#1 Posted by Masterherox (59 posts) -

I think we can all agree that movies like "The room" or "Birdemic" are really, really bad. However, as much as people go about calling them the worst movies ever, many people also enjoy these movies. Are they bad movies? Absolutely. Are they occasionally more enjoyable than movies that are put together in a better way? I certainly believe so.

Does being a terrible, yet enjoyable film get a free pass or does it have to be looked at from what the director intended? Is it possible for a movie that many people enjoyed to be classified among the worst ever produced? Or is it useless to try and use one barometer here, and instead necessitate separate ideas of what the "best" and "worst" aspects of a movie are?

#2 Posted by Apparatus_Unearth (3196 posts) -

The way I think of it is things are objectively good/bad and subjectively good/bad.

#3 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

One can enjoy a movie because it is bad, but enjoyment of a movie does not make it bad.

#4 Edited by WickedFather (1733 posts) -

I think we can agree: what a shit question.

#5 Posted by BestUsernameEver (4825 posts) -

You can enjoy something for being bad, no one looks at a super dumb movie like the resident evil series and says they're genuinely good for making them laugh at the screen.

#6 Posted by Gamer_152 (14091 posts) -

The only thing that makes things good or bad is peoples' subjective enjoyment of them. You can say that a movie is critically acclaimed, or has a big following, or was made with a lot of talent and care, or any of those other things, but whether something is "Good" or "Bad" is not written in stone, and peoples' opinions can't be dictated. If you enjoyed a movie, well then, you think that's a good movie.

Moderator
#7 Posted by believer258 (11992 posts) -

The only thing that makes things good or bad is peoples' subjective enjoyment of them. You can say that a movie is critically acclaimed, or has a big following, or was made with a lot of talent and care, or any of those other things, but whether something is "Good" or "Bad" is not written in stone, and peoples' opinions can't be dictated. If you enjoyed a movie, well then, you think that's a good movie.

You're saying that Birdemic is a good movie if someone enjoyed it?

Opinions can't be dictated, but knowing the difference between, say, good and bad acting or camerawork can. I don't necessarily think there's a true objective measure by which we can judge things (i.e. there's no singular "best and worst movie"), but there is knowing and understanding the difference between enjoying a movie and appreciating its merits and/or criticizing its flaws. Same goes for pretty much everything.

#8 Posted by JeanLuc (3591 posts) -

@masterherox: If you enjoy this kind of conversations you should watch Best Worst Movie, a documentary about Trolls 2. Its really good and touches on stuff like this.

#9 Edited by Skyfire543 (713 posts) -

Whenever someone asks a question like this I point them to Miami Connection. The movie is terrible, but god damn if it isn't entertaining.

#10 Edited by Ben_H (3381 posts) -

MIA I'M A COP

So to answer the question, yes, they can be bad even if you enjoyed them. The Fast and the Furious is incredibly dumb but the dumbness is almost endearing at times.

#11 Posted by Aetheldod (3630 posts) -

Yes is still bad .... but maybe it may not be all that bad , its yer job to change peoples opinions if you care enough.

#12 Posted by steelerzfan101 (272 posts) -

It's hard to enjoy bad things, so if you are enjoying a "bad" movie...it isn't that bad!

Online
#13 Posted by crusader8463 (14423 posts) -

No. It's kind of a pet peeve of mine when people say they like bad movies. If you like it and had fun watching it then it was not bad.

#14 Posted by Sanity (1939 posts) -

No. It's kind of a pet peeve of mine when people say they like bad movies. If you like it and had fun watching it then it was not bad.

How so? You can like something and also acknowledge its bad, especially if you like it for the wrong reasons. Many people like bad movies because they are unintentionally funny or they can still drift away in them and kill a few hours. Same thing goes for games, many people play bad games and enjoy them, but they still know there bad compared to others. Shades of grey is the better term for it i guess but most people just say its bad.

#15 Edited by DaddyCabinet (210 posts) -

@ben_h: Too be honest I hated the first couple of fast and furious movies when they came out. Since the series decided to adopt a fuck it kind of approach to story telling, they have kind of grow on me.

Also I am just going to come out and say I liked Uwe Boll's Postal. Feels good to finally say it.

#16 Edited by Ramone (2975 posts) -

I like movies that I recognise as being bad but not because they're bad, does this make me a horrible person?

#17 Posted by Gamer_152 (14091 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@gamer_152 said:

The only thing that makes things good or bad is peoples' subjective enjoyment of them. You can say that a movie is critically acclaimed, or has a big following, or was made with a lot of talent and care, or any of those other things, but whether something is "Good" or "Bad" is not written in stone, and peoples' opinions can't be dictated. If you enjoyed a movie, well then, you think that's a good movie.

You're saying that Birdemic is a good movie if someone enjoyed it?

Opinions can't be dictated, but knowing the difference between, say, good and bad acting or camerawork can. I don't necessarily think there's a true objective measure by which we can judge things (i.e. there's no singular "best and worst movie"), but there is knowing and understanding the difference between enjoying a movie and appreciating its merits and/or criticizing its flaws. Same goes for pretty much everything.

Okay, this is something that's been debated before, but I'm saying there can be no universal dictation of what any movie is. You can say that camerawork was skilled or unskilled, that acting was talented or untalented, but "Good" and "Bad" are subjective terms, and so they inherently describe personal opinions.

Moderator
#18 Posted by audioBusting (1619 posts) -

Define "bad".

#19 Edited by Hunter5024 (5810 posts) -

If I enjoy a movie then I think it is good, if I do not enjoy it then I think it is bad. I don't see why it needs to be more complicated then that. Are people so self conscious that they can't admit to liking a stupid movie without claiming it's some ironic appreciation?

Online
#20 Posted by BaneFireLord (2951 posts) -

I can enjoy things and still recognize their shortcomings subjectively (a game example would be Just Cause 2...it's one of my favorite games this generation, but I still recognize that its story is shit and its gunplay is incredibly weak). Similarly, I can recognize that something is subjectively good but still not enjoy or appreciate it (for instance, I can comprehend why 2001: A Space Odyssey is a well made, landmark film, but its subjective quality doesn't stop me from really disliking it).

#21 Posted by Claude (16254 posts) -

Synapses fire and shit happens. That moment when it feels right? Might not happen again or every fucking time again and again. Oh wait, it's over. Wait for it....there it is again/over/again

#22 Posted by Tireyo (6446 posts) -

Well, Toys was a bad movie, but I didn't think so.

#23 Edited by believer258 (11992 posts) -

@gamer_152 said:

@believer258 said:

@gamer_152 said:

The only thing that makes things good or bad is peoples' subjective enjoyment of them. You can say that a movie is critically acclaimed, or has a big following, or was made with a lot of talent and care, or any of those other things, but whether something is "Good" or "Bad" is not written in stone, and peoples' opinions can't be dictated. If you enjoyed a movie, well then, you think that's a good movie.

You're saying that Birdemic is a good movie if someone enjoyed it?

Opinions can't be dictated, but knowing the difference between, say, good and bad acting or camerawork can. I don't necessarily think there's a true objective measure by which we can judge things (i.e. there's no singular "best and worst movie"), but there is knowing and understanding the difference between enjoying a movie and appreciating its merits and/or criticizing its flaws. Same goes for pretty much everything.

Okay, this is something that's been debated before, but I'm saying there can be no universal dictation of what any movie is. You can say that camerawork was skilled or unskilled, that acting was talented or untalented, but "Good" and "Bad" are subjective terms, and so they inherently describe personal opinions.

That sounds more along the lines of "like and dislike" and not "good and bad".

There's not a universal dictation on what any movie is, but there is an understanding of things that can make a movie good, and things that can make a movie bad. The way you've put it, "talent" isn't something that's recognizable, except maybe by popularity, in which case Michael Bay would be one of the best filmmakers of the last ten years.

It's not a binary "everyone will call this good, everyone will call this bad" kind of thing, I'm just saying that you can have a good argument over whether something is good or bad and Birdemic will, in any reasonable argument, always come out as "bad". Possibly "enjoyable" and "likeable". But not "good". That this page exists ought to be proof enough that something bad can be enjoyable. EDIT:

I can enjoy things and still recognize their shortcomings subjectively (a game example would be Just Cause 2...it's one of my favorite games this generation, but I still recognize that its story is shit and its gunplay is incredibly weak). Similarly, I can recognize that something is subjectively good but still not enjoy or appreciate it (for instance, I can comprehend why 2001: A Space Odyssey is a well made, landmark film, but its subjective quality doesn't stop me from really disliking it).

This, in a nutshell, is exactly what I'm talking about.

#24 Posted by Nitrocore (369 posts) -

How can you like a bad movie?, bad is a negative not a positive. You can like cheap, cheesy or shallow films if you desire though.

#25 Posted by Gamer_152 (14091 posts) -

@believer258: See, to me that quote shows what's wrong with this kind of thinking. If you look up the definition of subjectivity, you can see it reads "Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions", so to say that something is subjectively good, while simultaneously saying that personally you don't enjoy it is a contradiction. You can say that people in general consider something good, while simultaneously saying you don't personally, but I can see that's obviously not what you're getting at either. I think if you look at the works people have classified as "Good" and "Bad" over history, you'll see that they're considered that way because of how much people enjoyed them. There are no real works of art or entertainment out there where people are going "Well, I hated it, and the audiences and critics hated it, but it was a good, right guys?". This is a subjective judgement.

Moderator
#26 Posted by TooWalrus (13237 posts) -

Those Resident Evil movies are terrible. And I love them.

...though that's only because they're dumb fun with friends. I don't "enjoy" bad movies in an ironic way. Like, I'm not freaking out about "Sharknado."

#27 Posted by Juzie (168 posts) -

The way I see it, there are fun movies, good movies and bad movies. Good movies are technically brilliant movies, fun movies are bad movies that I enjoy watching (even if not as much as a legitimately good movie) and bad movies are just movies I can't stand to watch at all.

I would class something like the Resident Evil movies as a fun movie.

#28 Posted by believer258 (11992 posts) -

@believer258: See, to me that quote shows what's wrong with this kind of thinking. If you look up the definition of subjectivity, you can see it reads "Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions", so to say that something is subjectively good, while simultaneously saying that personally you don't enjoy it is a contradiction. You can say that people in general consider something good, while simultaneously saying you don't personally, but I can see that's obviously not what you're getting at either. I think if you look at the works people have classified as "Good" and "Bad" over history, you'll see that they're considered that way because of how much people enjoyed them. There are no real works of art or entertainment out there where people are going "Well, I hated it, and the audiences and critics hated it, but it was a good, right guys?". This is a subjective judgement.

But I didn't bring up the word "subjectivity". I did bring up the word "objective" and said that there's no absolute objective measure by which something is factually good or bad, but you can criticize something and bring up points about what is good and what is bad about a piece of art.

By your line of thinking, average Joe who enjoys cheesy action movies is as equally qualified to judge movies as Roger Ebert was simply because he enjoyed it. The two are not equally qualified to judge movies. Average Joe will tell you that an action movie was awesome because he thought the scenes looked cool. Roger Ebert might have told you that this same action movie had good action scenes, like a well-made car chase or a martial arts scene where the viewer could keep up with what was going on, but the plot made no sense and the actors either didn't care or couldn't act, that the lines the actors were given didn't make much sense, that the camerawork was, that the one-liners weren't timed well, that the shakycam used throughout the movie was to its detriment, etc. There's some subjectivity to these things, yes, but again we're not talking about binary things here.

But maybe I just can't bring myself to believe that popularity is the only measure of quality, because then Twilight is actually good, CoD is the greatest FPS on Earth, and Shin Megami Tensei is just some shit turn based RPG by a niche developer currently owned by a bankrupt company in Japan. And that's not true, because there are authors that write more sensible plots and cover more worthwhile themes than Twilight, there are FPS games that are better-paced than CoD's "always on" action, and Shin Megami Tensei games are by no stretch of the imagination "shit".

#29 Edited by Scrawnto (2456 posts) -

A badly written movie can be enjoyable. In that sense it can be both bad and good. Movies are composed of many parts, and they are usually a mix of good and bad.

#30 Posted by TyCobb (1972 posts) -

@jeanluc: That was a great documentary. Watched it a year or so ago. The guy seems like the world's nicest gent, but man does he live in that moment.

----

A bad movie is still a bad movie. I enjoy watching bad movies, but nothing will ever make them good. My enjoyment does not change that.

#31 Edited by falserelic (5468 posts) -

I guess this movie takes the cake. Guy gets bit by a spider, gets super-human abilities, tries to be a super hero, but ends up slowly becoming a giant spider, and yeah you can guess the rest. It was cheesy but fun to watch.

Ending was kinda sad though...