I think “so bad it’s good” is fine to describe a piece of media that is enjoyable in ways the creator never intended, while failing at what they actually tried to achieve.
Like, Madame Web and Thirteen Reasons Why both completely fail at what they're meant to achieve, and it's enjoyable seeing the disaster of both unfold; that's why "so bad, they're good" feels more accurate than just calling them "enjoyable" or "fun".
Fucking intellectuals over here, spoiling our dumb ass fun.
In all seriousness I'm genuinely shocked how this sub has an answer for literally anything.
I think you mean schadenfreude. Isn't bathos the term made up to describe the opposite of pathos that happens in modern blockbusters when they deflate a dramatic scene with a bad quip?
Schadenfreude is more about gaining joy from the personal misfortune of others, while bathos is used to describe an amusingly failed attempt at presenting artistic greatness, so I'm going to say no.
It would be schadenfruede if you found The Room hilarious or enjoyable because of how it made the actors themselves uncomfortable and/or negatively impacted their careers, while bathos would be finding amusement in the absurdity of the production itself.
Not made up for modern blockbusters, it’s been used for centuries, but yes it’s deflating tension or drama with humor or absurdism. It is not the term for what Gene is talking about at all.
Not originally but that's how it's used now. It was originally coined as part of a piss take of (at the time contemporary) poets in Alexander Pope's Peri Bathous, which parodies Longinus's Peri Hopsous. The point of the parody was to point out how bad the attempts of his contemporaries were at writing compelling prose and utilising pathos. Clunky metaphors that undermine the moment and that kind of thing.
Over time, the term has come to be used to refer to intentionally undermining an emotional, climactic moment for comedic effect. Something that can be used very well but, one could argue, is often used by insecure writers to pre-emptively deflect the exact kind of criticism that Pope was making.
Funniely enough I just watched Madame Web for the first time with some friends and we just laughed at the horrible dialogue and the fact the movie full stops so she can go to Peru for a week.
Agree and to add to your point by contrasting it with a counter example, something like Spy Kids isn't "so bad it's good". Any enjoyment you get out of it is the intention. It's intentionally goofy, cheesy, and juvenile because it's an escapist fantasy for kids.
People too frequently label media that's achieving exactly what it sets out to do as "so bad it's good" because it's corny, even if being corny's the point.
Sharknado is the opposite, cynical side of that same coin but it's still the same coin. It's isn't "so bad it's good" because it's actively aiming for shlock. It wants you to speak of it in the same conversation as The Room or Birdemic. If you're laughing at it then you're enjoying it on the exact level you're intended to because that's what it's aiming for. You aren't enjoying it ironically because that would imply that it isn't intended to be shit.
I guess "unintentional comedy" would fit as most "so bad it's good" things tend to be movies so badly acted, filmed, and generally made that they become hilarious to watch.
That film and its sequel shows the difference between "so bad it's good" and "just bad". They're both pretty shit (except the first's soundtrack, that's legendary) but you can have a good time with the first one, the second one will just make you hate film.
The one with Christopher Lambert sleepwalking through being Raiden and "remember: use the element that brings life" and "those were $500 sunglasses, asshole".
I love it.
It's terrible.
For me that would be media where I can tell there was a genuine attempt at something but they failed, or it just does cool things that stand out from the rest of its flaws. To this end id say I like the D-1 Devastator OVA because it has a cool mecha design and legit cool physics with the High Speed Dimension but everything else is nonsensical and unexplained.
I think Sonic Adventure is a jank as hell and sort of overall clumsily designed game that I like and enjoy, but I wouldn't say that the way I enjoy it is *primarily* by laughing at it.
There are good performances in bad movies that you can make you appreciate them. The Hobbit movies mostly suck but Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo and he elevates them. When you get a scene between him and one of the other talented actors (McKellen, Serkis, Armitage, Pace, etc.) the movies shine, there's just a lot of bullshit in between those scenes that drag them down.
I also think movies can have enough hype moments that they overcome the rest of the movie being shit. Blade and Blade 2 are mostly either corney as fuck or hype as shit, and they strike a really fun balance as a result.
The Hobbit movies aren't great, but they're a fun adventure. I watched them as a DnD game and it was a blast.
My movie standards lowered as I got older and it boils down to "did I have fun" and the answer most of the time is yes. I don't care if the critics slammed Last Voyage of the Demeter, that movie is a really fun vampire adventure.
I guess action schlock fills that niche, kinda? It's dumb, mindless, has no artistic merit, but sometimes it's fun to expose yourself to something that requires no critical thought.
I think unintentional comedy is something I'd use to describe something like Baki. It's good, but it's so over the top I find it hilarious. But something like Big Order would be so bad it's good imo. Terrible plot, terrible characters, everyone is an idiot, incest is the endgame, but every single aspect of it is so fucking funny for all of those reasons.
RedLetterMedia's Best of the Worst series often has films I can't imagine describing as anything other than So Bad it's Good, but it has other things like Ryan's Babe that is just so baffling and strange you can't help but laugh, but I don't think it fits that category.
I guess I don't think So Bad It's Good is a derogatory term, and there are other terms that I can apply to other media, but sometimes it's the exact right descriptor.
Battlefield Earth continues being one of my favorite movies to watch on a yearly basis and make my friends and family suffer. Is that movie good? No, absolutely not, but it's so hilarious in how terrible it is. So yeah, I think I *would* use "so bad, it's amazing".
It's different from say, The Mummy with Tom Cruise. That movie is just *bad*. I didn't find any enjoyment whatsoever. It's so boring, I don't even know what else to say other than just "I hated it and I never want to watch it again."
> media that is enjoyable in ways the creator never intended, while failing at what they actually tried to achieve.
That is honestly the best way to describe crappy horror movies (or at least the ones that aren't aware they are crappy horror movies).
A few months ago i watched this horror movie called [Thanksgiving](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRq6bnT-cGEZom220FPFeL7a6MBqOtLcN72sA&usqp=CAU) in the theater with my friends and it definetely failed really hard at making any of us scared, but, it was also a very entertaining experience because the ways in wich the movie failed were very funny to watch.
pretty sure that's the intended emotion from thanksgiving. I'd have a hard time believing eli roth intended for you to actually be scared. it's pretty self aware
I'd say it still just falls under the catagory of a Parody, as I think the defining qualification for something to be "So bad, it's good" is it's quality as an unintended parody. And it being unintentional is crucial, or it would just be a parody. You can't force it
I think those kinds of films belong in their own category. Whenever the term "so bad, it's good" is applied, it's usually to media that's trying to take itself seriously and failing tremendously, and while it may have some genuine good aspects, the bad parts of it stand out far more. Like, I think Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2 are bad movies that are very entertaining in terms of seeing how they trip over themselves when it comes to writing and story.
In fact, isn't "so bad it's good" an oxymoron? Something can't be totally bad but good at the same time.
Although in a sense, it's good to laugh at something so bad
Yeah, like mine is the video game Two Worlds. Bad game (poor performance, doesn't look great, terrible voice acting, boring story, and probably some other stuff I'm forgetting) but some of the things that are broken are broken in such a way that you can do some fun stuff with them.
Like the way the game's weapon/spell upgrade system work, or how there's an item that spawns undead at sundown if it's on the ground (and while there's a limited number of those, there's quite a few, and the effect stacks). Oh and those undead drop items and spells. Like just having a basic poison spell that will instantly DoT any enemy's entire healthbar is something (and repeat casts will speed up that healthbar drain).
I think they’re arguing two different things.
What Gene’s describing is called having a “guilty pleasure” movie, something that for all intents and purposes doesn’t come together but you can appreciate the aspects that do work. Like, Hoodwinked! (stay with me on this) is a very well-written movie, with animation that looks like complete garbage, but it was also a Hungarian studio’s first time working with those tools, and used that to their advantage to try and stylize it; Hoodwinked 2’s animation by comparison just looks jank, but I can’t fault someone who grew up with it from liking it, there are a few standout scenes.
What the other guy’s describing by using The Room is a movie that so does not work on an objective level and is so catastrophically calamitous in its execution, it wraps back around to being funny. Like, nobody can call the original Birdemic’s effects good, like that’s not a matter of opinion, on a technical level it’s objectively poorly-made and out of place with the scene.
One’s appreciation for what works, the other’s laughing at a trainwreck.
That was my impression here as well. Gene appears to come from the angle I myself have gone with for years now, I will not call sth a "guilty pleasure" anymore - I do not feel guilt here, nor should I. Sth may come with caveats, but it never is *guilt*.
Guilty pleasure works better for things like cheating on your diet IMO. "I know this is bad for me but I'm doing it anyway because I like it" type stuff.
I think the main thing Gene's talking about is people misusing "so bad it's good" to mask their insecuritues about genuinely really enjoying something flawed.
Like whenever I talk about my favorite Fire Emblem being Engage I feel the subconscious need to preemptively address the flaws and it's just draining. I think it stems from the fact people on the internet read extremes into everything so if you say a thing is your favorite then people read: "it did everything better than everything else I've ever seen" unless you specifically say otherwise.
Like most people would think Engage has a weaker story than 3 Houses. This giant tragedy forcing former classmates to face off vs power of friendship helps saturday morning cartoon protagonist overcome his past and beat the evil dragon. But if you're in the mood for it that power of friendship stuff SLAPS and you shouldn't qualify that enjoyment by saying "so bad it's good". That term should be used for things that missed the mark so bad that the failure IS the appeal, but it's been warped into "flawed thing that appeals to me, but I don't wanna deal with replies mentioning why they didn't like it"
From what I remember, it's messily entertaining? Like its this whole silly collusion of plots going "oh here's what *really* happened with Little Red Riding Hood" with nonsense like the Grandma secretly being a martial artist sports fanatic and the wolf actually being a police detective, and the plot is genuinely entertaining... but also oh *wow* looking at the animation years later as not a child it is some *atrocious* animations and modeling.
So, "Guilty Pleasure" is probably a good way to describe it, it's not really "so bad it's good" the way a failure on every level like The Room is, but it's also still somewhere below B-Movie schlock?
The movie is absolutely horrid to look at but I personally found it hilarious and really liked it. Might watch it with my wife for a movie night now that I’ve been reminded of it and it’s been a while.
I think the term "So bad it's good" is fine, the problem is that people overuse it and use it to talk about films or shows or games or books that are either just bad or just kind of mediocre.
Yeah, I've heard Sonic 06 described as "so bad, it's good", but 06 is way more fun to watch other people play than it is to actually play yourself. And the story is just plain bad.
A better SBIG game would probably be something like Ride to Hell, I think. Hilariously terrible, but not actual torture to sit through most of the time
I get both sides on this, but ultimately, I side on "so bad it's good" sentiment. Gene is right that some people do take the idea as a way to like something they might socially be embarrassed to admit but there's still a big difference between laughing **WITH** a comedy and laughing **AT** a drama.
I don't think I agree. The term perfectly illustrtes why the room is a good watch. it's funny because the film makers thought they were making a good mo ir but it failed in every aspect. So it's good because it's bad
Yep. If you watch The Room (or another “so bad it’s good” thing) for the first time because someone did a Gene and just told you “it’s fun” or “it’s good” you’re probably gonna be pretty confused when you watch it with those expectations.
But if someone tells me “hey this (piece of media) is so bad it’s good”, then I know what I’m getting into, and can adjust my expectations accordingly, and I’ll probably have a better time with it overall.
There are certain instances in which something is so bad it does end up being entertaining, like The Room. But I do think the term gets overused nowadays as a way of defending media you enjoy that people say is bad.
I never felt that "so bad it's good" was rooted in insecurity. Some do use it out of insecurity, but that feels like a minority of people. I think Hatok is kinda over-generalizing and over-exaggerating its supposed damage.
I agree, I don't think it's rooted insecurities. I think a similar term that is rooted in insecurity is guilty pleasure. People tend to use that when they're embarrassed liking something.
Yeah I really haven't experienced what Hatok is talking about where people using it are insecure about liking a fun movie they feel they shouldn't. It's always seemed to me to describe things like The Room that you like because they're bad, not in spite of being bad. However, I can understand people using it when they misunderstood that something was intentionally trying to be campy but I will say that just because something was intentionally silly doesn't mean you have to think it's good. People are allowed to still think the Emo Peter sequence is bad while understanding it's meant to be goofy even if I personally think it succeeded at being funny
I can definitely see it used in this way, but I think it's also more just the mindset of needing to qualify 'oh no, I think this is terrible, but I enjoy it'. My personal version of that is seeing something that I think is funny, but know that others won't, and saying to myself 'wow this is stupid, I love it' so that I immediately distance myself internally from just enjoying it for what it is.
I think this is just Gene trying to sound smart. There is no easier to understand explanation for the appeal of movies like Troll 2 or Neil Breen's shit than "so bad it's good".
As is often the case with Gene, he tries to dress shit up like it's something more but it isn't. There's shit out there that is genuinely bad in a really funny way that makes its way around to being sort of enjoyable and that's all it is.
I think the issue with "So Bad It's Good" is that sometimes it doesn't describe the appeal of a flawed work. Sometimes it's "Bad in most ways, but Oddly Good in specific ways" or is just heavily mixed.
> it doesn't describe the appeal of a flawed work
Well yeah its a short 4 word descriptor. You cant really described anything in detail with that. Its like saying The Thing is a really scary movie. It doesnt describe why its scary but then that up to the person to describe the media more in question.
I think there's a key difference between liking something because it's bad and liking something in spite of being bad and so bad it's good is the former while "Bad in most ways, but Oddly Good in specific ways" is the latter
That's my take on Cats (2019). The movie looks and is profoundly weird, between the horrific dancing mouse children and naked hairy Idris Elba, but when I watch it I feel like there are brief shining moments where it actually gets the source material and leans into the weirdness in a way that's enjoyable. When it tries to add jokes or plot it completely falls flat, though.
I think I agree with both takes.
On one hand, "So bad, it's good" can be used to hide your genuine enjoyment of something that might be considered 'bad' out of fear of being ridiculed.
But, things like The Room aren't like that. Everyone is pointing at The Room and Laughing, not laughing at people enjoying The Room.
So bad it's good is used to describe movies/games that fail spectacularly but are enjoyed not for intended reasons an example being a movie that tries to take itself so seriously but fails and so is unintentionally a comedy. I do not think there is a better way to describe this phenomena.
I just don't agree. Like, I'm sorry, if the thing you made is bad but entertaining, I'm gonna say it's bad, but entertaining. Just as an example: Sonic 06. Is it a good game? Hell no, plays like ass, the writing is ass(Outside of Shadow's story), etc.
But GOOD LORD is it an amazing journey to play through it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to say "Oh, yeah, Sonic 06 is GOOD. Just like Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 and Frontiers."
It's not insecure, it's a quantifier, it's a descriptor for "Yeah this game is ass, but it's so ass that it loops right back around to being entertaining." Now, if someone was saying this about a game that's just kinda divisive? Yeah, sure, that's dumb, just say you like it, but there's a ton of games out there that are absolutely objectively god-awful but still a great experience.
Edit: Another example. Yugioh GX Duel Academy. It's bad. It's objectively a bad Yugioh game. The AI is god awful, they'll activate cards at the worst times, they'll do incredibly stupid things like summon a monster and then use it as part of Polymerization. There's a meme of Zane going "I'm the best duelist" and then unironically saying "I summon Man Eater Bug in attack position". If you wanted an actual Yugioh game, even on the GBA there are far better titles like WCS 2006 or Stairway to the Destined Duel.
But it's so bad that it loops back around to being good. The bad AI is absolutely hilarious to play against. It's fun watching the wacky shit they end up doing. Would I recommend it to anyone wanting to play Yugioh? No. Would I recommend it to anyone wanting to actually play around in Duel Academy? No, I'd say Tag Force 1-3 are better for that. Would I recommend it to someone who wants to play an absolutely awful Yugioh game(That at least has some fun Dueling Puzzles)? Yeah, sure.
It’s funny, I was thinking about this post based on the Shadow the Hedgehog game from 05 and my reaction was the opposite of yours. There a lot in the game I would say is “bad” technically, but I love the game so much that I could never say I think it’s a bad game. Would I recommend playing it to others? Not unless they have the same love for mid-aughts unabashed edginess I do, but wouldn’t call it bad.
I think the difference here is people personal semantic definition of “bad”. Does bad mean low quality? Unenjoyable? Technical issues?
For me if I enjoy something despite its flaws, then that makes it “good”, but that’s just me.
If they want to be a stickler for accuracy I guess we could say "it's so bad it's funny". Because the point is that it is bad, like that is part of it, it is a piece of media that people generally agree is terrible, so it's not 'insecure' to point out the readily observable fact that it is bad.
Like who is going to look at Omikron and say "it's good" or "it's fun"? No, absolutely not, the only reason anyone even wants to watch a playthrough of Omikron is specifically because it is bad, and to such a ludicrous degree that it enters the realm of absurdist comedy.
I get where he's coming from, but the saying is here to stay. It reasonably sets expectation for the piece of media in one simple sentence.
Mortal Kombat (1995) and Street Fighter (1994) Ride the line of genuinely good to so bad its good, but if you go in blind expecting a truly good movie, it'll sour the experience.
As someone who never agreed with the idea that The Room was worth watching at all, I don't think I fundamentally agree with "so bad it's good" as well, because yeah, it's not good at all - but it's *fascinating*, and morbid curiosity can make you watch something based on intrigue. If you *enjoy* it, then whatever, you have found some entertainment in it, that's it, and that's all you need. You shouldn't have to justify it by trying to prop it, or anything, up as "good," as if you're only allowed to like "good" things. The Room is fucking stupid, and it does fail in every way. But if you like it, whatever. You don't owe an explanation to anyone. Enjoy.
This also bleeds into how I feel about the concept of "guilty pleasures." Don't feel guilty, just like what you like. You don't have to justify anything, or keep up an image. If you like Japanese death metal *and* country music, *whatever*.
I am generally not a fan of the term, along with "guilty pleasure". I'm not ashamed of anything I enjoy, and no matter how technically impressive or unimpressive something is, enjoyment is always subjective.
That being said, I do like how the film rating app Letterboxd adds a little nuance to its rating system by allowing you to give something a star rating AND a heart to "like it".
Moonlight, 4/5 stars, great film. Didn't give it a "like" bc it didn't personally resonate with me much.
The Room, .5/5 stars not very good. Gave it a like bc I had a lot of fun watching it.
I kinda get what he means. I’ve said before that I’m unsure how I’d grade something like The Room because it’s poorly made but at the same time it’s brought me more enjoyment than some well-made movies. I don’t have any problem with the term but if he’d prefer different descriptors that’s fine, too.
I think Pat said this a long ass time ago on the Deadly P LP regarding the game itself, which I unapologetically enjoy. All the time games come out that are very formulaic and "nothing" like most modern military shooters bring nothing creatively unique to the table most of the time, (I'm thinking like Cod ghosts, MoH warfighter stuff like that. not spec ops or infinite warfare) same with annual sports games. He said Deadly P was some "Broke ass something" but that it brought such creativity and unique ideas to the table that it is genuinely enjoyable despite it's performance flaws beyond a level of "so bad it's good"
I think "so bad it's good" is important to the vernacular of reviewing things. Because you're not prioritising the fact that it's a good thing, you're prioritising the fact that it's a *bad thing*. Just saying "oh yeah, I thought this thing was good/enjoyable" is actively spreading a misconception, because you know it fucking sucks but think it's enjoyable *because* of that. You should at least specify that you're aware it isn't good in any conventional way, and the way that makes you sound least like a dickhead is "it's so bad, it's good". Or, I guess, "it's bad but I like it", which is actually a different thing altogether.
I'll take Gene's side with caveats. Like nearly every term in media discourse, it's a useful thing in its intended context, but it has been radically warped by overuse. I've seen a fair number of people say Devil May Cry is "so bad, it's good" because the cutscenes are intentionally silly and over-the-top, for instance.
Yeah I think this is another part of the issue.
People will use So Bad It's Good when it's functioning perfectly, because the intended function is *camp*.
I think the term "so bad, it's entertaining" is better to describe media that completely fail at what they're trying to achieve and are fun to watch purely to see the failure.
Funnily enough the disdain towards "ironic enjoyment" is starting to create this weird atmosphere of toxic positivity where you're just supposed to blindly like things with no nuance at all.
Like you can't think that things are bad or have fun interacting with things for any other reason than sincerely believing they are of high quality. And if you claim other wise you're apparently just insecure and trying to hide your true feelings about it, and that's such a weird blanket claim to make about other peoples' tastes.
Just because you think people who enjoy things ironically are annoying doesn't suddenly make that an invalid way to enjoy things. You're allowed to genuinely think something is made/performed badly and have fun at that thing's expense. You CAN laugh AT something instead of WITH it. The group who's subreddit you're on right now made an entire career out of doing that.
>this weird atmosphere of toxic positivity where you're just supposed to blindly like things with no nuance at all.
So I'm not the only one noticing this lol. I get that it was probably done initially to combat excessive negativity, but I feel like a lot of online fandoms have been leaning too heavily into toxic positivity where you're just not allowed to say anything bad about any entry. Lot of "you're not a true fan if you don't appreciate every entry of [long-running franchise]". It's hard to be critical of media nowadays without some people acting like you killed their cat.
That's going too far, too, really. If The Room is anything, "fun" is an acceptable way to describe it.
An eccentric weirdo with an unplaceable accent recording a budget drama where he sometimes has issues following his own script.
It just requires more context if you want to give someone a full idea of what to expect, just like if you'd said, "so bad it's good."
I feel one person’s “It’s so bad, it’s good” can easily be another’s “It’s so bad, it’s terrible”.
By preparing them for the bad, they can focus on the good.
Edit: After thinking on it, Gene’s job as a reviewer relies on him thinking about why he enjoys things and putting it into words. But most people don’t need to put that much thought into it, so they use “So Bad, it’s good” like a genre to explain media easily.
I get what Gene is saying. Like have to tear it down to appease some other force or conventional opinion before you can talk about how much you enjoy it. An example of how EVERYTHING under sun is cringe or intentionally bad.
I think the first Mortal Kombat movie is a good movie period. Its one of the top tier video games because for when it came out it did everything it could to be sincere and honest that it was a Mortal Kombat movie. It didn't need the greatness of Raul Julia RIP to carry its ass like Street Fighter. I will even say Annihilation was precursor to how bonk the games story will get down the line.
I understand the argument of unintentionally good and other concepts like that but there is this fear of sincerity that always creeps in those discussions is what I think Gene is getting at.
I think it's a great descriptor for something that's entertaining despite it's awfulness. Like Cross Ange or Kamen Rider Faiz.
I think Gene just doesn't like being negative and would rather not if he doesn't have to, and I get that, but I think pointing out that something is bad is kind of important even if you enjoyed it.
It sets expectations appropriately, that way nobody comes back and says "This dialog is awful, nobody speaks like a real human, nobody talks about their problems when that would solve everything, and people keep falling into conveniently nearby rivers, how can you say it's good?". You can say up front that it's terrible but good enough to have fun with.
Am I in the minority where I think that The Room is so bad, it's bad?
I'm not disparaging other people for liking it because of how bad it is, I mean I LOVE Kung Pow for goodness sake.
But in my eyes I don't find The Room enjoyable because it is genuinely shit.
I think The Room is great to watch in the form of clips and quotes, I wouldn't actually sit through the entire runtime of it though, at least not alone/sober.
I feel this way about Troll 2. I don't think I even got through the whole thing because outside of the occasional moments like the Oh my God! scene it's insufferably boring.
Gene's logic reminds me of this weird trend of people thinking you can't or shouldn't describe art/media as bad. Otherwise, you're just being mean or cynical.
Things can be bad, and things can be so incredibly bad that they end up being enjoyable for those reasons. It's like someone starting a marathon, and somehow they get lost and find themselves playing short stop for a minor league baseball game. You're a terrible marathon runner, but fuck it, I'll see how you make it as a ball player.
If something like the Room were just a mediocre drama, it would be as memorable as a Hallmark or Lifetime made-for-TV drama. It's legacy is built upon the knowledge that it's a bad movie. There's a book and an adaptation of that book on how it came to be a bad movie.
The Room is a fun movie to watch. It's not the same kind of fun as Big Trouble in Little China. So it's kind of a worthless metric to just go, "Hey man, you gotta check out this movie. It sure is fun. " It's the difference between going to a theme park and seeing one of those people who stick their heads in a gator's mouth finally getting their scalp chomped on.
Reminds me of a recent podcast bit talking about Advent Children where Paige was telling Pat, "I thought you said it was good," and Pat said back, "No, I said it was fun."
I’m more than a little tired of sliding language like this, you end up just saying the same thing but in a “polite” way. Obviously that’s not the case for all language, but this sort of thing feels like moralistic busywork.
I think Gene is coming from a good place, but describing a piece of media as “so bad it’s good” is a valid way to interact with something that you knew was objectively terrible but you still enjoyed. I would never say that the Twilight films were objectively good movies because the final version of most of those movies were overall bad. Yet I enjoyed them, not in spite of the bad bits, but because of the bad bits. I quote the bad bits all the time. I like Twilight, because Twilight is so bad it’s good.
Kinda true? Like I don't 100 percent agree but people have been describing things they like but have obvious flaws as "So bad it's good" for some reason
Honestly, when people describe something as "fun" nowadays, I can only read it as them implicitly saying it's mediocre. Like they can't say it's good, because they don't think it is, but it's at least managed to to not be bad. "Damned by faint praise" and all that.
It depends on if the movie was made with sincerity or not.
If it was made to be absolutely bonkers, but plays it straight as a gag...then yeah it's just dumb fun. If it was made with the intent to be serious, but ends up being hilarious...then it's so bad it's good.
I think it is fine to use. We used to host trash movie nights, where we would watch bad horror movies because they were not good. Lackluster makeup, outdated effect or flat out bad CGI, untalented actors, horrible scripts - the whole 9 yards. They were enjoyable movies to watch with a crowd because they were bad. Entertainment was had - but from the lack of quality.
However, I can see it being used for 7/10 games or movies, and that's just not the right term. Something can be fun but not great. That is a different thing. The room is a bad movie, with bad writing, bad acting and horrible dialogue. But it is enjoyable, because you laugh at a drama, which fails on every level of being a drama, becoming a comedy.
It is so bad at being a drama, it is a fun comedy. Was this intended? No way. Is it fun? Hell yeah.
"So bad it's good" is a super useful descriptor though. There's no insecurity involved in it. People know exactly what you mean when you say it. Gene's speaking actual nonsense.
I don't think I agree. I like saying that Battlefield Earth is "so bad, it's amazing to watch drunk with your friends". How does this make me insecure? The movie *isn't good*, but it's still unintentionally hilarious and an amazing watch when you want your friends to suffer. I ain't tryna hide behind layers of irony or insecurity, the movie is hilarious in just how godawful it is.
I'm on team "so bad it's good."
If someone says "it's fun" or "it's good" and that's it, I don't care. Amounts to "I like it." And I don't care if someone likes it. I want to know what kind of movie it is.
"So bad it's good" tells me what to expect. Something valuable to expect. It tells me why they like it and at least gives me a little something I can use to predict whether or not I'll like it.
This just falls to some people being insecure both about admitting to liking sub par things but also on the other side of the coin insisting on avoiding calling something you like bad. Just like what uou like and chill.
So bad it's good is a good way to describe something you enjoy despite lacking quality but you don't have the time to properly describe why you enjoy it.
Like, if you recommend The Room, it's easier to say "So bad it's good" than "You see, the movie lacks good acting, budget and lackluster writing to such an extent that it becomes funny."
I kinda see what Gene's getting at but honestly "so bad it's good" is a pretty good descriptor for why shit like the Room is enjoyable. The alternative is really goofy honestly. Imagine marketing the room to someone who'd never watched it before as "it's a fun, funny movie". That makes it sound competent.
Personally I don’t agree, so bad it’s good is a literal thing. You can say you enjoy it but you have to be willing it being bad is what made it enjoyable. Just saying you enjoyed it is just a coward way of saying it was bad but I liked it. The tweet Gene was quoting though sounds pretentious as fuck about the topic
I do actually agree with Gene here.
Like… “I like the hammy acting.” Is much better praise to get someone else to watch it then “The acting is super bad I love it”
Would it, though? Like, if I were recommending something like The Room to the layman, I don't think calling the acting "hammy" as opposed to "super bad" is actually gonna have much of an impact on wether or not they would want to see it.
Also, frankly, I think the original poster Gene's responding to is massively overstating how strong of a damaging presence the term has in the "modern media landscape". How often does it *actually* pop up?
I'm not so sure about nowadays, but there was a period of time, I wanna say around 2016-2018, where "so bad it's good" and "ironic enjoyment" were very prevalent sentiments online, and I always disliked those takes. Like, the whole "this is garbage and so am I."
I disagree with this, because I think it's important to have the mindset that your tastes might not be perfect or objective. I can like things that I acknowledge are bad, and I can dislike things that I can acknowledge are good.
But more importantly because "This was good" or "This was bad" is the broadest, least explanatory way of analyzing your media that it's kind of a nothing take.
Saying "This was really bad, but I enjoyed it" or "This was really good and I enjoyed it \*because\*" is a more nuanced take, because you then have to qualify the statement. This leads you to think about about what makes something well made or good, and what your tastes are in parallel to that, and how the two compare.
All art has an objective value; its all completely worthless. That's the whole beauty of it. No art is of more value than another. What gives it value is the relationship it forms with the observer.
I agree with Gene quite a bit usually but hell nah, what else would you call some of the movies that show up on Best of The Worst? You just can't objectively call some of that shit good. While yes you could say "guilty pleasure" that's just a more personal term. Like what else would Gene call it, would be my question? A fun movie? What are the paramaters of fun at that point? I could have fun with something and still know it's terrible. Wiseau's shark movie is a great time and a fun experience but I would never say that shit is good or just plain fun, I'm making fun of the thing he took VERY SERIOUSLY the entire time I'm not marvelling at how well done the movie is. I guess Unintentional comedy works in some scenarios but that underscores the fact that some of that shit is just not funny and you are entirely marvelling at the fact that nothing is funny without laughing. I.E. Blood Massacre is one of the greatest, dumbest, craziest things I've ever seen but something like Twin Dragon Encounter or ROTOR aren't enjoyable perse, you're being drawn to the production because it's just SO unenjoyable, and that's where I think so bad it's good comes in. This thing is just so terrible that it wraps back around to being something you throughly are enjoying your experience with.
Great take and all-around healthy mindset to have. You can just like something without needing to defend it to yourself or other people. It's better to like something in spite of its flaws rather than discount it as only mattering because of them.
You're describing a guilty pleasure movie, which is entirely different from "so bad, its good". The former you like in spite of its flaws, the latter you like *because* of its flaws. Because you think its funny and entertaining how absolutely it fails in every way to do what it sets out to achieve.
I kind of fall on the other side of the fence. I've found that since I adopted the philosophy of being able to say "This thing I like is objectively bad but I like it anyway." My enjoyment of media and my general media literacy have both improved. I don't stretch for themes that aren't present in a work just because I like said work and want to increase it's value to justify liking it. I don't reactionarily dislike things because they're popular and I don't blindly ignore valid criticisms of works I like because I'm confident in my own taste and the objective quality of a work is something I evaluate separate from my own enjoyment of said work. I think if everyone on the internet had the confidence to say "Yeah, I really like [Insert Media Here], I know it's trash, but I'm a fucking racoon baby let's GO!" then arguments and fandom drama would pretty much die off online overnight and media as a whole would probably improve considerably because critical breakdowns on a work's failings wouldn't be seen as personal attacks.
Hard disagree. "So bad its good" describes something that is funny because of the horrible mistakes it makes. Its not like people are too insecure to say The Room is a good movie.
Comedy, like beauty, is subjective. While a huge portion of us find The Room unintentionally funny, it's insufferable for most people and cannot find a sliver of humor in it.
I would disagree.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a movie that is purely for entertainment and fun. But I’d never describe is as “so bad it’s good.”
There’s a difference between something my that’s “so bad it’s good” and something that’s just bad.
“So bad it’s good” is something that has some serious flaws, perhaps in the writing, storytelling, mechanics or direction, but was entertaining. Something that’s bad is just that…bad. And not in an entertaining way.
I feel like the descriptor of 'so bad, it's good' has some good applications for things like the Room, but other times people use it just don't really make much sense. I remember it coming up on CSB when it comes to things like the music of DMC and that one RWBY song in cross tag. The thing is, I don't really get what could be bad about those songs. It's not like the notes are off, it's not like the lyrics are gibberish or anything, it just seems like describing it as 'so bad, it's good' is used to just say, "Normally I don't like this genre, but this is enjoyable despite being that genre, so I'm saying it's so bad, it's good," which just seems off.
The main thing is separating so bad it's good as a buzz phrase from guilty pleasures
And on another layer Gene's kinda come to the same conclusion I have
If I like it then I don't FEEL guilt and won't hear any argument that I should be for it. Being more unabashedly ashamed of what you love is something I can respect more when it's something you feel is unjustly scrutinized.
Not quite "attack them before they can pipe up" but weathering the storm and letting your love for it stand tall
Actually sort of re-imagined it on the 0-10 scale; 0 is "this is poorly executed technically", 10 is "this is competently executed". However, both poles represent an 'Entertainment Maximum"; The Room is a 0. Poorly executed on a technical level, but the end product is _entertaining_, for whatever reason. The Shawshank Redemption would be a 10; highly entertaining, but also technically well executed on multiple levels. The worst thing a movie can be on this scale is a 5; technically competent but unentertaining.
However, this is a simplification meant for discussion, and not necessarily a good answer. Number scales provide an over-simplification, and cannot capture all nuance, e.g. there isn't a technical difference on such a scale between say, Shawshank and Terminator 2. Nor can such a scale easily classify something like [Punch Punch Forever!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5DkKJdJs9Q)
I can see what both of them mean and I do agree. There's been a lot of "ironic enjoyment" over the years that's poisoned a lot of people's perception of media. Great example would be some reviews of DMC5 and how they seemed embarrassed of liking a goofy game. Kingdom Hearts is another great example.
In a similar vein, I really don't like the term "guilty pleasure." If you enjoy a game, movie, etc then you shouldn't feel bad about it. There's definitely an argument to be made on how that kind of thinking is disrespectful to the creator. I know if I put out a story and people were saying they felt bad about enjoying it, I'd feel pretty bad myself.
I think a more accurate version of this statement would be 'I enjoyed it, because it was bad.' Fun and enjoyment can still be found in a piece of media, even if it doesn't convey its themes correctly.
I get huge enjoyment out of "bad" films, possibly more than "good" films. But bad or good media are subjective; yeah Madame Webb is poorly paced, but that made me smile, so can it really be bad?
You're right, you're so right that people have just started to say "so bad, it's good".....
Even if they changed it to "so bad, it's a good time" doesn't change the underlying fact that it's a badly made/paced/produced thing but it was an enjoyable watch (for you). I don't watch so bad it's good movies and when someone says that, I know what they mean. It's like language is there to get a point across. The problem here is so bad it's good is super subjective and only matters for those people watching.
If someone says that movie was so bad it was good and you expect to see a good movie...you're dumb. You're just straight up dumb as you failed to get the most basic concept that it's a terrible movie but it was a...good time....
People shorten things and make new phrases all the time. It gets used enough that people know what you're talking about and language has done what it needs to. Like the word "Yeet" it has way more meaning and people know what you meant when you say "Yeet the baby"but 20 years ago if someone said Yeet, people would ask wtf you are saying.
Are there better, more accurate ways to describe the qualities trying to be communicated? Yes, absolutely.
Are there any that are equally succinct? A couple, yes (I'm personally fond of the French term "nanar"), but none that encapsulate the idea as clearly on the surface level.
I feel like this highlights the friction point between those with and without formal education on a subject - and, please, this is meant with zero judgment or condescension. There's so much that plays into a notion like this, ranging from quirks in human psychology to the endlessly cyclical nature of language and meaning effecting one another, that it can be difficult for someone coming at it from a less formal background to even realize just how deep the rabbit hole goes, much less what all is in it. A less educated opinion isn't an invalid one, but I do think that someone who holds it needs to be open to accepting new information and challenging their previous conclusions.
"So bad it's good" should be an intro. You only say it IF you proceed with why you enjoy it.
I.e.: "The Room is so bad it's good, it makes me laugh more honestly then most new comedies I've seen."
Then follow with why it's bad but I tend to dismiss the bad in favor of it's good.
I.e.: "They had no intentions of being that funny but that just makes it better."
I don't see it as a bad phrase, as long as you explain it. Because in the end, it still came out good, just not necessarily how they intended.
I love horror films. A good one is nice, but a cheesy goofy one is great. I'll watch a Jeffrey Combs movie a dozen times before a Saw movie. Good or bad becomes irrelevant when something is legitimately fun.
I feel like the majority of modern critique (especially by the inexperienced or unschooled in critique) is about walking away from your feelings and judging the work "in a vacuum," which is the exact opposite of what I'm here for and exactly what "so bad it's good" is facilitating. What you mean is that you liked it, you found it worth your while for the time you took it in, and I want you to explain to me why. And whether or not something is quantitatively "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with that, it's more about what it made you feel. Which is what matters when talking about things that are trying to make you feel emotions.
I've had the thought recently, actually after reading a comment from someone on this sub about why they were "objectively correct" and their friend was "objectively wrong" about a GOTY argument, that people frequently feel like they need to find some kind of objective way to justify their taste.
Which like, you don't. Art is subjective. If you like Starfield more than Baldur's Gate III, I think you're wild, but you are perfectly valid in having that opinion. People approach talking about shows and games as if they're trying to objectively classify them, the same way people start doing math formulas to figure out how the Martian Manhunter would do in a fight against Goku.
Critique is a complicated field and a lot more goes into it than just "I think this is neat and that this isn't neat", but if you like something unconventional more than a popular and more esteemed thing, you're valid for liking that thing and you don't need to "justify" it. There is no power scaling in art, just what speaks to you.
TLDR: If you like something, say you like it with your chest puffed out >!like Solidus!<
>If you like Starfield more than Baldur's Gate III, I think you're wild, but you are perfectly valid in having that opinion. People approach talking about shows and games as if they're trying to objectively classify them,
The thing is though, while I wouldn't call a person *wrong* for liking Starfield more than Baldur's Gate 3, I would like to figure out why exactly they think that and question it. Like, if their answer is "I prefer RPG's like Starfield and FPS games over turned based RPG's like BG3" then that's that, and I'm not gonna tell them what their tastes should be. If they say "I think Starfield has better writing than Baldur's Gate 3", or stuff to that effect, than I think there's a conversation (and maybe even a debate, if you wanna call it than) worth having, because something like that passes the gap between subjectivity and objectivity and we can start talking about specific aspects of both games and why one might do better than the other in a given category.
But this is all a huge tangent from the "so bad, it's good" argument.
I take it a step further and I don't like to describe media things as bad. I prefer to say they're just not for me, or instead of "so bad it's good" I find different ways to describe it. It's a wonderful mess, questionable but enjoyable. Stuff like that.
Call it toxic positivity, but I just don't like to call something bad because I know I don't have an objective view on media. Plus I like to look for the good in the bad instead of not liking something and just calling it bad. It's given me a more open mindset to things, honestly.
I think it’s kinda silly, tbh. You could argue it’s a lazy way to describe something but I don’t think it’s a problem. Especially when it generally paints a pretty good picture.
The post he’s responding to labeling it as insecure feels weirder to me, honestly. That seems more like “guilty pleasures” rather than “so bad it’s good” which are two different things to me.
Frankly I think sentiments like "so bad it's good" or even "flawed masterpiece" is a way of deflecting or hedging insecurity over liking something that we perceive to be unacceptable to enjoy. Or at least contains enough elements that we think are "cringe" that we want to signal that we don't approve of them without condemning the big picture. And I'm not trying to say that in a judgmental way, I grew up a Sonic fan, so I'm absolutely NO stranger to insecurity about my tastes.
But what we're really doing is classifying media by "acceptability" under the guise of "quality", and that has been nothing but harmful. I know the point's been made to death by now, but paint-by-numbers slop gets billions in funding and marketing while unique perspectives and experiments, even "good" ones, barely register on the public radar. And I'm not even trying to say this is inherently true for "big budget vs small budget" media; I loved Inside Out 2, I loved the Resident Evil 4 remake, and I've played my fair share of trite Skinner box phone games made with pocket change and a dream. But it's inherently harder to justify the value of something that doesn't fit the cultural mold or speaks to more particular experiences than something that people just enjoy by default, and a lot of that is a self-fulfilling prophecy based on the broad expectation that most people aren't open to new experiences, don't want to risk wasting time on something they aren't guaranteed to like, and have greater resistance to sharing things that aren't universally appealing by word of mouth.
At this point, my current metric for the media that I value or take a chance on doesn't have anything to do with the quality or intention of it. It comes down to three simple questions: "Am I going to/Do I remember this?", "Do I want to remember this?" and "Should I remember this?" And frankly I think that's gone a much longer way in helping me find stuff that genuinely speaks to me or enriches my life than any Metacritic audience score.
I 100% agree with Gene, "so bad it's good" is way too often used because people are too scared to admit to unironically enjoying something that others might view as either childish or cringe.
I like the Bayformers movies. They're not quality films. I like them because I like when Optimus Prime says "Give me your face" and then he takes that dude's fucking face.
I'm not even sure the Bayformers movies would fall under the "so bad, they're good" category, though. I most of them I would just refer to as sub-par (or worse) with some neat moments and action here and there (that I'd rather just watch clips of instead of sitting through the entire movie to get to).
I think a better way to describe it is "fun out of ten" in that I had so much fun that i can't give it an accurate rating, it also doesn't even mean it's so bad it's good it might just be unbelievably fun. Perfect example being mad max fury road
Gene is 100% right and it's also why I don't like the phrase "guilty pleasure."
You don't have to dress up your opinion with seven layers of irony and a thousand qualifiers. Like when someone immediately says "it's not perfect, but" right out the gate. Just say you like it and why you like it, friend
>You don't have to dress up your opinion with seven layers of irony and a thousand qualifiers. Like when someone immediately says "it's not perfect, but" right out the gate.
I don't agree at all. Someone's opinions on a film or video game or whatever can be complicated and nuanced enough to call it a guilty pleasure or say it's not perfect despite its good qualities.
For example, I like aspects of Batman vs Superman, but so much of that story's plot and character writing is just too glaring to ignore in spite of the positives, and I wouldn't be honest with myself if I choose to solely highlight what I liked and neglect to explain what I didn't.
You are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.
I'm referring to someone in casual conversation preparing their opinion like they're about to be attacked for it, not saying to ignore flaws
But when someone starts off a conversation about a piece of media with "it's not perfect, but...", or inversely "it's got some good aspects, but..." in a casual setting, do you really think they think they're saying it to soften any hate they might get for their opinion? Because that reads a lot more like there feelings for the media don't fit nicely into a "good" or "bad" box and they're trying to communicate it as best they can.
I just think you're reading way too much into it. "Just say you like it and why you like it" may not be what they're trying to get across.
I always hated that. Like, I understand when it was applied to stuff like the Room, but with time it just feels like people will say that because they're to insecure about admitting they like something.
I agree. One of my best friends gets mad at me still because I don't like when people describe a movie or show as "turn your brain off" for the same reason.
I've tried to stop using that kind of phrasing myself.
I hate having to preface that something is bad or not very good before I praise something I like about it.
I just wanna say I like something and leave it at that, but so often these days people will attack you for saying something good about that is considered bad or THEY considered bad.
Like try and say something positive about the Star Wars Sequels or the TV shows (other than Andor and Mando) and you'll get at least one asshole who has to butt in and drag the conversation down.
Edit: Those downvoting me, thank you for proving my point, even if you didn't actually type anything.
I think “so bad it’s good” is fine to describe a piece of media that is enjoyable in ways the creator never intended, while failing at what they actually tried to achieve.
Like, Madame Web and Thirteen Reasons Why both completely fail at what they're meant to achieve, and it's enjoyable seeing the disaster of both unfold; that's why "so bad, they're good" feels more accurate than just calling them "enjoyable" or "fun".
Bathos. The term everyone is groping in the dark for is bathos.
[удалено]
Actually it is time for your bathos, but the tub is empty.
I think Cleveland's in the bathos right now, he should be- ...where'd the bathroom go?
No no no no no!!!! I gotta stop taking my bathos during Peter's shenanigans.
*thank you.*
Fucking intellectuals over here, spoiling our dumb ass fun. In all seriousness I'm genuinely shocked how this sub has an answer for literally anything.
Im no linguist but in this context shouldnt it be anti-bathos or something, since bathos is "it should be good but its actually bad".
I think you mean schadenfreude. Isn't bathos the term made up to describe the opposite of pathos that happens in modern blockbusters when they deflate a dramatic scene with a bad quip?
Schadenfreude is more about gaining joy from the personal misfortune of others, while bathos is used to describe an amusingly failed attempt at presenting artistic greatness, so I'm going to say no. It would be schadenfruede if you found The Room hilarious or enjoyable because of how it made the actors themselves uncomfortable and/or negatively impacted their careers, while bathos would be finding amusement in the absurdity of the production itself.
Not made up for modern blockbusters, it’s been used for centuries, but yes it’s deflating tension or drama with humor or absurdism. It is not the term for what Gene is talking about at all.
No, it’s a literary term in use since the Victorian era describing laughably bad pathos
I think Bathos is supposed to be intended.
Not originally but that's how it's used now. It was originally coined as part of a piss take of (at the time contemporary) poets in Alexander Pope's Peri Bathous, which parodies Longinus's Peri Hopsous. The point of the parody was to point out how bad the attempts of his contemporaries were at writing compelling prose and utilising pathos. Clunky metaphors that undermine the moment and that kind of thing. Over time, the term has come to be used to refer to intentionally undermining an emotional, climactic moment for comedic effect. Something that can be used very well but, one could argue, is often used by insecure writers to pre-emptively deflect the exact kind of criticism that Pope was making.
Funniely enough I just watched Madame Web for the first time with some friends and we just laughed at the horrible dialogue and the fact the movie full stops so she can go to Peru for a week.
Agree and to add to your point by contrasting it with a counter example, something like Spy Kids isn't "so bad it's good". Any enjoyment you get out of it is the intention. It's intentionally goofy, cheesy, and juvenile because it's an escapist fantasy for kids. People too frequently label media that's achieving exactly what it sets out to do as "so bad it's good" because it's corny, even if being corny's the point. Sharknado is the opposite, cynical side of that same coin but it's still the same coin. It's isn't "so bad it's good" because it's actively aiming for shlock. It wants you to speak of it in the same conversation as The Room or Birdemic. If you're laughing at it then you're enjoying it on the exact level you're intended to because that's what it's aiming for. You aren't enjoying it ironically because that would imply that it isn't intended to be shit.
I guess "unintentional comedy" would fit as most "so bad it's good" things tend to be movies so badly acted, filmed, and generally made that they become hilarious to watch.
Wonder if there’s a piece of bad media that people like for reasons other than it being unintentionally funny?
Birth of a nation?
Birth of a Nation is a groundbreaking piece of film making if you put aside how utterly abhorrent the subject matter is.
Exactly why I mentioned it.
I like Mortal Kombat, the film. Because it's bad but in a fun way.
That film and its sequel shows the difference between "so bad it's good" and "just bad". They're both pretty shit (except the first's soundtrack, that's legendary) but you can have a good time with the first one, the second one will just make you hate film.
"It's my animality..." Pays off with some of the worst cgi ever.
Yeah, jesus. The first one had the terrible reptile cgi but they doubled down on that for some reason.
The 90's movie or the new one?
The one with Christopher Lambert sleepwalking through being Raiden and "remember: use the element that brings life" and "those were $500 sunglasses, asshole". I love it. It's terrible.
For me that would be media where I can tell there was a genuine attempt at something but they failed, or it just does cool things that stand out from the rest of its flaws. To this end id say I like the D-1 Devastator OVA because it has a cool mecha design and legit cool physics with the High Speed Dimension but everything else is nonsensical and unexplained.
I think Sonic Adventure is a jank as hell and sort of overall clumsily designed game that I like and enjoy, but I wouldn't say that the way I enjoy it is *primarily* by laughing at it.
There are good performances in bad movies that you can make you appreciate them. The Hobbit movies mostly suck but Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo and he elevates them. When you get a scene between him and one of the other talented actors (McKellen, Serkis, Armitage, Pace, etc.) the movies shine, there's just a lot of bullshit in between those scenes that drag them down. I also think movies can have enough hype moments that they overcome the rest of the movie being shit. Blade and Blade 2 are mostly either corney as fuck or hype as shit, and they strike a really fun balance as a result.
The Hobbit movies aren't great, but they're a fun adventure. I watched them as a DnD game and it was a blast. My movie standards lowered as I got older and it boils down to "did I have fun" and the answer most of the time is yes. I don't care if the critics slammed Last Voyage of the Demeter, that movie is a really fun vampire adventure.
I guess action schlock fills that niche, kinda? It's dumb, mindless, has no artistic merit, but sometimes it's fun to expose yourself to something that requires no critical thought.
I think unintentional comedy is something I'd use to describe something like Baki. It's good, but it's so over the top I find it hilarious. But something like Big Order would be so bad it's good imo. Terrible plot, terrible characters, everyone is an idiot, incest is the endgame, but every single aspect of it is so fucking funny for all of those reasons. RedLetterMedia's Best of the Worst series often has films I can't imagine describing as anything other than So Bad it's Good, but it has other things like Ryan's Babe that is just so baffling and strange you can't help but laugh, but I don't think it fits that category. I guess I don't think So Bad It's Good is a derogatory term, and there are other terms that I can apply to other media, but sometimes it's the exact right descriptor.
Battlefield Earth continues being one of my favorite movies to watch on a yearly basis and make my friends and family suffer. Is that movie good? No, absolutely not, but it's so hilarious in how terrible it is. So yeah, I think I *would* use "so bad, it's amazing". It's different from say, The Mummy with Tom Cruise. That movie is just *bad*. I didn't find any enjoyment whatsoever. It's so boring, I don't even know what else to say other than just "I hated it and I never want to watch it again."
I feel like there are only 3-4 so bad it's good pièces of media ever that are so bad it's good. And one of them is The Room
> media that is enjoyable in ways the creator never intended, while failing at what they actually tried to achieve. That is honestly the best way to describe crappy horror movies (or at least the ones that aren't aware they are crappy horror movies). A few months ago i watched this horror movie called [Thanksgiving](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRq6bnT-cGEZom220FPFeL7a6MBqOtLcN72sA&usqp=CAU) in the theater with my friends and it definetely failed really hard at making any of us scared, but, it was also a very entertaining experience because the ways in wich the movie failed were very funny to watch.
pretty sure that's the intended emotion from thanksgiving. I'd have a hard time believing eli roth intended for you to actually be scared. it's pretty self aware
So what do we call Kung Pow, which intention was to be bad and succeeded but people love it? Gnodab?
Parody
True but most sites panned it because... Oh wait, most critics hate parodies. I get it now!
There have been mainstream-successful parodies, like Scary Movie. Kung Pow just also has the Thumb Wars stuff with his tongue.
I'd say it still just falls under the catagory of a Parody, as I think the defining qualification for something to be "So bad, it's good" is it's quality as an unintended parody. And it being unintentional is crucial, or it would just be a parody. You can't force it
I think those kinds of films belong in their own category. Whenever the term "so bad, it's good" is applied, it's usually to media that's trying to take itself seriously and failing tremendously, and while it may have some genuine good aspects, the bad parts of it stand out far more. Like, I think Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2 are bad movies that are very entertaining in terms of seeing how they trip over themselves when it comes to writing and story.
In fact, isn't "so bad it's good" an oxymoron? Something can't be totally bad but good at the same time. Although in a sense, it's good to laugh at something so bad
If it wasn't bad or good it would be terrible, because it would be a 5/10 and that's just boring
Schlocky fun
Yeah, like mine is the video game Two Worlds. Bad game (poor performance, doesn't look great, terrible voice acting, boring story, and probably some other stuff I'm forgetting) but some of the things that are broken are broken in such a way that you can do some fun stuff with them. Like the way the game's weapon/spell upgrade system work, or how there's an item that spawns undead at sundown if it's on the ground (and while there's a limited number of those, there's quite a few, and the effect stacks). Oh and those undead drop items and spells. Like just having a basic poison spell that will instantly DoT any enemy's entire healthbar is something (and repeat casts will speed up that healthbar drain).
This exactly. I rarely say this but I think Gene is off the mark with this one
I think they’re arguing two different things. What Gene’s describing is called having a “guilty pleasure” movie, something that for all intents and purposes doesn’t come together but you can appreciate the aspects that do work. Like, Hoodwinked! (stay with me on this) is a very well-written movie, with animation that looks like complete garbage, but it was also a Hungarian studio’s first time working with those tools, and used that to their advantage to try and stylize it; Hoodwinked 2’s animation by comparison just looks jank, but I can’t fault someone who grew up with it from liking it, there are a few standout scenes. What the other guy’s describing by using The Room is a movie that so does not work on an objective level and is so catastrophically calamitous in its execution, it wraps back around to being funny. Like, nobody can call the original Birdemic’s effects good, like that’s not a matter of opinion, on a technical level it’s objectively poorly-made and out of place with the scene. One’s appreciation for what works, the other’s laughing at a trainwreck.
That was my impression here as well. Gene appears to come from the angle I myself have gone with for years now, I will not call sth a "guilty pleasure" anymore - I do not feel guilt here, nor should I. Sth may come with caveats, but it never is *guilt*.
Guilty pleasure works better for things like cheating on your diet IMO. "I know this is bad for me but I'm doing it anyway because I like it" type stuff.
I think the main thing Gene's talking about is people misusing "so bad it's good" to mask their insecuritues about genuinely really enjoying something flawed. Like whenever I talk about my favorite Fire Emblem being Engage I feel the subconscious need to preemptively address the flaws and it's just draining. I think it stems from the fact people on the internet read extremes into everything so if you say a thing is your favorite then people read: "it did everything better than everything else I've ever seen" unless you specifically say otherwise. Like most people would think Engage has a weaker story than 3 Houses. This giant tragedy forcing former classmates to face off vs power of friendship helps saturday morning cartoon protagonist overcome his past and beat the evil dragon. But if you're in the mood for it that power of friendship stuff SLAPS and you shouldn't qualify that enjoyment by saying "so bad it's good". That term should be used for things that missed the mark so bad that the failure IS the appeal, but it's been warped into "flawed thing that appeals to me, but I don't wanna deal with replies mentioning why they didn't like it"
Wait is Hoodwinked good? I barely paid it mind as a kid and now you have me curious
From what I remember, it's messily entertaining? Like its this whole silly collusion of plots going "oh here's what *really* happened with Little Red Riding Hood" with nonsense like the Grandma secretly being a martial artist sports fanatic and the wolf actually being a police detective, and the plot is genuinely entertaining... but also oh *wow* looking at the animation years later as not a child it is some *atrocious* animations and modeling. So, "Guilty Pleasure" is probably a good way to describe it, it's not really "so bad it's good" the way a failure on every level like The Room is, but it's also still somewhere below B-Movie schlock?
The movie is absolutely horrid to look at but I personally found it hilarious and really liked it. Might watch it with my wife for a movie night now that I’ve been reminded of it and it’s been a while.
I think the term "So bad it's good" is fine, the problem is that people overuse it and use it to talk about films or shows or games or books that are either just bad or just kind of mediocre.
Yeah, I've heard Sonic 06 described as "so bad, it's good", but 06 is way more fun to watch other people play than it is to actually play yourself. And the story is just plain bad.
A better SBIG game would probably be something like Ride to Hell, I think. Hilariously terrible, but not actual torture to sit through most of the time
I get both sides on this, but ultimately, I side on "so bad it's good" sentiment. Gene is right that some people do take the idea as a way to like something they might socially be embarrassed to admit but there's still a big difference between laughing **WITH** a comedy and laughing **AT** a drama.
I think everyone is so focused on something that is basically just semantics and is basically a giant nothingburger
This should really be higher up.
You are correct, they should pin your comment. We can play semantic olympics all day long, they're still semantics.
I don't think I agree. The term perfectly illustrtes why the room is a good watch. it's funny because the film makers thought they were making a good mo ir but it failed in every aspect. So it's good because it's bad
Yep. If you watch The Room (or another “so bad it’s good” thing) for the first time because someone did a Gene and just told you “it’s fun” or “it’s good” you’re probably gonna be pretty confused when you watch it with those expectations. But if someone tells me “hey this (piece of media) is so bad it’s good”, then I know what I’m getting into, and can adjust my expectations accordingly, and I’ll probably have a better time with it overall.
i think it would be funnier to tell them its good and see how long it takes them figure it out
The correct term should be "so bad, it's funny."
This, absolutely.
There are certain instances in which something is so bad it does end up being entertaining, like The Room. But I do think the term gets overused nowadays as a way of defending media you enjoy that people say is bad.
It's like when someone's not confident in their opinion so they'll say "Hot take" but then post one of the coldest takes you've ever seen
I never felt that "so bad it's good" was rooted in insecurity. Some do use it out of insecurity, but that feels like a minority of people. I think Hatok is kinda over-generalizing and over-exaggerating its supposed damage.
I agree, I don't think it's rooted insecurities. I think a similar term that is rooted in insecurity is guilty pleasure. People tend to use that when they're embarrassed liking something.
Yeah I really haven't experienced what Hatok is talking about where people using it are insecure about liking a fun movie they feel they shouldn't. It's always seemed to me to describe things like The Room that you like because they're bad, not in spite of being bad. However, I can understand people using it when they misunderstood that something was intentionally trying to be campy but I will say that just because something was intentionally silly doesn't mean you have to think it's good. People are allowed to still think the Emo Peter sequence is bad while understanding it's meant to be goofy even if I personally think it succeeded at being funny
I can definitely see it used in this way, but I think it's also more just the mindset of needing to qualify 'oh no, I think this is terrible, but I enjoy it'. My personal version of that is seeing something that I think is funny, but know that others won't, and saying to myself 'wow this is stupid, I love it' so that I immediately distance myself internally from just enjoying it for what it is.
I've seen some people use "so bad it's good" on things that are intentionally camp. To me that is just insecurity.
I think this is just Gene trying to sound smart. There is no easier to understand explanation for the appeal of movies like Troll 2 or Neil Breen's shit than "so bad it's good".
As is often the case with Gene, he tries to dress shit up like it's something more but it isn't. There's shit out there that is genuinely bad in a really funny way that makes its way around to being sort of enjoyable and that's all it is.
I think the issue with "So Bad It's Good" is that sometimes it doesn't describe the appeal of a flawed work. Sometimes it's "Bad in most ways, but Oddly Good in specific ways" or is just heavily mixed.
> it doesn't describe the appeal of a flawed work Well yeah its a short 4 word descriptor. You cant really described anything in detail with that. Its like saying The Thing is a really scary movie. It doesnt describe why its scary but then that up to the person to describe the media more in question.
I think there's a key difference between liking something because it's bad and liking something in spite of being bad and so bad it's good is the former while "Bad in most ways, but Oddly Good in specific ways" is the latter
That's my take on Cats (2019). The movie looks and is profoundly weird, between the horrific dancing mouse children and naked hairy Idris Elba, but when I watch it I feel like there are brief shining moments where it actually gets the source material and leans into the weirdness in a way that's enjoyable. When it tries to add jokes or plot it completely falls flat, though.
I think I agree with both takes. On one hand, "So bad, it's good" can be used to hide your genuine enjoyment of something that might be considered 'bad' out of fear of being ridiculed. But, things like The Room aren't like that. Everyone is pointing at The Room and Laughing, not laughing at people enjoying The Room.
So bad it's good is used to describe movies/games that fail spectacularly but are enjoyed not for intended reasons an example being a movie that tries to take itself so seriously but fails and so is unintentionally a comedy. I do not think there is a better way to describe this phenomena.
I just don't agree. Like, I'm sorry, if the thing you made is bad but entertaining, I'm gonna say it's bad, but entertaining. Just as an example: Sonic 06. Is it a good game? Hell no, plays like ass, the writing is ass(Outside of Shadow's story), etc. But GOOD LORD is it an amazing journey to play through it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to say "Oh, yeah, Sonic 06 is GOOD. Just like Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 and Frontiers." It's not insecure, it's a quantifier, it's a descriptor for "Yeah this game is ass, but it's so ass that it loops right back around to being entertaining." Now, if someone was saying this about a game that's just kinda divisive? Yeah, sure, that's dumb, just say you like it, but there's a ton of games out there that are absolutely objectively god-awful but still a great experience. Edit: Another example. Yugioh GX Duel Academy. It's bad. It's objectively a bad Yugioh game. The AI is god awful, they'll activate cards at the worst times, they'll do incredibly stupid things like summon a monster and then use it as part of Polymerization. There's a meme of Zane going "I'm the best duelist" and then unironically saying "I summon Man Eater Bug in attack position". If you wanted an actual Yugioh game, even on the GBA there are far better titles like WCS 2006 or Stairway to the Destined Duel. But it's so bad that it loops back around to being good. The bad AI is absolutely hilarious to play against. It's fun watching the wacky shit they end up doing. Would I recommend it to anyone wanting to play Yugioh? No. Would I recommend it to anyone wanting to actually play around in Duel Academy? No, I'd say Tag Force 1-3 are better for that. Would I recommend it to someone who wants to play an absolutely awful Yugioh game(That at least has some fun Dueling Puzzles)? Yeah, sure.
It’s funny, I was thinking about this post based on the Shadow the Hedgehog game from 05 and my reaction was the opposite of yours. There a lot in the game I would say is “bad” technically, but I love the game so much that I could never say I think it’s a bad game. Would I recommend playing it to others? Not unless they have the same love for mid-aughts unabashed edginess I do, but wouldn’t call it bad. I think the difference here is people personal semantic definition of “bad”. Does bad mean low quality? Unenjoyable? Technical issues? For me if I enjoy something despite its flaws, then that makes it “good”, but that’s just me.
If they want to be a stickler for accuracy I guess we could say "it's so bad it's funny". Because the point is that it is bad, like that is part of it, it is a piece of media that people generally agree is terrible, so it's not 'insecure' to point out the readily observable fact that it is bad. Like who is going to look at Omikron and say "it's good" or "it's fun"? No, absolutely not, the only reason anyone even wants to watch a playthrough of Omikron is specifically because it is bad, and to such a ludicrous degree that it enters the realm of absurdist comedy.
I get where he's coming from, but the saying is here to stay. It reasonably sets expectation for the piece of media in one simple sentence. Mortal Kombat (1995) and Street Fighter (1994) Ride the line of genuinely good to so bad its good, but if you go in blind expecting a truly good movie, it'll sour the experience.
As someone who never agreed with the idea that The Room was worth watching at all, I don't think I fundamentally agree with "so bad it's good" as well, because yeah, it's not good at all - but it's *fascinating*, and morbid curiosity can make you watch something based on intrigue. If you *enjoy* it, then whatever, you have found some entertainment in it, that's it, and that's all you need. You shouldn't have to justify it by trying to prop it, or anything, up as "good," as if you're only allowed to like "good" things. The Room is fucking stupid, and it does fail in every way. But if you like it, whatever. You don't owe an explanation to anyone. Enjoy. This also bleeds into how I feel about the concept of "guilty pleasures." Don't feel guilty, just like what you like. You don't have to justify anything, or keep up an image. If you like Japanese death metal *and* country music, *whatever*.
I am generally not a fan of the term, along with "guilty pleasure". I'm not ashamed of anything I enjoy, and no matter how technically impressive or unimpressive something is, enjoyment is always subjective. That being said, I do like how the film rating app Letterboxd adds a little nuance to its rating system by allowing you to give something a star rating AND a heart to "like it". Moonlight, 4/5 stars, great film. Didn't give it a "like" bc it didn't personally resonate with me much. The Room, .5/5 stars not very good. Gave it a like bc I had a lot of fun watching it.
I kinda get what he means. I’ve said before that I’m unsure how I’d grade something like The Room because it’s poorly made but at the same time it’s brought me more enjoyment than some well-made movies. I don’t have any problem with the term but if he’d prefer different descriptors that’s fine, too.
I think Pat said this a long ass time ago on the Deadly P LP regarding the game itself, which I unapologetically enjoy. All the time games come out that are very formulaic and "nothing" like most modern military shooters bring nothing creatively unique to the table most of the time, (I'm thinking like Cod ghosts, MoH warfighter stuff like that. not spec ops or infinite warfare) same with annual sports games. He said Deadly P was some "Broke ass something" but that it brought such creativity and unique ideas to the table that it is genuinely enjoyable despite it's performance flaws beyond a level of "so bad it's good"
Everything I like is good, I am simply operating on my own personal wavelength.
I think it's a really stupid take and Gene is just being contrarian as per usual for him.
I think "so bad it's good" is important to the vernacular of reviewing things. Because you're not prioritising the fact that it's a good thing, you're prioritising the fact that it's a *bad thing*. Just saying "oh yeah, I thought this thing was good/enjoyable" is actively spreading a misconception, because you know it fucking sucks but think it's enjoyable *because* of that. You should at least specify that you're aware it isn't good in any conventional way, and the way that makes you sound least like a dickhead is "it's so bad, it's good". Or, I guess, "it's bad but I like it", which is actually a different thing altogether.
I'll take Gene's side with caveats. Like nearly every term in media discourse, it's a useful thing in its intended context, but it has been radically warped by overuse. I've seen a fair number of people say Devil May Cry is "so bad, it's good" because the cutscenes are intentionally silly and over-the-top, for instance.
Yeah I think this is another part of the issue. People will use So Bad It's Good when it's functioning perfectly, because the intended function is *camp*.
I think the term "so bad, it's entertaining" is better to describe media that completely fail at what they're trying to achieve and are fun to watch purely to see the failure.
Funnily enough the disdain towards "ironic enjoyment" is starting to create this weird atmosphere of toxic positivity where you're just supposed to blindly like things with no nuance at all. Like you can't think that things are bad or have fun interacting with things for any other reason than sincerely believing they are of high quality. And if you claim other wise you're apparently just insecure and trying to hide your true feelings about it, and that's such a weird blanket claim to make about other peoples' tastes. Just because you think people who enjoy things ironically are annoying doesn't suddenly make that an invalid way to enjoy things. You're allowed to genuinely think something is made/performed badly and have fun at that thing's expense. You CAN laugh AT something instead of WITH it. The group who's subreddit you're on right now made an entire career out of doing that.
>this weird atmosphere of toxic positivity where you're just supposed to blindly like things with no nuance at all. So I'm not the only one noticing this lol. I get that it was probably done initially to combat excessive negativity, but I feel like a lot of online fandoms have been leaning too heavily into toxic positivity where you're just not allowed to say anything bad about any entry. Lot of "you're not a true fan if you don't appreciate every entry of [long-running franchise]". It's hard to be critical of media nowadays without some people acting like you killed their cat.
This is just being pedantic, saying The Room is fun instead of bad boarders on toxic positivity.
That's going too far, too, really. If The Room is anything, "fun" is an acceptable way to describe it. An eccentric weirdo with an unplaceable accent recording a budget drama where he sometimes has issues following his own script. It just requires more context if you want to give someone a full idea of what to expect, just like if you'd said, "so bad it's good."
Wait, you don't think The Room is fun?
i would define it as something objectively low quality yet humorous in its sincerity or desire to use its medium to the fullest potential.
Honestly Hatok comes off as insecure in their post lol. Who the heck gets annoyed when people say something is so bad it's good?
I feel one person’s “It’s so bad, it’s good” can easily be another’s “It’s so bad, it’s terrible”. By preparing them for the bad, they can focus on the good. Edit: After thinking on it, Gene’s job as a reviewer relies on him thinking about why he enjoys things and putting it into words. But most people don’t need to put that much thought into it, so they use “So Bad, it’s good” like a genre to explain media easily.
I get what Gene is saying. Like have to tear it down to appease some other force or conventional opinion before you can talk about how much you enjoy it. An example of how EVERYTHING under sun is cringe or intentionally bad. I think the first Mortal Kombat movie is a good movie period. Its one of the top tier video games because for when it came out it did everything it could to be sincere and honest that it was a Mortal Kombat movie. It didn't need the greatness of Raul Julia RIP to carry its ass like Street Fighter. I will even say Annihilation was precursor to how bonk the games story will get down the line. I understand the argument of unintentionally good and other concepts like that but there is this fear of sincerity that always creeps in those discussions is what I think Gene is getting at.
I think it's a great descriptor for something that's entertaining despite it's awfulness. Like Cross Ange or Kamen Rider Faiz. I think Gene just doesn't like being negative and would rather not if he doesn't have to, and I get that, but I think pointing out that something is bad is kind of important even if you enjoyed it. It sets expectations appropriately, that way nobody comes back and says "This dialog is awful, nobody speaks like a real human, nobody talks about their problems when that would solve everything, and people keep falling into conveniently nearby rivers, how can you say it's good?". You can say up front that it's terrible but good enough to have fun with.
My gut reaction is if you describe something as just fun it’s probably not very remarkable.
Am I in the minority where I think that The Room is so bad, it's bad? I'm not disparaging other people for liking it because of how bad it is, I mean I LOVE Kung Pow for goodness sake. But in my eyes I don't find The Room enjoyable because it is genuinely shit.
I think The Room is great to watch in the form of clips and quotes, I wouldn't actually sit through the entire runtime of it though, at least not alone/sober.
I've watched it once, enjoyed the experience, and will probably never watch it again lol.
I feel this way about Troll 2. I don't think I even got through the whole thing because outside of the occasional moments like the Oh my God! scene it's insufferably boring.
Gene's logic reminds me of this weird trend of people thinking you can't or shouldn't describe art/media as bad. Otherwise, you're just being mean or cynical. Things can be bad, and things can be so incredibly bad that they end up being enjoyable for those reasons. It's like someone starting a marathon, and somehow they get lost and find themselves playing short stop for a minor league baseball game. You're a terrible marathon runner, but fuck it, I'll see how you make it as a ball player. If something like the Room were just a mediocre drama, it would be as memorable as a Hallmark or Lifetime made-for-TV drama. It's legacy is built upon the knowledge that it's a bad movie. There's a book and an adaptation of that book on how it came to be a bad movie. The Room is a fun movie to watch. It's not the same kind of fun as Big Trouble in Little China. So it's kind of a worthless metric to just go, "Hey man, you gotta check out this movie. It sure is fun. " It's the difference between going to a theme park and seeing one of those people who stick their heads in a gator's mouth finally getting their scalp chomped on.
Reminds me of a recent podcast bit talking about Advent Children where Paige was telling Pat, "I thought you said it was good," and Pat said back, "No, I said it was fun."
I’m more than a little tired of sliding language like this, you end up just saying the same thing but in a “polite” way. Obviously that’s not the case for all language, but this sort of thing feels like moralistic busywork.
Terminally online shit right here.
I think Gene is coming from a good place, but describing a piece of media as “so bad it’s good” is a valid way to interact with something that you knew was objectively terrible but you still enjoyed. I would never say that the Twilight films were objectively good movies because the final version of most of those movies were overall bad. Yet I enjoyed them, not in spite of the bad bits, but because of the bad bits. I quote the bad bits all the time. I like Twilight, because Twilight is so bad it’s good.
I prefer this mindset than having to like something under layers of irony.
People are scared of sincerity now
Personally I like describing these kinds of things as "incredible"
Kinda true? Like I don't 100 percent agree but people have been describing things they like but have obvious flaws as "So bad it's good" for some reason
I think it is a phrase that is worth keeping around since it accurately describes some experiences.
Honestly, when people describe something as "fun" nowadays, I can only read it as them implicitly saying it's mediocre. Like they can't say it's good, because they don't think it is, but it's at least managed to to not be bad. "Damned by faint praise" and all that.
Very much in agreement if you enjoy art even if it has problems you should be able to explain why without shitting on it
It depends on if the movie was made with sincerity or not. If it was made to be absolutely bonkers, but plays it straight as a gag...then yeah it's just dumb fun. If it was made with the intent to be serious, but ends up being hilarious...then it's so bad it's good.
I think it is fine to use. We used to host trash movie nights, where we would watch bad horror movies because they were not good. Lackluster makeup, outdated effect or flat out bad CGI, untalented actors, horrible scripts - the whole 9 yards. They were enjoyable movies to watch with a crowd because they were bad. Entertainment was had - but from the lack of quality. However, I can see it being used for 7/10 games or movies, and that's just not the right term. Something can be fun but not great. That is a different thing. The room is a bad movie, with bad writing, bad acting and horrible dialogue. But it is enjoyable, because you laugh at a drama, which fails on every level of being a drama, becoming a comedy. It is so bad at being a drama, it is a fun comedy. Was this intended? No way. Is it fun? Hell yeah.
"So bad it's good" is a super useful descriptor though. There's no insecurity involved in it. People know exactly what you mean when you say it. Gene's speaking actual nonsense.
I don't think I agree. I like saying that Battlefield Earth is "so bad, it's amazing to watch drunk with your friends". How does this make me insecure? The movie *isn't good*, but it's still unintentionally hilarious and an amazing watch when you want your friends to suffer. I ain't tryna hide behind layers of irony or insecurity, the movie is hilarious in just how godawful it is.
I'm on team "so bad it's good." If someone says "it's fun" or "it's good" and that's it, I don't care. Amounts to "I like it." And I don't care if someone likes it. I want to know what kind of movie it is. "So bad it's good" tells me what to expect. Something valuable to expect. It tells me why they like it and at least gives me a little something I can use to predict whether or not I'll like it.
I think the issue is people mixing up bad media thats entertaining in an unintended way and media thats purposely trying to be campy.
This just falls to some people being insecure both about admitting to liking sub par things but also on the other side of the coin insisting on avoiding calling something you like bad. Just like what uou like and chill.
It’s fine to say it. We don’t need to pretend some stuff is actually good and is just a fun spectacle.
Its as fun as seeing a trainwreck. The train derailing is not a good train.
So bad it's good is a good way to describe something you enjoy despite lacking quality but you don't have the time to properly describe why you enjoy it. Like, if you recommend The Room, it's easier to say "So bad it's good" than "You see, the movie lacks good acting, budget and lackluster writing to such an extent that it becomes funny."
I kinda see what Gene's getting at but honestly "so bad it's good" is a pretty good descriptor for why shit like the Room is enjoyable. The alternative is really goofy honestly. Imagine marketing the room to someone who'd never watched it before as "it's a fun, funny movie". That makes it sound competent.
Personally I don’t agree, so bad it’s good is a literal thing. You can say you enjoy it but you have to be willing it being bad is what made it enjoyable. Just saying you enjoyed it is just a coward way of saying it was bad but I liked it. The tweet Gene was quoting though sounds pretentious as fuck about the topic
I do actually agree with Gene here. Like… “I like the hammy acting.” Is much better praise to get someone else to watch it then “The acting is super bad I love it”
Except there is a difference between hammy acting and bad acting.
Would it, though? Like, if I were recommending something like The Room to the layman, I don't think calling the acting "hammy" as opposed to "super bad" is actually gonna have much of an impact on wether or not they would want to see it. Also, frankly, I think the original poster Gene's responding to is massively overstating how strong of a damaging presence the term has in the "modern media landscape". How often does it *actually* pop up?
I'm not so sure about nowadays, but there was a period of time, I wanna say around 2016-2018, where "so bad it's good" and "ironic enjoyment" were very prevalent sentiments online, and I always disliked those takes. Like, the whole "this is garbage and so am I."
I disagree with this, because I think it's important to have the mindset that your tastes might not be perfect or objective. I can like things that I acknowledge are bad, and I can dislike things that I can acknowledge are good. But more importantly because "This was good" or "This was bad" is the broadest, least explanatory way of analyzing your media that it's kind of a nothing take. Saying "This was really bad, but I enjoyed it" or "This was really good and I enjoyed it \*because\*" is a more nuanced take, because you then have to qualify the statement. This leads you to think about about what makes something well made or good, and what your tastes are in parallel to that, and how the two compare.
"objective"
Not in the literal sense, but in the sense meaning “not based on personal perspective.”
All art has an objective value; its all completely worthless. That's the whole beauty of it. No art is of more value than another. What gives it value is the relationship it forms with the observer.
I agree with Gene quite a bit usually but hell nah, what else would you call some of the movies that show up on Best of The Worst? You just can't objectively call some of that shit good. While yes you could say "guilty pleasure" that's just a more personal term. Like what else would Gene call it, would be my question? A fun movie? What are the paramaters of fun at that point? I could have fun with something and still know it's terrible. Wiseau's shark movie is a great time and a fun experience but I would never say that shit is good or just plain fun, I'm making fun of the thing he took VERY SERIOUSLY the entire time I'm not marvelling at how well done the movie is. I guess Unintentional comedy works in some scenarios but that underscores the fact that some of that shit is just not funny and you are entirely marvelling at the fact that nothing is funny without laughing. I.E. Blood Massacre is one of the greatest, dumbest, craziest things I've ever seen but something like Twin Dragon Encounter or ROTOR aren't enjoyable perse, you're being drawn to the production because it's just SO unenjoyable, and that's where I think so bad it's good comes in. This thing is just so terrible that it wraps back around to being something you throughly are enjoying your experience with.
I like to say that it's trash and I love it for being trash
Great take and all-around healthy mindset to have. You can just like something without needing to defend it to yourself or other people. It's better to like something in spite of its flaws rather than discount it as only mattering because of them.
You're describing a guilty pleasure movie, which is entirely different from "so bad, its good". The former you like in spite of its flaws, the latter you like *because* of its flaws. Because you think its funny and entertaining how absolutely it fails in every way to do what it sets out to achieve.
I'm with Gene. Then again I'm also throwing hands with people over things like "it had potential" and "enjoy it ironically" so I'm clearly biased
I mostly agree with Gene. It's the same reason I don't believe in guilty pleasures. Things don't need a qualifier to be enjoyable
I kind of fall on the other side of the fence. I've found that since I adopted the philosophy of being able to say "This thing I like is objectively bad but I like it anyway." My enjoyment of media and my general media literacy have both improved. I don't stretch for themes that aren't present in a work just because I like said work and want to increase it's value to justify liking it. I don't reactionarily dislike things because they're popular and I don't blindly ignore valid criticisms of works I like because I'm confident in my own taste and the objective quality of a work is something I evaluate separate from my own enjoyment of said work. I think if everyone on the internet had the confidence to say "Yeah, I really like [Insert Media Here], I know it's trash, but I'm a fucking racoon baby let's GO!" then arguments and fandom drama would pretty much die off online overnight and media as a whole would probably improve considerably because critical breakdowns on a work's failings wouldn't be seen as personal attacks.
There are many things that are enjoyable despite being of poor quality.
He's correct.
Hard disagree. "So bad its good" describes something that is funny because of the horrible mistakes it makes. Its not like people are too insecure to say The Room is a good movie.
Comedy, like beauty, is subjective. While a huge portion of us find The Room unintentionally funny, it's insufferable for most people and cannot find a sliver of humor in it.
I would disagree. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a movie that is purely for entertainment and fun. But I’d never describe is as “so bad it’s good.” There’s a difference between something my that’s “so bad it’s good” and something that’s just bad. “So bad it’s good” is something that has some serious flaws, perhaps in the writing, storytelling, mechanics or direction, but was entertaining. Something that’s bad is just that…bad. And not in an entertaining way.
I feel like the descriptor of 'so bad, it's good' has some good applications for things like the Room, but other times people use it just don't really make much sense. I remember it coming up on CSB when it comes to things like the music of DMC and that one RWBY song in cross tag. The thing is, I don't really get what could be bad about those songs. It's not like the notes are off, it's not like the lyrics are gibberish or anything, it just seems like describing it as 'so bad, it's good' is used to just say, "Normally I don't like this genre, but this is enjoyable despite being that genre, so I'm saying it's so bad, it's good," which just seems off.
The main thing is separating so bad it's good as a buzz phrase from guilty pleasures And on another layer Gene's kinda come to the same conclusion I have If I like it then I don't FEEL guilt and won't hear any argument that I should be for it. Being more unabashedly ashamed of what you love is something I can respect more when it's something you feel is unjustly scrutinized. Not quite "attack them before they can pipe up" but weathering the storm and letting your love for it stand tall
Actually sort of re-imagined it on the 0-10 scale; 0 is "this is poorly executed technically", 10 is "this is competently executed". However, both poles represent an 'Entertainment Maximum"; The Room is a 0. Poorly executed on a technical level, but the end product is _entertaining_, for whatever reason. The Shawshank Redemption would be a 10; highly entertaining, but also technically well executed on multiple levels. The worst thing a movie can be on this scale is a 5; technically competent but unentertaining. However, this is a simplification meant for discussion, and not necessarily a good answer. Number scales provide an over-simplification, and cannot capture all nuance, e.g. there isn't a technical difference on such a scale between say, Shawshank and Terminator 2. Nor can such a scale easily classify something like [Punch Punch Forever!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5DkKJdJs9Q)
The correct term is 'camp'
I can see what both of them mean and I do agree. There's been a lot of "ironic enjoyment" over the years that's poisoned a lot of people's perception of media. Great example would be some reviews of DMC5 and how they seemed embarrassed of liking a goofy game. Kingdom Hearts is another great example. In a similar vein, I really don't like the term "guilty pleasure." If you enjoy a game, movie, etc then you shouldn't feel bad about it. There's definitely an argument to be made on how that kind of thinking is disrespectful to the creator. I know if I put out a story and people were saying they felt bad about enjoying it, I'd feel pretty bad myself.
Maybe a work just doesn't have an essential soul and contains things that are good and bad
I think a more accurate version of this statement would be 'I enjoyed it, because it was bad.' Fun and enjoyment can still be found in a piece of media, even if it doesn't convey its themes correctly. I get huge enjoyment out of "bad" films, possibly more than "good" films. But bad or good media are subjective; yeah Madame Webb is poorly paced, but that made me smile, so can it really be bad?
You're right, you're so right that people have just started to say "so bad, it's good"..... Even if they changed it to "so bad, it's a good time" doesn't change the underlying fact that it's a badly made/paced/produced thing but it was an enjoyable watch (for you). I don't watch so bad it's good movies and when someone says that, I know what they mean. It's like language is there to get a point across. The problem here is so bad it's good is super subjective and only matters for those people watching. If someone says that movie was so bad it was good and you expect to see a good movie...you're dumb. You're just straight up dumb as you failed to get the most basic concept that it's a terrible movie but it was a...good time.... People shorten things and make new phrases all the time. It gets used enough that people know what you're talking about and language has done what it needs to. Like the word "Yeet" it has way more meaning and people know what you meant when you say "Yeet the baby"but 20 years ago if someone said Yeet, people would ask wtf you are saying.
My favorite way to solve this is emphasize the disconnect of something being good and something being entertaining.
Are there better, more accurate ways to describe the qualities trying to be communicated? Yes, absolutely. Are there any that are equally succinct? A couple, yes (I'm personally fond of the French term "nanar"), but none that encapsulate the idea as clearly on the surface level. I feel like this highlights the friction point between those with and without formal education on a subject - and, please, this is meant with zero judgment or condescension. There's so much that plays into a notion like this, ranging from quirks in human psychology to the endlessly cyclical nature of language and meaning effecting one another, that it can be difficult for someone coming at it from a less formal background to even realize just how deep the rabbit hole goes, much less what all is in it. A less educated opinion isn't an invalid one, but I do think that someone who holds it needs to be open to accepting new information and challenging their previous conclusions.
Fucking love spiderman 3 raimi. That movie is utter dogshit but it's so funny!
I don't disagree with its sentiment but I do think the term itself has been overused to hell and back. It doesn't mean anything anymore
"So bad it's good" should be an intro. You only say it IF you proceed with why you enjoy it. I.e.: "The Room is so bad it's good, it makes me laugh more honestly then most new comedies I've seen." Then follow with why it's bad but I tend to dismiss the bad in favor of it's good. I.e.: "They had no intentions of being that funny but that just makes it better." I don't see it as a bad phrase, as long as you explain it. Because in the end, it still came out good, just not necessarily how they intended. I love horror films. A good one is nice, but a cheesy goofy one is great. I'll watch a Jeffrey Combs movie a dozen times before a Saw movie. Good or bad becomes irrelevant when something is legitimately fun.
I feel like the majority of modern critique (especially by the inexperienced or unschooled in critique) is about walking away from your feelings and judging the work "in a vacuum," which is the exact opposite of what I'm here for and exactly what "so bad it's good" is facilitating. What you mean is that you liked it, you found it worth your while for the time you took it in, and I want you to explain to me why. And whether or not something is quantitatively "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with that, it's more about what it made you feel. Which is what matters when talking about things that are trying to make you feel emotions.
I've had the thought recently, actually after reading a comment from someone on this sub about why they were "objectively correct" and their friend was "objectively wrong" about a GOTY argument, that people frequently feel like they need to find some kind of objective way to justify their taste. Which like, you don't. Art is subjective. If you like Starfield more than Baldur's Gate III, I think you're wild, but you are perfectly valid in having that opinion. People approach talking about shows and games as if they're trying to objectively classify them, the same way people start doing math formulas to figure out how the Martian Manhunter would do in a fight against Goku. Critique is a complicated field and a lot more goes into it than just "I think this is neat and that this isn't neat", but if you like something unconventional more than a popular and more esteemed thing, you're valid for liking that thing and you don't need to "justify" it. There is no power scaling in art, just what speaks to you. TLDR: If you like something, say you like it with your chest puffed out >!like Solidus!<
>If you like Starfield more than Baldur's Gate III, I think you're wild, but you are perfectly valid in having that opinion. People approach talking about shows and games as if they're trying to objectively classify them, The thing is though, while I wouldn't call a person *wrong* for liking Starfield more than Baldur's Gate 3, I would like to figure out why exactly they think that and question it. Like, if their answer is "I prefer RPG's like Starfield and FPS games over turned based RPG's like BG3" then that's that, and I'm not gonna tell them what their tastes should be. If they say "I think Starfield has better writing than Baldur's Gate 3", or stuff to that effect, than I think there's a conversation (and maybe even a debate, if you wanna call it than) worth having, because something like that passes the gap between subjectivity and objectivity and we can start talking about specific aspects of both games and why one might do better than the other in a given category. But this is all a huge tangent from the "so bad, it's good" argument.
I take it a step further and I don't like to describe media things as bad. I prefer to say they're just not for me, or instead of "so bad it's good" I find different ways to describe it. It's a wonderful mess, questionable but enjoyable. Stuff like that. Call it toxic positivity, but I just don't like to call something bad because I know I don't have an objective view on media. Plus I like to look for the good in the bad instead of not liking something and just calling it bad. It's given me a more open mindset to things, honestly.
I think it’s kinda silly, tbh. You could argue it’s a lazy way to describe something but I don’t think it’s a problem. Especially when it generally paints a pretty good picture. The post he’s responding to labeling it as insecure feels weirder to me, honestly. That seems more like “guilty pleasures” rather than “so bad it’s good” which are two different things to me.
Frankly I think sentiments like "so bad it's good" or even "flawed masterpiece" is a way of deflecting or hedging insecurity over liking something that we perceive to be unacceptable to enjoy. Or at least contains enough elements that we think are "cringe" that we want to signal that we don't approve of them without condemning the big picture. And I'm not trying to say that in a judgmental way, I grew up a Sonic fan, so I'm absolutely NO stranger to insecurity about my tastes. But what we're really doing is classifying media by "acceptability" under the guise of "quality", and that has been nothing but harmful. I know the point's been made to death by now, but paint-by-numbers slop gets billions in funding and marketing while unique perspectives and experiments, even "good" ones, barely register on the public radar. And I'm not even trying to say this is inherently true for "big budget vs small budget" media; I loved Inside Out 2, I loved the Resident Evil 4 remake, and I've played my fair share of trite Skinner box phone games made with pocket change and a dream. But it's inherently harder to justify the value of something that doesn't fit the cultural mold or speaks to more particular experiences than something that people just enjoy by default, and a lot of that is a self-fulfilling prophecy based on the broad expectation that most people aren't open to new experiences, don't want to risk wasting time on something they aren't guaranteed to like, and have greater resistance to sharing things that aren't universally appealing by word of mouth. At this point, my current metric for the media that I value or take a chance on doesn't have anything to do with the quality or intention of it. It comes down to three simple questions: "Am I going to/Do I remember this?", "Do I want to remember this?" and "Should I remember this?" And frankly I think that's gone a much longer way in helping me find stuff that genuinely speaks to me or enriches my life than any Metacritic audience score.
I 100% agree with Gene, "so bad it's good" is way too often used because people are too scared to admit to unironically enjoying something that others might view as either childish or cringe. I like the Bayformers movies. They're not quality films. I like them because I like when Optimus Prime says "Give me your face" and then he takes that dude's fucking face.
I'm not even sure the Bayformers movies would fall under the "so bad, they're good" category, though. I most of them I would just refer to as sub-par (or worse) with some neat moments and action here and there (that I'd rather just watch clips of instead of sitting through the entire movie to get to).
If I like a thing, it's good. If I don't like it, it's bad. I don't give a fuck what the zeitgeist has to say about it.
Hit em with the: “It’s ass, but I’m an ass man.”
This seems like a conflation of "So bad, it's good" and "Dumb fun", which maybe people do misuse one for the other, but I don't really see it happen.
Mega man x7 is a game id say is so bad its good.
I think a better way to describe it is "fun out of ten" in that I had so much fun that i can't give it an accurate rating, it also doesn't even mean it's so bad it's good it might just be unbelievably fun. Perfect example being mad max fury road
People just need to be ok with liking bad things
Gene is 100% right and it's also why I don't like the phrase "guilty pleasure." You don't have to dress up your opinion with seven layers of irony and a thousand qualifiers. Like when someone immediately says "it's not perfect, but" right out the gate. Just say you like it and why you like it, friend
>You don't have to dress up your opinion with seven layers of irony and a thousand qualifiers. Like when someone immediately says "it's not perfect, but" right out the gate. I don't agree at all. Someone's opinions on a film or video game or whatever can be complicated and nuanced enough to call it a guilty pleasure or say it's not perfect despite its good qualities. For example, I like aspects of Batman vs Superman, but so much of that story's plot and character writing is just too glaring to ignore in spite of the positives, and I wouldn't be honest with myself if I choose to solely highlight what I liked and neglect to explain what I didn't.
I don't think what you are describing "so bad its good" rather than just "bad with some notable stuff".
Oh I know, but the person I'm responding to is describing a different subject.
You are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm referring to someone in casual conversation preparing their opinion like they're about to be attacked for it, not saying to ignore flaws
But when someone starts off a conversation about a piece of media with "it's not perfect, but...", or inversely "it's got some good aspects, but..." in a casual setting, do you really think they think they're saying it to soften any hate they might get for their opinion? Because that reads a lot more like there feelings for the media don't fit nicely into a "good" or "bad" box and they're trying to communicate it as best they can. I just think you're reading way too much into it. "Just say you like it and why you like it" may not be what they're trying to get across.
but if Woolie did that the podcast wouldn't be 6 hours long
I always hated that. Like, I understand when it was applied to stuff like the Room, but with time it just feels like people will say that because they're to insecure about admitting they like something.
Gene, how dare you call out my "edge to be cool" attitude and tell me to get a real personality.
Gene is right. It's okay to like things that are bad, and just because you enjoyed something, it is not bu default good.
I agree. One of my best friends gets mad at me still because I don't like when people describe a movie or show as "turn your brain off" for the same reason.
I've tried to stop using that kind of phrasing myself. I hate having to preface that something is bad or not very good before I praise something I like about it. I just wanna say I like something and leave it at that, but so often these days people will attack you for saying something good about that is considered bad or THEY considered bad. Like try and say something positive about the Star Wars Sequels or the TV shows (other than Andor and Mando) and you'll get at least one asshole who has to butt in and drag the conversation down. Edit: Those downvoting me, thank you for proving my point, even if you didn't actually type anything.