I'm afraid to tell people I love "Super Mario Bros." It's awfully made, awfully told and awful in everyway. Yet in the same vein groups are popping up all over celebrating bad films and defending their right to enjoy them, from "Clue" to "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (yes, the original one). Many movies are considered poorly made, yet enjoyed by devoted followers, cult films if you will. Many more are seen as completely wasteful and the ultimate "bombs". Yet still many people find great entertainment in these films that the majority have written off as bad, naming them "guilty pleasures", i.e. something bad they are only allowed to like because they can't help it. Can the public judge a film as not worth being made? Or should people be accepting of different tastes and try to remove the stigma "bad films" have (especially for those who enjoy them)? Can humanity ever look at all films as equal, and just rate by taste or is there an intrinsic human nature to defend ourselves from majorly disliked themes or techniques in filmmaking? Can explore evolving film methods (examining old films and how some stand up despite current technologies), notoriously "bad" films that have cult followings (Ed Wood's works, films that are "so bad they're good", etc) and/or personal moments of feeling shamed for liking something different than the mainstream.
See if you can't mention, "Manos the hands of Fate" as you do this write up. – ajester9 years ago
In keeping with the Manos the Hands of Fate suggestion, I think this could also provide an interesting discussion of the popularity of riff-tracks or other movie commentaries such as Mystery Science Theater 3000. Why do we seem to enjoy bonding over showing how clever we are by making jokes about a show that is enjoyable precisely because it is bad? Is this ironic enjoyment really any different than the sincere entertainment derived from a "guilty pleasure"? – bam2169 years ago