«

[Fruit Pie Jones]

What's so bad about b-movies? They're so bad, they're good! (Except "Frogs!" which was so bad it was pathetic).

Oh, there's nothing wrong with B-movies. They were the raison d'?tre of the best show to ever grace the television, in my opinion - that being Mystery Science Theater 3000, of course. I just wanted to make sure that everyone realized that bad movies are not a recent invention.

[Playbahnosh]

Originally posted by Triton+Jul 12 2005, 09:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Triton @ Jul 12 2005, 09:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Sorry Triton, but I think you're slightly changing your argument here. Or are you saying that in the Good Old Days, Hollywood used to make either good films or good bad films, whereas today they mostly make bad bad films? Obviously, the great majority of films which were made back then and the great majority of films which are made now are mediocre and unremarkable. It's just that you don't usually get to see mediocre films from the 1920s any more, whereas mediocre films from the 1990s are constantly being shown on television.
And as for "women in skimpy outfits and constant, mindless action" being a modern theme, what were the King Kong and Tarzan films all about, then?

You'll note that I did not say every movie. [/b][/quote]
I think, b-movies can be actually funny
Did you hear about "X From Outter Space"? I bet not
That film was SO LAME that I almost laughed my head off LOL The entire film was a big joke. X from outter space was a 10 story high man figure with a big X mark as head. Helicopters shoot at that, and when X struck one down it bounced back from the ground The entire film was made of plastik models and awfully lame directing. Like LOL And they though it would be a blockbuster. Even more LOL

So, those good 'ol B cat. films can be funny. Even the horrors and lame-action ones.

[Shunk Eat Enemy]

Ed wood made about the best B movies ever you heard of bride of the Atom i think it was he did that and many others

[omg]

ed wood rules. another king of the b movie is ... peter jackson!! yes before making lotr he made such gems as bad taste
i love b movies. i hate pretension.

So remind me again why we're suddenly discussing b-movies instead of the effects of the visual arts on literature?

[Playbahnosh]

Why not? This is connected to that isn't it? B movies are the best mind-eating zombie-making product is the whole universe

[A. J. Raffles]

Originally posted by Triton@Jul 16 2005, 01:20 AM
So remind me again why we're suddenly discussing b-movies instead of the effects of the visual arts on literature?

Because this post led us off on a tangent.

That post was summing up the reasons why TV and movies have gone straight to hell these days, and is meant to make one wonder what is so good about them. My initial and secondary comment about b-movies was A tangent, but there is a world of difference between a tangent and thread hijacking.

[Indignus IV]

And this is why I don't post in threads like these........

[omg]

how on eaRTH ARE B MOVIES DEGENERATING THE ART OF CINEMA?? (dam caps so close to the a key) these days a low budget movie is 9 mill. the original dawn of the dead (which had a powerfull social statement for the time) was shot for a fraction of that and made a powerfull statement about capitilism. predating mall culture quite effectivly. and the remake (though made for the fraction of the cost of res evil) has some amazing cinematogrophy exspcially the inro sequence. its pretty amazing and very powerfull playing on the idea that the time we live in now is the end times of biblical prophecy.
then you have 28 dAys layter (cost 9 mill res evil 20 mill) which plays on the fact that no matter how advanced medical science is there could always be a virul mutation that medicall science couldent handle. and the script is actually good.
what about trainspotting? surly art is a reflection of the people, not just beuty but the dARK SIDE OF OUr nature. i think in the future trainspotting will be litriture. tolkien is litriture. why? why is herbert not?
i know that dawn of the dead (orig) has been remebered long after other films have faded from peoples imagination.
i think when people look back (if there are any left) 100 years from now they will see (early 21C, lit) as being very dark. its just we cannot predict now what will be our *legacy of litriture* to future generations.
more of them will study movie scripts, but then that happened a while ago. modern movies are as valid as some ultra arty film from time back.
what about tetsuo the iorn man? that is the most poserfull (and powerfull) cinemtographic representation of modern car culture i have ever seen.