Talk:B movies (exploitation boom)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Exploitation film#Classic exploitation|sexual hygiene]] The anchor (#Classic exploitation) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Tone[edit]

Does anyone else think this reads like a sensationalist essay? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 08:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the material it surveys is sensationalist—that's what exploitation movies are—so that may be affecting your perception of the article's tone. But let's see. Would you please quote us a couple of passages that you find "sensationalist"?—DCGeist (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tone isn't neutral or encyclopedic at all. It's informative, but it's essentially editorial. "Blaxploitation. Zombies. Mafiosi. A catchy theme song, "Supernatural Voodoo Woman." And Marki Bey as Sugar herself, hair "relaxed" by day, afroed by night. AIP's Sugar Hill (1974) is an exploitation era example of a Gesamtkunstwerk, a "complete artwork."" This isn't tone neutral or in the prescribed style at all and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it was originally copy-pasted from another website. --Pathogen (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't. I wrote it. Before you accuse fellow Wikipedians of plagiarism, do some research.—DCGeist (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: History and Theory of New Media[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): John ricciardelli Jr. (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by John ricciardelli Jr. (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Existence?[edit]

I'm a bit confused about this entire article. As others have said, it does not read remotely as an encyclopedic text-- it's almost pure essay (and it seems like it's never been very thoroughly edited.) I'm not sure if there's a way to fix this, either-- the topic is essentially just a passion project from the original contributor. I feel like the majority of text here, if the article is kept, needs to fall within the scope of what would be appropriate on the B movie page itself. Fleshy8 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]