Suggestion: Plan 9 From Outer Space

[phred2321 57]

The ultimate "so bad it's actually kinda great" movie, I think there's room in the Canon for this

[TKFopp 14]

Maybe Plan 9 vs The Room for best bad movie of all time?

[HoldenMartinson 221]

I'm pretty sure Devin at least has said that he's not a fan of the "so bad it's good" movement of filmmaking. And I get it. It's pretty mean-spirited. Plus, should something be canon-worthy--should you have to see something--because it's clearly terrible? I don't know. Also, what would that discussion look like? That's not meant as a knock against Devin or Amy, who can talk about film like no one else. But what does defending the merit of mediocrity look like? It's one thing to have an episode for The Goonies or Pretty in Pink where the conceit is, "Actually, these beloved films aren't very good, and here's why." I feel like the episode becomes, "We need this pile of shit as a means of saying how bad movies can be."

 

With that in mind, this is clearly a very real part of cinematic culture, whether either host likes it or not. Plus, there's nothing else that exists in art quite like this. There are no records that are awful to the point of enjoyment. There are really no books unenjoyable to the point of necessitating consumption. Something like Mystery Science Theater 3000 or RiffTrax could not exist outside of film, and possibly television. And there are lots of legitimately bad films that are iconic enough that canonization outside of being kitsch would be somewhat justified.

 

Really though, unless a guest--like, if Paul Scheer or the other HDTGM hosts comes on, as suggested on the older forums--adamantly argues for a film of that nature, it's probably not gonna happen. Don't get me wrong. I'd love episodes about The Room or Birdemic: Shock and Terror or any slew of crazy bad movies. I think that could be amazing. I'm not holding my breath is all.

[NRoberson86 78]

I listen to The Canon to hear discussion on movies that could be genuine triumphs in some regard. While movies like Plan 9 might be considered influential, they're not fantastic achievements. It is fun to watch these movies to laugh at how inept they are, but what discussion beyond, "can you believe it?!" is there to be had?

[ManishMathur 33]

As for a bad movie in The Canon, I would argue that Showgirls is both more cinematic, ambitious and culturally significant. It's a noble failure, which is more interesting than stuff like The Room and Plan 9. Those films are made by people who don't even understand basic concepts of filmmaking. Actual talent was involved with Showgirls, and the film tries to make a point despite its disastrous results.

 

Agree with the poster above--the idea of ironic hate-watching is gross and unappealing. I wouldn't want time to be wasted, when The Canon does a great job of highlighting forgotten gems.

[gene_shallot 79]

I wouldn't mind them nominating this just for the conversation alone. Devin might frame his argument in a 'this is mean-spirited', or 'an insult to the filmmaker', or a 'how am I supposed to apply my semiotics to this?!' light, and maybe some people do watch purely for mean-spirited reasons (Birdemic springs to mind), but for me their appeal is something harder to quantify.

 

I legitimately don't hate these movies, so "hate watching" doesn't feel apt. There's a huge difference between these and movies that are boring-bad or forgettable-bad. These aren't cynical crash grabs like Transformers - they're often passion projects, by artists with a slightly skewed point of view. It's outsider art. It's irreproducible. It's lightning in a bottle. When a "bad" movie somehow loops back around to being entertaining, what's wrong with celebrating that?

 

I would feel totally comfortable voting a film like Plan 9, or The Room, or, say, Troll 2 or The Apple into The Canon.

[joel_rosenbaum 1269]

These aren't cynical crash grabs like Transformers - they're often passion projects, by artists with a slightly skewed point of view. It's outsider art. It's irreproducible. It's lightning in a bottle. When a "bad" movie somehow loops back around to being entertaining, what's wrong with celebrating that?

Isn't this, essentially, the Ecce Homo argument?

[gene_shallot 79]

Isn't this, essentially, the Ecce Homo argument?

Not necessarily. True, there is some of that (for example, the cheesy green screen roof scene in The Room... or basically the whole conceit of The Room in general) but you can find poorly crafted elements in good & bad films alike. Still, how many 'bad' movies have screenings to this day like The Room or Troll 2 do?

 

It's hard to put into words, but I feel there's something more to these movies. You don't need someone cracking jokes over them - they are genuinely interesting to watch, and I don't that's true of all their ilk (like the aforementioned Birdemic, Transformers sequels, or, say, Manos: Hands of Fate, but ymmv).

 

My theory is it's the cinematic equivalent of the uncanny valley. As pop-culture consumers from birth, we have an innate expectation of how movies should look and behave. These films refuse to conform to those expectations, while still resembling 'legit' cinema enough to keep stringing the viewer along. They're weird, and they keep finding new ways to be weird, sheerly through skewed perspective or approach. So kind of like how humor is basically expectation of a certain outcome followed by surprise, maybe the best of these movies tickle that same part of the brain. To me Holy Motors-by-accident is just as fascinating as Holy Motors.