I totally agree in principle.

But it all comes to semantics. Most Hollywood movies these days with all their sleek technicality end up as being average. Neither bad nor good.

The fringes of the industry has always been filled with filmmakers who don’t really know how to make films, but really really want to. So I agree, again, a genuine misfire is more memorable than another lazy, boring blockbuster.

But it’s really such a broad subject. There are truly very few so-bad-they’re-good movies that are special enough to be considered important in any shape of form. I’m not a bad movie connoisseur so my threshold is pretty high.

I believe the opposite is true too, like you can have a “good” movie that is technically sound and has all the right components, but just DOESN’T come together into anything that’s all that entertaining, which is almost worse, because these movies tend to not be bad so much as just boring. When dealing with “bad” movies that don’t hit the mark, they’re still funny for being misfires, whereas the “good” ones that fail are just kind of puzzling, because there’s often no real reason why it shouldn’t have been better.

Just speaking for myself, there aren’t many movies I consider “so bad they’re good”. I might get a kick seeing Troll 2 with a howling audience, but when you watch this stuff alone at home it loses its appeal. So a really good movie needs to work without the context of a post-modern, laughing audience.
Also, when people mention that a movie is so bad it’s good, they usually mean that it’s so bad it’s funny. So I guess that means bad movies can be considered good comedies. That’s a lot or reinforcement for the comedy genre.

A really fun “bad” movie for me is Deathstalker II. I laughed so hard I cried during that one.

I PUT FORTH…

All art is subjective.
All film is art.
Therefore, all films are subjective.
Therefore, there’s no such thing as a bad movie.