This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Not a troll, but I am logging off very soon and I also don't want to influence the thread by posting my opinions in the OP.
Without simply providing lazy links to, or regurgitations of, some online definition you find in 3 seconds via Google....how do you define a "B-movie"?
Examples would be nice, and your working would be even nicer.
It's something I've been pondering awhile.
Thanks!
Without simply providing lazy links to, or regurgitations of, some online definition you find in 3 seconds via Google....how do you define a "B-movie"?
Examples would be nice, and your working would be even nicer.
It's something I've been pondering awhile.
Thanks!
In reply to Blue Straggler:
A B-movie is like any other movie but you can see the trainers under the outfit. Admittedly this definition does label Gladiator as a B-movie but you can't win them all.
A B-movie is like any other movie but you can see the trainers under the outfit. Admittedly this definition does label Gladiator as a B-movie but you can't win them all.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
A film that does not tax the brain too much and one that you can watch while noisily eating 2 cubic feet of popcorn and still not feel that you have missed a nuance.
By definition it cannot be better than the main feature,
...( I'm sure our younger subscribers will be amazed to discover that in the good old days going to the cinema involved watching two movies in one sitting ),
although I am sure there will be examples of this not being true.
A film that does not tax the brain too much and one that you can watch while noisily eating 2 cubic feet of popcorn and still not feel that you have missed a nuance.
By definition it cannot be better than the main feature,
...( I'm sure our younger subscribers will be amazed to discover that in the good old days going to the cinema involved watching two movies in one sitting ),
although I am sure there will be examples of this not being true.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
When I was a lad, when you went to the pictures, you usually got two films, the main feature, and the B-movie, which was usually a shorter, lower budget film, that would not stand much hope of getting shown as the main feature.
Many B-movies were specifically made to be B-movies, if the director/producer was trying to get established and viewed on a low budget.
When I was a lad, when you went to the pictures, you usually got two films, the main feature, and the B-movie, which was usually a shorter, lower budget film, that would not stand much hope of getting shown as the main feature.
Many B-movies were specifically made to be B-movies, if the director/producer was trying to get established and viewed on a low budget.
In reply to Fredt:
Exactly that. They were usually very bad, and very boring.
> When I was a lad, when you went to the pictures, you usually got two films, the main feature, and the B-movie, which was usually a shorter, lower budget film, that would not stand much hope of getting shown as the main feature.
> Many B-movies were specifically made to be B-movies, if the director/producer was trying to get established and viewed on a low budget.
Exactly that. They were usually very bad, and very boring.
In reply to Fredt:
Sorry, aye I knew that, what I was getting at was "has the definition shifted massively since those days"?
The Wicker Man was the B-feature to The Exorcist wasn't it?
> When I was a lad, when you went to the pictures, you usually got two films, the main feature, and the B-movie, which was usually a shorter, lower budget film, that would not stand much hope of getting shown as the main feature.
> Many B-movies were specifically made to be B-movies, if the director/producer was trying to get established and viewed on a low budget.
Sorry, aye I knew that, what I was getting at was "has the definition shifted massively since those days"?
The Wicker Man was the B-feature to The Exorcist wasn't it?
In reply to Blue Straggler:
<unpolitically_correct_warning>
I always thought The Wicker Man felt like a B-feature anyway, and was embarrassingly overrated.
Retires to bunker …
</unpolitically_correct_warning>
<unpolitically_correct_warning>
I always thought The Wicker Man felt like a B-feature anyway, and was embarrassingly overrated.
Retires to bunker …
</unpolitically_correct_warning>
In reply to Mikkel:
Legend. Any film with Actor boy in it immediately Becomes an A* movie
> B is for Bruce, its any movie with Bruce Cambell
Legend. Any film with Actor boy in it immediately Becomes an A* movie
In reply to Blue Straggler:
when i saw jaws at the pictures in 1977, the B movie Supporting it was Empire of the Ants... it was awful... we watched it Twice Just so we could watch jaws Round again.
when i saw jaws at the pictures in 1977, the B movie Supporting it was Empire of the Ants... it was awful... we watched it Twice Just so we could watch jaws Round again.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Would a modern B movie Equivalent be a Straight to video release?
B movie has also become a style, usually in Parody or Homage form id say. Eg.
My name is Bruce.
Tremors.
Bubba ho tep.
Mars attacks.
Would a modern B movie Equivalent be a Straight to video release?
B movie has also become a style, usually in Parody or Homage form id say. Eg.
My name is Bruce.
Tremors.
Bubba ho tep.
Mars attacks.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
What's politically incorrect about that? Are you worried about offending pagans?
> <unpolitically_correct_warning>
> I always thought The Wicker Man felt like a B-feature anyway, and was embarrassingly overrated.
> Retires to bunker …
> </unpolitically_correct_warning>
What's politically incorrect about that? Are you worried about offending pagans?
In reply to Blue Straggler:
In a modern context: cheap genre movies to cash in on addicted suckers, yet despite this some are surprisingly good fun. I suspect they all bypass cinema release these days in the US and go straight to somewhere before resurfacing on late night ITV4. Having said that I watched Primal, a new Aussie classic of the type (fun horror genre), the other day from Film 4; must have hit the 'foreign film' cross-over market
Classic B movies, from the days when people still saw two films in one show, were often well made but just a bit cheaper.
In a modern context: cheap genre movies to cash in on addicted suckers, yet despite this some are surprisingly good fun. I suspect they all bypass cinema release these days in the US and go straight to somewhere before resurfacing on late night ITV4. Having said that I watched Primal, a new Aussie classic of the type (fun horror genre), the other day from Film 4; must have hit the 'foreign film' cross-over market
Classic B movies, from the days when people still saw two films in one show, were often well made but just a bit cheaper.
Post edited at 11:37
In reply to Offwidth:
Primal is a full on modern horror i would say rather than a B movie. And its great. Like Mr reliable, i think some great Aussie films Just get overlooked.
I think B movie is more a Deliberate style these days.
Primal is a full on modern horror i would say rather than a B movie. And its great. Like Mr reliable, i think some great Aussie films Just get overlooked.
I think B movie is more a Deliberate style these days.
In reply to Choss:
I think its a perfect example of a good B movie. Very cheap, genre, ridiculous, no big stars etc.
I think its a perfect example of a good B movie. Very cheap, genre, ridiculous, no big stars etc.
In reply to Offwidth:
They are well Known Actors in oz. Sadly unless they have Kidman or Gibson in them, Australian films tend to get Chucked in the foreign films category and Largely ignored.
They are well Known Actors in oz. Sadly unless they have Kidman or Gibson in them, Australian films tend to get Chucked in the foreign films category and Largely ignored.
In reply to Offwidth:
What about something like "Brooklyn's Finest"?
> In a modern context: cheap genre movies to cash in on addicted suckers
What about something like "Brooklyn's Finest"?
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
…
Surely "politically incorrect"?
> <unpolitically_correct
…
> </unpolitically_correct
Surely "politically incorrect"?
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Maybe the term should be 'critically correct'? What I meant was: what people now trot out as a kind of received wisdom of a movie's worth, and no one dares disagree.
There seems to be a huge amount of critical slackness at the moment, and getting worse. Most extreme example I've experienced recently (off topic, because not a movie - though it was a live performance projected digitally at our local Ritz cinema) was the incredible hype for the NT's latest production of King Lear (with Beale in title role). As bad a piece of Shakespeare as I've ever seen. I mean really bad on every count, yet critics were more or less universal in their praise.
Maybe the term should be 'critically correct'? What I meant was: what people now trot out as a kind of received wisdom of a movie's worth, and no one dares disagree.
There seems to be a huge amount of critical slackness at the moment, and getting worse. Most extreme example I've experienced recently (off topic, because not a movie - though it was a live performance projected digitally at our local Ritz cinema) was the incredible hype for the NT's latest production of King Lear (with Beale in title role). As bad a piece of Shakespeare as I've ever seen. I mean really bad on every count, yet critics were more or less universal in their praise.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Slaughtering the sacred cow.
> Maybe the term should be 'critically correct'? What I meant was: what people now trot out as a kind of received wisdom of a movie's worth, and no one dares disagree.
Slaughtering the sacred cow.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Not everyone is going to like any particular film. There is a techical term for someone who thinks that everyone has to have the same tastes as them - "idiot".
I quite like some "great" films, others le4ave me completely cold. This is as it should be.
And in answer to the original question: If I like it then it's probably a B movie
Not everyone is going to like any particular film. There is a techical term for someone who thinks that everyone has to have the same tastes as them - "idiot".
I quite like some "great" films, others le4ave me completely cold. This is as it should be.
And in answer to the original question: If I like it then it's probably a B movie
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Flawed A movie surely? Quite thoughtful at times, biggish budget, big stars acting OK, yet somthing didnt quite work maybe partly as its been done before so its hard not to be derivative.
Flawed A movie surely? Quite thoughtful at times, biggish budget, big stars acting OK, yet somthing didnt quite work maybe partly as its been done before so its hard not to be derivative.
In reply to Offwidth:
I disagree. What were they aiming for? Big box office? No. Awards? No.
It's downbeat, long, doesn't offer anything we haven't seen before, has more than enough drugs and violence to make it an 18-certificate, and the stars (aside from Cheadle) have long since seen their glory days.
It's not what a studio would ever call a "flagpole" movie.
But I liked it a lot, BECAUSE of all of the above.
I call it a "high-end B-movie"
I just don't think "B-movie" should mean only "80 minute cheapie with cardboard sets" any more, especially because double feature presentations are a thing of the distant past.
I disagree. What were they aiming for? Big box office? No. Awards? No.
It's downbeat, long, doesn't offer anything we haven't seen before, has more than enough drugs and violence to make it an 18-certificate, and the stars (aside from Cheadle) have long since seen their glory days.
It's not what a studio would ever call a "flagpole" movie.
But I liked it a lot, BECAUSE of all of the above.
I call it a "high-end B-movie"
I just don't think "B-movie" should mean only "80 minute cheapie with cardboard sets" any more, especially because double feature presentations are a thing of the distant past.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
We will have to agree to disagree. I'd say its a non-standard A movie with stars we dont need to be so rude about taking big cuts in pay to help the production. You seem to be equating A movies with massive budget blockbusters. This sort of route generates many of my fave Hollywood films. Anyhow I thought you wanted opinions not to argue us down with your vastly superior knowledge of film trivia?
We will have to agree to disagree. I'd say its a non-standard A movie with stars we dont need to be so rude about taking big cuts in pay to help the production. You seem to be equating A movies with massive budget blockbusters. This sort of route generates many of my fave Hollywood films. Anyhow I thought you wanted opinions not to argue us down with your vastly superior knowledge of film trivia?
In reply to Offwidth:
You misread my intent. That is my fault. I did not mean to be rude about Gere et al. I am a fan of all the principals in that film. I used a throwaway phrase. I also meant to say "politely disagree". I don't equate A-movie with "big budget blockbuster". Spielberg's "Lincoln" and "Amistad" are A-movies (high class casts, but not megabudget films). Independence Day on the other hand, I'd call a B-movie. I might even stretch to calling Jurassic Park a B-movie. Star Wars definitely is. And The Fifth Element. But 12 Years A Slave (budgeted at just over a fifth of what The Fifth Element cost, and 17 years later at that) is an A-movie.
I did want opinions indeed, but I am getting a lot of the same standard definition which is rather obsolete.
Maybe it's a pointless thread. Or maybe I was wrong to actually pick an example. I am not sure at which point I have flexed any "vastly superior knowledge of film trivia" though....
> We will have to agree to disagree. I'd say its a non-standard A movie with stars we dont need to be so rude about taking big cuts in pay to help the production. You seem to be equating A movies with massive budget blockbusters. This sort of route generates many of my fave Hollywood films. Anyhow I thought you wanted opinions not to argue us down with your vastly superior knowledge of film trivia?
You misread my intent. That is my fault. I did not mean to be rude about Gere et al. I am a fan of all the principals in that film. I used a throwaway phrase. I also meant to say "politely disagree". I don't equate A-movie with "big budget blockbuster". Spielberg's "Lincoln" and "Amistad" are A-movies (high class casts, but not megabudget films). Independence Day on the other hand, I'd call a B-movie. I might even stretch to calling Jurassic Park a B-movie. Star Wars definitely is. And The Fifth Element. But 12 Years A Slave (budgeted at just over a fifth of what The Fifth Element cost, and 17 years later at that) is an A-movie.
I did want opinions indeed, but I am getting a lot of the same standard definition which is rather obsolete.
Maybe it's a pointless thread. Or maybe I was wrong to actually pick an example. I am not sure at which point I have flexed any "vastly superior knowledge of film trivia" though....
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Yoh have a very odd posting style which often seems to you to be mis-interpretated.
And The Fifth Element.
That's my favourite film.
Not sure if you've flexed it but you do seem to have it.
> You misread my intent. That is my fault.
Yoh have a very odd posting style which often seems to you to be mis-interpretated.
And The Fifth Element.
That's my favourite film.
> I am not sure at which point I have flexed any "vastly superior knowledge of film trivia" though....
Not sure if you've flexed it but you do seem to have it.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I went to see Battle Beyond the Stars as a kid (I think it was a Seven Samurai in space), and it's a rubbish film. The B movie was John Carpenter's Dark Star, which is ace. I didn't really get it at the time though.
I went to see Battle Beyond the Stars as a kid (I think it was a Seven Samurai in space), and it's a rubbish film. The B movie was John Carpenter's Dark Star, which is ace. I didn't really get it at the time though.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
In fairness, Dark Star was about 6-7 years old when Battle Beyond the Stars was released. So just its age made it a "B" feature at that point, I guess.
Sounds like a decent double bill actually!
In fairness, Dark Star was about 6-7 years old when Battle Beyond the Stars was released. So just its age made it a "B" feature at that point, I guess.
Sounds like a decent double bill actually!
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I imagine John Carpenter would be hurt if anyone accused him of ever having tried to make an A-movie!
I imagine John Carpenter would be hurt if anyone accused him of ever having tried to make an A-movie!
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Carpenter must be an intellect as he gets into Zizec's ' The Perverts Guide to Ideology' (albeit for They Live). What your view on those two film's status?
The bit about your extensive knowledge was some fun fishing btw...good to see a bite .
Carpenter must be an intellect as he gets into Zizec's ' The Perverts Guide to Ideology' (albeit for They Live). What your view on those two film's status?
The bit about your extensive knowledge was some fun fishing btw...good to see a bite .
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...