I must have been among the last 30 people in the U.S. to see Avatar, but recently, I did. Without re-opening the whole can of worms on this movie, it struck me as the strangest combination I’ve ever seen of wondrous, amazing stuff and utter dreck in the same movie.
And it got me thinking about movies that are “so bad they’re good.” This is almost a sub-genre, the stuff cult hits are made of, and it seems that most of the candidates are spec fic. I’m sure everyone would have his or her own list, but some of the old campy sci-fi or horror classics — Mars Needs Women, Barbarella, Plan 9 from Outer Space, Deathrace 2000, Sssssss, Island of Terror — would make a number of them.
But I have never heard anyone say a book was “so bad it’s good.” Books are just good… or not. Why do you think that is? What’s the difference between movies and books in this regard?
Or have you ever read a book that was so bad it was good, and if so, what was it?
— Joni, who wonders if books are taken too seriously to ever be campy
Chris Eboch
Greg R. Fishbone
Nick
lindajoysingleton
Parker Peevyhouse
Joni Sensel
The movies that get produced are mostly from books – the cult classics are usually ‘tacky’ but obviously someone saw something that clicked and the book was transformed into a visual. Of course that reader had to have the mindset of finishing the book or it actually appealed to that person.
I have not really read a ‘bad book’ – I’ve read a few that I didn’t like but that was story line that did not appeal to me, not the mechanics.
Since I’ve gotten older, I put aside books that do not grab me and give it a go later to see if it was my mood putting me off. Sometimes I find that’s so but other times I concede I am not the targeted audience.
There is an audience for these movies; someone read the book [and had the means to produce into that movie].
It’s the target audience that actually makes a book great – there are books that have won prizes that will bore the average audience to tears.
There is much said about ‘popular’ authors – they write for the masses, etc., not much substance but yet will have large followings. Well, they found their target audience.
When the ‘classical’ writer wrote, their target was to be read. Charles Dickens was a ‘popular’ writer of his day but his stories first appeared in magazines as installment stories on social reform and he always left his readers with a cliffhanger ~ that hook that kept them coming back, but his Christmas Carol was considered a ‘potboiler’ [he wrote it in a matter of weeks]~what we would call pulp fiction or a popcorn movie.
Matter of taste – the book is necessarily bad – your just not it’s audience…Paula Shene, author Mandy The Alpha Dog, from The Chronicles of the K-9 Boys and Girls on Locus Street
I agree that “are you the target audience?” is a key factor, but I’m going to disagree on two points. First, movies today are frequently made from books, but that was not remotely the case before the late 1960s and 1970s. (The studios had entire staffs of screenwriters doing original work.)
And I HAVE read a few books that were just bad, period. I think there are criteria for badness, not just a missing audience. But “bad” is definitely in the minority, granted, and you’ve given me fodder for a future post, I think — thanks!
My last paragraph should have read the book is NOT necessarily bad – you’re just not it’s audience…Paula Shene
I’ve read books that were real page-turners, but ultimately were unsatisfying at the end. Can’t think of any that were so bad they were good though.
I’ve been trying to decide whether or not to see Avatar. Maybe I’ll wait for the dvd!
Twilight, New Moon
‘nough said.
(Heee! KatherineR!)
D. and I have a tradition called Bad Sci-Fi Night. We have seen Barbarella, and cringed and groaned and snorted and rolled on the floor. (I’ve never heard of some of the others you mentioned; thank you so much! We have Bad Movie Night fodder for weeks!) You know what books are so bad that they’re kind of good?
Anything by Piers Anthony.
See, I kinda hate puns.
He kinda loves them.
*shudder*
And yet… I can read ONE of his books. With a lot of groaning and snorting and rolling on the floor… if I’m in the mood. (Which, I have to admit, is rarely to never. But… it MIGHT HAPPEN!)
Just let me know when you run out of these, Tanita, I’m sure I can come up with a few more Fun/Awful films!
Repo Man. Rocky Horror. The list of such movies is endless. They are awful for any number of reasons. Poor production values. Terrible acting. Preposterous story. Take the movie, Nature Unleashed: Tornado. It has the world’s first Romanian devil cult trying to kill of a band of gypsies through the use of tornadoes. Do you think they used a dartboard and a dictionary to come up with this premise?
The thing about a movie though is that when your brain is fried, you can just sit there and watch. There is tangible humor in just how awful the film may be. Actors and actresses read the lines. They move, they breathe. They emote.
Books are different. They’re not awful because of lousy production values or poor acting. For me, books are bad if they have poor writing, a boring story, and/or uninteresting characters. I can’t say I’ve never read a book so bad I wanted to read it over again.
Yeah, I’ve thought about this more and I think that even if the story/script is awful, there’s plenty else there to pay attention to or be entertained by — watching the actors struggle with bad lines, or watching them act badly, or watching for the mic boom coming into the scene, or whatever. Lots of eye candy amusement. Whereas a book IS the story and writing, and if those fail, the cover art can only keep you amused for so long. (And yeah, maybe reading is slightly more work, too, so you’re not willing to sit still for less-than-good as we might be with a movie.)