There are unintentionally bad movies and then there are unintentionally bad movies. And they are NOT necessarily the same thing in my view.
Friend A enjoys watching “Plan 9 From Outer Space” and has it on DVD. He thinks it’s enjoyable to watch this movie because it is very poorly made in nearly every respect. It’s fun to watch, because Friend A enjoys laughing AT how poorly made it is. It’s widely understood that the filmmaker, however, intended it to be a good movie and not a campy joke.
Friend B enjoys watching “Xanadu” and usually goes to the local theater when they have special showings of the film a couple times a year. I understand that some of the attendees like to show up wearing vintage clothing (e.g. polyester leisure suits and gold lame disco outfits). However, friend B doesn’t dress up and there is no crowd participation (ala Rocky Horror) beyond a few people wearing outfits. It’s also understood the filmmakers intended to make a good movie and not some campy joke.
Friend B maintains that her enjoyment of this film is much the same as Friend A’s enjoyment of “Plan 9”. That is, they’re both bad movies and fun to watch in the spirit of camp. But I don’t think their enjoyment of these two very different bad films is the same thing at all. Do you?
I like Xanadu. It has some dull parts, and Michael Beck stinks up every scene he’s in, but I wouldn’t say it’s a bad movie. I’ve seen plenty of “good” movies I liked less.
(You knew a Xanadu defender would show up, right?)
My friends recommended The Ice Pirates for the, ‘so bad it’s good’ factor. It has a 9% on Rotten Tomatoes and yet 92% liked it so i want to watch it. It’s available free on Prime, but I just haven’t been it the right mood yet.
See, I think Friend B actually likes the movie on its face because it has some enjoyable elements. Like the music, for example. She’s just afraid to admit it in front of her cool friends.
I suppose one big difference is ambition versus resources. A film which wants to be taken seriously but can’t afford believable sets or costumes, experienced cast and crew, or a reasonable shooting schedule, will likely have these deficits show up in the finished product unless the director is extremely clever. Whereas a big-budget picture may look good but suffer from a weak script, miscast actors or plain old bad directing.
You might enjoy watching either for the wreckage it is; a cheesy lesson in overreach or a bloated blunder that someone should have put the brakes on.
I love the show Best of the Worst. It’s from Redlettermedia on youtube.
They watch three movies(usually VHS releases) based usually only on the title or the cover. They laugh, discuss them, and eventually choose which one is the best of the worst. They frequently destroy the worst of the worst.
People laugh at something like “Plan 9” or “Birdemic” because the film makers lacked the rudimentary skills necessary to make a watchable film. Bad acting, weird editing decisions, technical issues.
People laugh at a cheese-fest like “Xanadu” or “Blue Lagoon” or “Mommie Dearest” because they are cheesy and campy. Good camera work, competently directed, acceptable acting, but something about the movie makes it ridiculous - perhaps it takes itself too seriously - or takes a silly idea but plays it straight without any hint of irony.
Friend A’s movie is bad because of limited resources and ineptitude, causing it to be poorly made. Friends B’s movie is well made, but dumb.
Plan NIne from Outer Space is one of THE Bad Films. I’ve shown it more than once at my Bad Film Festivals.
But Plan Nine is NOT Bad because Ed Wood didn’t know how to make a film. Plan Nine is enjoyable bad because, in spite of everything, it’s entertainingly bad. It’s light years ahead of Birdemic when it comes to watchability. I can watch Plan Nine (or Robot Monster, or House on Haunted Hill and again. But I have to force myself through a Bad Bad film like Birdemic or Manos (be honest – would you watch that film without the MST3K track making it palatable?)
Ed Wood may have written abysmal dialogue and had awful special effects, but the scene of Tor Johnson rising from the grave is awesome. Using his chiropractor with his cape covering his face (a la Lugosi in [IAbbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein*) in place of Bela Lugosi might be a transpatent dodge, but it was needed because Lugosi was dead, nd they needed a scene with him in it. It was a matter of necessity.
But there’s a narrative thread, at least, and Ed Wood made an effort. I’ll watch this flick over Equinox or UFO-Target Earth or any of a number of bad films without coherent plots.
I realized I didn’t actually address the OP’s question: is their enjoyment different and if so, how?
It could be along the lines of the punching up/punching down theories in comedy. In laughing at a badly made movie, the viewer is punching down at the shoddy film making, in some ways a point-and-laugh-at-the-idiots experience. In a cheesy movie, the viewer is punching up, sort of “Hey fancy-pants Hollywood, you had a big budget and no excuse, but you still made a turd”
Plan 9…. works against audience expectations that a movie will have credible production values and be competently made. It’s basically one joke (“it’s so bad….”) over and over again. Xanadu (IIRC) may be conceptually flawed and dated, but it has credible production values and is (more or less) competently made. With time, its “dated” aspect has apparently now become part of its appeal, at least for certain viewers who practice cult-like adherence to its fashion aesthetic.
For more of the latter type of film, I would suggest….
I had a friend once who wanted me to go with him to some crappy Stallone or Willis movie so we could gawk at the kind of people who go to those movies. I said “Guess what, we’ll be two of them! Let’s go to a good movie instead.” We saw Mongol which is, hands down, the best Russian movie I’ve ver seen in my life!
The kind of “bad movie” I like to see has to have one nude scene with Erika Eleniak, or someone very similar.
Freddy Got Fingered - though arguably it was actually intentionally bad. Tom Green was really just trying to see what he could get past the MPAA and he managed to get quite a lot of very… provocative stuff through, so-- success!
I guess I’m a bit confused about the question(s), and I don’t understand the first sentence of the OP at all.
I’ll throw out Waterworld (Kevin Costner) as an example of a movie that’s unintentionally terrible but has its moments. I can watch it much as Friend A watches Plan 9. Kind of can’t take my eyes off of the trainwreck.
Then there’s a movie like Night Patrol (Linda Blair, Murray Langston, Billy Barty) that is just stupid bad, where stupid is a subset of bad. I’ve watched that many times because I find it borderline hilarious, but the plot and production are bad. I don’t think that’s intentional, but it could be. It’s just a stupid film.
I can watch either movie and enjoy them for different reasons, so maybe that puts me in line with the OP.
My high school friend’s dad used to complain about the MST3K gang talking over the movie he was trying to watch. This was early in its run on Comedy Central. He legit did not realize what the show was.
