Forums / Media / Moving Images

One reason I ask is because when it comes to something like The Room people actually enjoy watching the movie because of how bad it is, meanwhile Morbius is a film viewed as so dreadfully boring it's funnier to make jokes pretending like it's a good movie rather than actually watching it for laughs.

I know in The Room's case, and before it the movies of director Ed Wood, one reason why people find these movies "enjoyably bad" is because the directors behind them really did attempt to make the movies "good" and you can see their passion, but their execution left a lot to be desired. With Morbius meanwhile something I've seen brought up is you don't get that "auteur" feeling you'd get from a Tommy Wisaeu or Ed Wood movie, it's about as "soullessly corporate" as it gets.

A simple way I put it is something like the room seems like it was an earnest attempt at making something good held back by budget and the director or production team being strange or incompetent while a truly bad movie is one that was either mass produced in an attempt to make money above all else and do nothing of interest at all or embraces the "so bad its good" so much that its unironically just trying too hard at that point.

The worst outcome any medium of entertainment could fall into is complete mediocrity. Being neither terribly bad nor terribly good, but ultimately forgettable. I have not seen Morbius (I suppose neither did most people lol), but from what little I could tell from the trailer, it looks more committee-driven corporate cape-schlock we get year round, every year.

The Room, an objectively terrible movie in every way, can still be appreciated from the perspective of outsider art. I think it was RLM who put it tastefully, "The Room is like a movie that was made by an Alien, who has never seen a movie, and only given a cursory explanation of what they are" or something similar. It not just that The Room is bad, but that it is unconventionally bad that it leaves viewers completely befuddled as to what they just watched.

There are two main ways a work can be bad: "So bad it's enjoyable" and "trackwreck-fascinating". A work can be both (such as The Room) or neither (in which case, it's both bad and bland).

Though what's worse bland: The mediocre bland or fun-but-forgettable-bland? (I heard that Red Notice falls into the latter category)

I'd say that worse than bland mediocre work is otherwise great work that's ruined by one thing. Let's call them tainted works. For an example, a movie might have really gripping story, great acting and great presentation, but it's all for nothing when a horrible ending ruins the rest of the movie for you.

It's sort of like eating a bowl of bland oat meal vs eating a bowl of fruit salad sprinkled with crap.

In summary:

Great and good works leave you satisfied or at least thoughtful.
So bad they're good or trainwreck-fascinsting works will still be enjoyable or at least give a window of opportunity to the author's mind.
Bland works won't leave you any impression except maybe a feeling that you've wasted your time.
But tainted works will leave you bitter, disappointed and angry at the work and whoever made it.

two words: entertainment value.

Camp movies are valued because they are so in-your-face that it becomes hilarious to watch while a really bad movie just leaves you bored out of your mind.

It's the difference between Pacific Rim and Battleship: subtle, yet important.

If you want to see some examples of what really makes a good bad movie, i'd recommend watching the "night of the bad taste" trailer compilations of Jan Leyers

>Implying Morbius isn't a sexually arousing masterpiece

Some of the best cinema and storytelling focuses primarily on the dynamics and interaction of personalities, and it is this at the heart of what makes a compelling dramatic narrative. The Room, despite it being bizarre and poorly acted, has this as its strength. Tommy himself clearly has a functional understanding of this, though he struggles to express it except with vague statements like, "It's about life."

"So bad it's good" movies usually have this kernel of actual goodness in some form or another, coupled with being unique and memorable. Truly bad movies usually suffer along with, at best, a lesser strength such as shock or spectacle coupled with being forgettable or outright bland.

usually the the "so bad it's good" falls into 3 distinct circumstances:

1) the maker had a clear vision and passion, but that vision and passion are completely insane to everyone but him.
so even if the story, acting and pace are awful, it's still fun to watch all the effort.

2) the maker had good vision and passion but lacked recources.
so even though the production value is shit, it's still fun to watch how everyone involved tried to make it work regardless

3) a colossal failure of millions of wasted dollars because everyone involved were idiots and/or completely disconnected from the audience.
if the production value is massive and fails it's amazing to watch like a train wreck – how absolutely everything goes wrong, how nothing is salvageable and how painful it was for everyone involved.

what ties them all together – visible effort.

For me it's unvoluntary comedy

Basically this, a good comparison for me is seeing something like the attitude of Tommy Wiseau and it seems he genuinely thought he was making something that was actually good, it ends up making scenes funny because we're supposed to take them seriously but everything about them just fails on a fundamental level.

Compare it to something like Sharknado, a movie which is purposefully made to be as ironically bad as possible and it's just utterly soulless, nothing about it feels funny, it was made to be a laughing stock and that's why nobody talks about it anymore.