? Is there an internal consistency? You can say a lot of things about Ed Wood but I think he has vision and is mostly consistent. Like comments on forum, I think sometimes we are too quick to judge and to unwilling to give something a more generous reading. Life and art are rarely as black and white as all that.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:01 AM on April 4, 2017 [3 favorites]
It's a bad movie but it's not very hard to make a bad movie for $60,000. It takes special talent to spend hundreds of millions and still make a terrible movie.
posted by octothorpe at 9:07 AM on April 4, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 9:07 AM on April 4, 2017 [3 favorites]
The question I'd ask then is if one is engaged with, enjoys, or otherwise finds meaningful or significant a film that is outside standard conventions, why place that film in a separate category from the more usual films one sees as "so bad its good" rather than wonder about those usual films one sees which aren't as enjoyable?.
Some movies are bad because they are lazily made in ways that show contempt for the audience. At the extreme, the MST3K canon includes movies with inaudible sound, or lighting so poor as to obscure the cast, or simply out of focus. "So bad it's good" exists as a category because laughing-at is not the same thing as laughing-with.
To me the laughing at a "so bad its good" film is a lot like poking fun at a malapropism from a non-native speaker; intellectually lazy and a cheap laugh.
Nothing is stopping a bad director from becoming good. MST3K itself is a good example of this; season 0 is shockingly crude, but by season 2 it's a professional comedy show that's defining its own genre. MST3K learned basic cinematography and invented new conventions, and it laughs at lazy-bad movies from that perspective: if we could learn to be good, why couldn't they?
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:17 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Some movies are bad because they are lazily made in ways that show contempt for the audience. At the extreme, the MST3K canon includes movies with inaudible sound, or lighting so poor as to obscure the cast, or simply out of focus. "So bad it's good" exists as a category because laughing-at is not the same thing as laughing-with.
To me the laughing at a "so bad its good" film is a lot like poking fun at a malapropism from a non-native speaker; intellectually lazy and a cheap laugh.
Nothing is stopping a bad director from becoming good. MST3K itself is a good example of this; season 0 is shockingly crude, but by season 2 it's a professional comedy show that's defining its own genre. MST3K learned basic cinematography and invented new conventions, and it laughs at lazy-bad movies from that perspective: if we could learn to be good, why couldn't they?
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:17 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it does deserve it. It is a bad movie. It is celluloid garbage.
...
As one wise 80s rocker crooned, sometimes bad is bad.
Wait, did you just ironically quote Huey Lewis while denigrating other people's ironic appreciation of bad movies?
posted by Strange Interlude at 9:22 AM on April 4, 2017 [7 favorites]
...
As one wise 80s rocker crooned, sometimes bad is bad.
Wait, did you just ironically quote Huey Lewis while denigrating other people's ironic appreciation of bad movies?
posted by Strange Interlude at 9:22 AM on April 4, 2017 [7 favorites]
Robot Monster is even less coherent than Plan 9 and (according to Wikipedia) cost even less by 10 thousand dollars. Eegah cost even less than that. Octothorpe gets it exactly right: it takes a special kind of no-talent to make a bad movie on hundreds of millions of dollars.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:33 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by octobersurprise at 9:33 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Some movies are bad because they are lazily made in ways that show contempt for the audience.
The films shown on MST3K, as they themselves have noted, are not being shown under ideal circumstances. They stop and start the film arbitrarily (as it says in the song). The print quality of the films, especially in those early days are poor (giving rise to some of the problems you ascribe to the films themselves "inaudible sound, or lighting so poor as to obscure the cast, or simply out of focus"). You're also watching the film out of the context from where they came.
I like MST3K for what it is but please its not like you're watching the films of a specific director under optimal conditions with an open mind. You're watching crappy prints of films, broken up with people trying to make fun of it.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:33 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
The films shown on MST3K, as they themselves have noted, are not being shown under ideal circumstances. They stop and start the film arbitrarily (as it says in the song). The print quality of the films, especially in those early days are poor (giving rise to some of the problems you ascribe to the films themselves "inaudible sound, or lighting so poor as to obscure the cast, or simply out of focus"). You're also watching the film out of the context from where they came.
I like MST3K for what it is but please its not like you're watching the films of a specific director under optimal conditions with an open mind. You're watching crappy prints of films, broken up with people trying to make fun of it.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:33 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Plan 9 and Manos are both Citizen Kane compared to the works of Coleman Francis. Just saying.
posted by SansPoint at 10:22 AM on April 4, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 10:22 AM on April 4, 2017 [2 favorites]
It's a bad movie but it's not very hard to make a bad movie for $60,000. It takes special talent to spend hundreds of millions and still make a terrible movie.
This is so true. 2015 was a great year for movies. 2016 was a shit year. Here's a list of films from 2016 that cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and were actually worse (or at the very least, less fun to watch) than Plan 9 From Outer Space:
Independence Day: Resurgence (Budget: $165 million)
The Angry Birds Movie (Budget: $73 million)
God Of Egypt (Budget: $140 million) *
Suicide Squad (Budget: $175 million)
Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice (Budget: $250 million)
*Gods Of Egypt is an amazingly bad and inept movie, but it's possible that it turns the "so-bad'-ts-good" corner for some people.
posted by vibrotronica at 11:05 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
This is so true. 2015 was a great year for movies. 2016 was a shit year. Here's a list of films from 2016 that cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and were actually worse (or at the very least, less fun to watch) than Plan 9 From Outer Space:
Independence Day: Resurgence (Budget: $165 million)
The Angry Birds Movie (Budget: $73 million)
God Of Egypt (Budget: $140 million) *
Suicide Squad (Budget: $175 million)
Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice (Budget: $250 million)
*Gods Of Egypt is an amazingly bad and inept movie, but it's possible that it turns the "so-bad'-ts-good" corner for some people.
posted by vibrotronica at 11:05 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
The only time I saw P9FOS was right before watching "Ed Wood", which made for an interesting night of movie watching (good actors trying to be bad actors are still better actors than bad actors trying to be good actors).
Plan 9 is a terrible movie, but I don't think it deserves the title of worst ever. It's at least watchable. I was amused. Admittedly, I was amused at how bad it was, but I was never bored. I've seen movies that bored me to tears, that were just lifeless. Plan 9 was talentless, but not lifeless, and even in its lack of talent there's a sort of greatness when the movie breaks new ground in lack of talent.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 11:06 AM on April 4, 2017
Plan 9 is a terrible movie, but I don't think it deserves the title of worst ever. It's at least watchable. I was amused. Admittedly, I was amused at how bad it was, but I was never bored. I've seen movies that bored me to tears, that were just lifeless. Plan 9 was talentless, but not lifeless, and even in its lack of talent there's a sort of greatness when the movie breaks new ground in lack of talent.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 11:06 AM on April 4, 2017
A more illuminating order is Ed Wood first and then Plan 9; if you have a lot of time P9, EW, P9 in rapid succession.
posted by achrise at 11:19 AM on April 4, 2017
posted by achrise at 11:19 AM on April 4, 2017
Suicide Squad (Budget: $175 million)
What the hell did they spend it on?
posted by zarq at 11:19 AM on April 4, 2017
What the hell did they spend it on?
posted by zarq at 11:19 AM on April 4, 2017
Suicide Squad (Budget: $175 million)
What the hell did they spend it on?
Tattoos and hair dye.
posted by Strange Interlude at 11:24 AM on April 4, 2017 [2 favorites]
What the hell did they spend it on?
Tattoos and hair dye.
posted by Strange Interlude at 11:24 AM on April 4, 2017 [2 favorites]
Plan 9 and Manos are both Citizen Kane compared to the works of Coleman Francis. Just saying.
By contrast, in my MetaFilter treatise on Coleman Francis, I discuss why I actually enjoy Beast of Yucca Flats. I for one could not similarly defend Manos as art, even if it is objectively a bit more competent.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 11:26 AM on April 4, 2017
By contrast, in my MetaFilter treatise on Coleman Francis, I discuss why I actually enjoy Beast of Yucca Flats. I for one could not similarly defend Manos as art, even if it is objectively a bit more competent.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 11:26 AM on April 4, 2017
EX: Escape From New York
What part of this movie is anything less than excellent?!
You, sir or madam, are NOT a-number-one. Hmmmph.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:34 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
What part of this movie is anything less than excellent?!
You, sir or madam, are NOT a-number-one. Hmmmph.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:34 AM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
I have to confess - I saw Plan 9 as part of a double-feature I set up to show off my own personal favorite bad movie. And I may be biased, but I didn't think Plan 9 was as bad.
I also once saw a live stage version of Night Of The Ghouls, which for a time was a "lost" Wood film that may be even worse. It actually was pretty fun as a live theater piece.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:46 AM on April 4, 2017
I also once saw a live stage version of Night Of The Ghouls, which for a time was a "lost" Wood film that may be even worse. It actually was pretty fun as a live theater piece.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:46 AM on April 4, 2017
Yeah, it does deserve it. It is a bad movie. It is celluloid garbage. I know it is posh to find value in any manure slopped together just to be contrarian as you establish some sort of contrived pecking order where you magically and conveniently cast yourself as the One who sees something the rest of the peasants are incapable of doing, but I do not enable or indulge self-absorbed fantasy.
Huh? People find it entertaining in a comedic way because it's so bizarrely and not-quite-competently written and filmed, and some people find it genuinely charming that the director was fairly serious about the whole thing and making do with limited resources (and his only star dying).
posted by atoxyl at 1:02 PM on April 4, 2017
Huh? People find it entertaining in a comedic way because it's so bizarrely and not-quite-competently written and filmed, and some people find it genuinely charming that the director was fairly serious about the whole thing and making do with limited resources (and his only star dying).
posted by atoxyl at 1:02 PM on April 4, 2017
What part of this movie is anything less than excellent?!
You, sir or madam, are NOT a-number-one. Hmmmph.
No offense meant, it's been a favorite of mine since I was a kid. I rewatched it the other night, and was again struck by how it never really stops being a low-budget B-movie, but the casting and overall atmosphere definitely puts it ahead of other early '80s attempts at the urban-apocalypse genre. Which is to say that it fits the "Movie I Kinda Liked" definition to a T for me.
posted by Strange Interlude at 1:04 PM on April 4, 2017
You, sir or madam, are NOT a-number-one. Hmmmph.
No offense meant, it's been a favorite of mine since I was a kid. I rewatched it the other night, and was again struck by how it never really stops being a low-budget B-movie, but the casting and overall atmosphere definitely puts it ahead of other early '80s attempts at the urban-apocalypse genre. Which is to say that it fits the "Movie I Kinda Liked" definition to a T for me.
posted by Strange Interlude at 1:04 PM on April 4, 2017
Not to derail, but Escape from New York is a kind of perfect flick to me - it is B-movie to be sure, but it has a director-limbering-up feel that would lead, somehow, to The Thing, which is surely Carpenter's strange, weird, glowing moment of perfection. There's lots to love in Escape, not least Carpenter/Howarth's score which is sort of glorious. There's a devotion in this picture that's hard to define.
Anyway, I recall Medved dominating Channel 4's schedule back in the British 80s with his Golden Turkey Awards: at the time I took it as affectionate appreciation, but now I realise it was just snarky trolling of a certain kind of culture.
posted by specialbrew at 1:39 PM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Anyway, I recall Medved dominating Channel 4's schedule back in the British 80s with his Golden Turkey Awards: at the time I took it as affectionate appreciation, but now I realise it was just snarky trolling of a certain kind of culture.
posted by specialbrew at 1:39 PM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Do you know what happens when you feed the narration of The Beast of Yucca Flats into a Markov generator?
Yucca Flats. And if the killer. To put Jim Archer's paratroop training to good use is the only answer. A woman's purse.
Joe Dobson. Caught in the wheels of justice.
These men are also from behind the iron curtain. Wife and children killed in Hungary. His aide carries a briefcase. Secret data. Never before outside the Kremlin. Man's first rocket to the thirsty pigs.
Touch a button. Things happen. A prehistoric beast in the whirlwind of progress.
Touch a button. Things happen. A man runs, somebody shoots at him.
With Hank and some help from neighbors, the search narrows.
These men are also from behind the iron curtain. Two of the killer. To reach the top, a man needs an airplane. A prehistoric beast in the middle. An innocent victim caught in the whirlwind of progress.
posted by JHarris at 1:49 PM on April 4, 2017 [3 favorites]
Yucca Flats. And if the killer. To put Jim Archer's paratroop training to good use is the only answer. A woman's purse.
Joe Dobson. Caught in the wheels of justice.
These men are also from behind the iron curtain. Wife and children killed in Hungary. His aide carries a briefcase. Secret data. Never before outside the Kremlin. Man's first rocket to the thirsty pigs.
Touch a button. Things happen. A prehistoric beast in the whirlwind of progress.
Touch a button. Things happen. A man runs, somebody shoots at him.
With Hank and some help from neighbors, the search narrows.
These men are also from behind the iron curtain. Two of the killer. To reach the top, a man needs an airplane. A prehistoric beast in the middle. An innocent victim caught in the whirlwind of progress.
posted by JHarris at 1:49 PM on April 4, 2017 [3 favorites]
I'm always really surprised when I see that people discover this movie through something other than Plan 9 from Bell Labs, whose name the movie inspired.
posted by floatboth at 6:46 PM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by floatboth at 6:46 PM on April 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it does deserve it. It is a bad movie. It is celluloid garbage. I know it is posh to find value in any manure slopped together just to be contrarian as you establish some sort of contrived pecking order where you magically and conveniently cast yourself as the One who sees something the rest of the peasants are incapable of doing, but I do not enable or indulge self-absorbed fantasy.
As one wise 80s rocker crooned, sometimes bad is bad.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 10:48 AM on April 4
Holy hell, that seems to be a lot of pent up anger. I feel sorry for you. Perhaps you try to find ways to appear posh, but I don't, and I don't think any other fans of "Plan 9" do. Seems more likely to me that you find your attitude a convenient way to reinforce your feelings of superiority over others.
And, please let us know when you've completed your cinematic masterpiece so we can compare and contrast it to "Plan 9."
I won't hold my breath waiting for your motion picture.
Rick
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 8:37 PM on April 4, 2017
As one wise 80s rocker crooned, sometimes bad is bad.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 10:48 AM on April 4
Holy hell, that seems to be a lot of pent up anger. I feel sorry for you. Perhaps you try to find ways to appear posh, but I don't, and I don't think any other fans of "Plan 9" do. Seems more likely to me that you find your attitude a convenient way to reinforce your feelings of superiority over others.
And, please let us know when you've completed your cinematic masterpiece so we can compare and contrast it to "Plan 9."
I won't hold my breath waiting for your motion picture.
Rick
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 8:37 PM on April 4, 2017
This was the only movie I've only watched successfully the third time (on TV), having fallen asleep the first two times. As has been pointed out earlier, perhaps mediocre is a better descriptor than "worst ever."
I've only walked out of one movie that I remember: one of Ken Russell's indulgent over-the-top pieces. Liszt, maybe? Or something about a White Worm? I almost walked out of LaLaLand, which I only saw because a friend of mine loved it and watched it seven times. When my partner and I watched (part of) the Oscars, BTW, when LaLaLand was pronounced Best Film, we turned off the TV in disgust, because we had seen the masterful Moonlight. So we missed the ensuing clusterfuck.
posted by kozad at 8:41 PM on April 4, 2017
I've only walked out of one movie that I remember: one of Ken Russell's indulgent over-the-top pieces. Liszt, maybe? Or something about a White Worm? I almost walked out of LaLaLand, which I only saw because a friend of mine loved it and watched it seven times. When my partner and I watched (part of) the Oscars, BTW, when LaLaLand was pronounced Best Film, we turned off the TV in disgust, because we had seen the masterful Moonlight. So we missed the ensuing clusterfuck.
posted by kozad at 8:41 PM on April 4, 2017
Plan 9 and Manos are both Citizen Kane compared to the works of Coleman Francis. Just saying.
Or, indeed, the whole meta-genre of tax write-off movies. Uwe Böll's deliberately shitty video-game adaptations come to mind, as do a raft of films like Outback Vampires made in Australia under the 10BA tax scheme in the 80s. Possibly Roger Corman and Cannon Films as well.
posted by acb at 7:14 AM on April 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Or, indeed, the whole meta-genre of tax write-off movies. Uwe Böll's deliberately shitty video-game adaptations come to mind, as do a raft of films like Outback Vampires made in Australia under the 10BA tax scheme in the 80s. Possibly Roger Corman and Cannon Films as well.
posted by acb at 7:14 AM on April 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm always really surprised when I see that people discover this movie through something other than Plan 9 from Bell Labs, whose name the movie inspired.
posted by floatboth at 9:46 PM on April 4 [+] [!]
I'm not sure if this makes me feel really old, insufficiently nerdy, or a heaping helping of both.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 7:17 AM on April 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by floatboth at 9:46 PM on April 4 [+] [!]
I'm not sure if this makes me feel really old, insufficiently nerdy, or a heaping helping of both.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 7:17 AM on April 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older The ungrateful refugee | So I suppose we could call it Springval? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by pracowity at 1:35 AM on April 4, 2017