Talk:B movie/Archive 1

Terminology question
from article: "lower half" of a double feature
 * Does this refer to the writing on the marquee or maybe to projection order?--Pharos 03:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Usually, both. The b-movie was regularly shown last and billed last. --b. Touch 20:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Just so we don't start off this discusion page with an uncorrected error: that's an error. The B movie was shown before the main event--that is, the A film--just as you'd expect at a rock concert with opening acts, a boxing or wrestling event with bouts ascending in importance as the evening goes on, and so forth.—DCGeist 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My impression (despite having had
 * the less-publicized, bottom (i.e., less important and thus second) half of a double feature
 * ready to save in the edit pane) is that DCG is probably right. But we need it said at the first mention (2nd sent of 1st 'graph (in the lead section) and need a reliable ref for that specific fact. I've fact-tagged it in the "Roots of the B movie: 1920s" section. (And likewise in Double feature.) The Balio (1995)/Schatz (1999) ref (abt which see also ) appears to document a single sentence (or even only the 2nd clause of that compound sent); clearly it is not intended to verify the 2 sent's that follow it, and the three sent's preceding it in the 'graph would probably more logically be a separate 'graph: one on the presentation format, and one on the benefits to producers and exhibitors. If one or both of those two works really verify the 3 sent's that precede the one their footnote clearly does apply to, it or they need to be cited more than once -- in the same fashion as the ref cited in both "Decline of the B (2): 1990s" and its following section. (BTW, i am likely to completely refactor the footnotes w/o waiting for comment, if my impression is correct, that there is no support -- other than in very special circumstances -- in MoS for separate footnote numbers, w/in an article, for the same source passage.) I recall a teaser (for a potential film lecture that may never have taken place) about the evolution of the typical length of films. I'd expect the overlap between sources on that, and for the details of the double feature to show overlap. --Jerzy•t 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing that might emerge from specific sources on this would be support for some vague memories of mine, probably from the 1950s, probably on weekends, suggesting two or, AFAIK, perhaps more double-feature sequences (and i can't rule out, say, even 2½ or 3½ consecutive runnings of the same double-feature sequence), with intermissions that left the customer with a minority schedule-pattern the option of seeing the double feature "in the wrong order". --Jerzy•t 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I disagree with the merge proposal. B-movies are different enough from exploitation films that merging is not warranted. Anthopos 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree -- far better to see some revisions that emphasize the original meaning of the term, perhaps expand the information on the studios' B-units and on other B-creators, and trim material more appropriate for exploitation film or other articles. Robertissimo 08:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just removed another request to merge this article with Exploitation film, based on the lack of support for such a merger both here and at Talk:Exploitation film, which has a concise but thorough description of the distinctions. I would ask editors in favor of this merge not to re-add the merge tag unless they are willing to discuss it here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality discussion
I don't think that the neutrality of the article should be called in question: B-movie is a term for a film with a lower quality, budget, and/or list of stars than A-list pictures. The article might need a clean-up to differentiate it from, say, "art house" films (those that have a smaller budget but higher quality productions and acting, like the Merchant-Ivory films). --Dynayellow 22:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston
Sure about Jennifer Aniston starring in B-Movies? 87.123.82.139 20:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was curious about this myself. The paragraph she was mentioned in implies that she was in an American International Pictures film, but IMDb shows no such film. The only arguable B-movie she was in (though I wouldn't agree) was Leprechaun, and that was a Trimark picture. Therefore, I've removed her name from the AIP stable list. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello to hollywood
Does Roger Corman really not capitalize Hollywood in the title of his book? Rick Norwood 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Corman does capitalize Hollywood in the title of his book. I changed the title to the way it is supossed to be capitalized. --KVox 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

References still needed
We still need references for the copious amount of information in this article that User:Judgesurreal777 requested quite a few weeks ago. While editing the new section on "psychotronic movies", I decided to get the ball rolling by scaring up one quote, properly citing its reference, and tagging the other info in that section with specific requests for citations, on the theory that the user who just added this information may have those citations at their fingertips. But a general effort on the whole article by all its readers and editors would be greatly appreciated. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

TV and DTV movies
Aren't many TV movies considered similar to B-movies in that they are on a shoestring budget and use lower grade actors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PabsP (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2003
 * TV movies are generally considered soap-operatic; these days they rarely have shoestring budgets and instead were probably made to go straight-to-video but were sold to a TV station instead. Also the actors in them are not so much nobodies as formerly famous people who have fallen from their fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.134.146 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2003
 * What about those SF movies the Sci-Fi Channel produces -- like Mansquito, for example -- wouldn't they be considered B-movies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPWinter (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2006 (as a separate part of an edit that was signed in another section)
 * Aren't DTV movies another modern equivelant of the B movie? Shouldn't there be a note about this in the article? Ace of Sevens 11:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Salt of the Earth?
Could Salt of the Earth be considered a notable B-movie? -MBlume 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Curious about the "Selected B/C/Z actors" list
How was the selection done? It seems to me there are some actors that deserve to be on that list because they appeared in a number of B-movies. John Rait is an example. --ChrisWinter 00:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, that should have been "John Agar". --ChrisWinter 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, after looking at the list again I think I see: these are all younger actors: Valerie Bertinelli, Bruce Campbell, Steven Seagal, etc. The list definitely needs names from the earlier B-movies. --ChrisWinter 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not exactly an expert on early B-movies, but Ronald Reagan surely qualifies, so I added him. Ace of Sevens 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Repointing Reference 4
This reference, for "David Payne: Do Fear the Reeker", used to point at the Google cache of that page. I repointed it to the live site. But, since I assume there's some reason the cache was referenced, here is the old link: --ChrisWinter 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hail to King, Baby!"
Really suprised to not see Bruce Campbell referenced in this article. Especially considering his book "If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B Movie Actor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsWhatItIsIsThat (talk • contribs) 13:48, 16 November 2006
 * He is now, but there's no mention of the ultimate B-movie: Army of Darkness. Vranak 00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bruce campbell is like the mic jagger of B-movies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.145.27 (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Move to B movie
Setting out to resolve stylistic discrepancies in the article, I checked the latest editions of the two standard dictionaries of American English—Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary—as well as the New York Times. All three give B movie (or B picture), unhyphenated, as the proper spelling of the noun.—DCGeist 07:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thoro job -- no easy task, since you were careful in action to distinguish what you didn't in that description: cases like "concentrated almost exclusively on B-movie production" follow the grammatical rule, not the usage when the phrase is used in the grammatical role of an adjective modifying a following noun. Hopefully this acknowledgment will keep others from doing the checking i just did. [smile] --Jerzy•t 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sci Fi Pictures original films
Seeing as this falls well into the B movie category, I was wondering if a better mention of these films. DrWho42 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They're appropriately acknowledged in the "C movie" section.—DCGeist 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What the!?
This is not the article I supported for featured status. What the heck happened? It is three times the size it was when it was first nominated not two weeks ago. I would not have voted to support it in the state its now in. I feel duped. --Jayzel 05:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Duped?" By whom? In what manner? The article was nominated by Andman8 on December 22. At that point I had been the primary contributor to the article for the preceding two or three months. Once I realized it was nominated, I soon began working on it intensively to (a) respond to the comments raised in the FAC and to (b) raise it to the comprehensiveness necessary for FA status. That extensive work was ongoing when you supported the article for FA-hood on December 27. Further work was all done in the same spirit as the work happening then: broadening coverage, bringing in more hard data, making descriptions more precise, adding better sourcing, tying historical periods together, giving more detail on Poverty Row studios, giving more detail on relevant promotional and exhibition practices, discussing all crucial persons, adding helpful and informative images, etc.


 * Is it really helpful to talk about being "duped"? Who "duped" you? Andman8? Me? How exactly were you deceived? You registered your support on 15:57, 27 December 2006. Compare the article then with its state less than 24 hours before ; look at the history and see the rate at which I was working at the point when you registered support. The article remained under FAC for two weeks after you registered support; when it was deemed by the administrator that consensus for FA status existed, the article was essentially in its current state. (After status was awarded, I [a] added two last images, [b] covered an additional, significant motivation for 1930s exhibitors to switch to double-billing, and [c] in fact, eliminated some old information that was weakly sourced and only trivially relevant.) You had all that time to weigh in again. It's difficult to understand how you could feel "duped."


 * If you have constructive criticisms, I'd love to hear them. It is a long article, but it's a very complex topic--covering a wide range of industrial practices and products; intricate relationships between art, commerce, politics, and broader cultural movements; a host of significant people in different occupations; major shifts in the entire field from decade to decade; and major complications in the basic meaning of the term and its various synonyms. You seem to feel that it is too long. How so? What, if any, places in the article do you think provide unhelpful and counterproductive detail? Best, Dan—DCGeist 06:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As the article stands now, it is clearly in violation of FA criteria 1) (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; 4) It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). It fact, not only is it overly large, it is now one of the longest articles in all of Wikipedia. At 127 kilobytes in length, it is almost as long as the article on World War II(!) and longer than the article on World War I. Additionally, the enormous amount of copyrighted pics is unacceptable. As soon as the 30-day waiting period has ended, I will be submitting this article to FA review. --Jayzel 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At this juncture, FA criteria is not what's relevant. The objective should be to make the article as useful to Wikipedia readers as is possible. To point out that it is "not stable" at this point is both incorrect (it has never been the subject of edit wars and it clearly has stopped changing--the one single change in the 46 hours before Jayzel called it "unstable" was the addition of the FA star) and confounding (in order to alter the article to Jayzel's liking, it would obviously have to become unstable). As for length, the question has already been asked: What, if any, places in the article do you think provide unhelpful and counterproductive detail? In other words, What would you cut? Jayzel chose not to answer that question, which might have led to an improvement in the article. Strange priorities.


 * The comparison to World War II does seem shocking on the face of it. B movie thinks it's as important as World War II!?! Of course not. The comparison is insensible. World War II has the benefit of being able to link to 171 main articles on central topics, facilitating a summary approach throughout and massive compression. Again: 171 main article links. If anyone can think of an applicable main article link that would facilitate compression of the material in B movie, let me know. The point is that the material surveyed by World War II has been covered in vastly more detail on Wikipedia (as has that of World War I, a mere 21 main article connections) than the material in B movie. In cases where there is detailed coverage of important B-movie-related topics elsewhere (as with midnight movie and drive-in theater), the article goes into summary mode. There is also broad historigraphical consensus on the relative significance of many of the multifarious elements of the world wars, which further facilitates the condensing of material. In all of American film history, there has been one single, serious book-length survey of the entire field of B movies: Charles McCarthy and Todd Flynn's Kings of the Bs, which itself is not a through-written history, but mostly an anthology of earlier criticism. Kings of the Bs came out in 1975, more than three decades ago. The present Wikipedia article is arguably the first detailed, well-referenced history of the B movie from the 1920s to the present day. Please help me identify its appropriate length.


 * Jayzel is simply wrong when he writes, "the enormous amount of copyrighted pics is unacceptable." As we find under Fair use, "There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis." The movie posters, one videotape cover, and one promo photo used in the article are all in those categories. There is no amount of total images that is "unacceptable" for a given article. No individual film is represented by more than a single image in B movie. All images have been used in good faith and individual fair use rationales provided for each.—DCGeist 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And in all that fancy shmancy hot air, the only sentence you wrote that says anything of note is: "At this juncture, FA criteria is not what's relevant." Featured articles do not keep their little brown stars permanantly. They hold them so long as they continue to uphold FA criteria. This article at this length does not. --Jayzel 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Wikipedia Fair Use rule 3) states "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." As it stands, this article currently contains 17 copyrighted images. --Jayzel 03:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Which portions of this article do you think could or should be moved to another article? A section which would offer better coverage elsewhere can certainly be moved, with a "main article at..." message. I agree this article is very long, and wonder why there was no objection to this during the lengthy FAC process. Also, let's refrain from making comments like "fancy schmancy hot air"; they don't help the discussion, right? :) Firsfron of Ronchester  04:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just flabbergasted. I retract the comment. :) The problem here is that the article was tripled in size after all but one person gave their support and near the end of the article's FAC. --Jayzel 05:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As for what portions to move, I don't know right now. There is so much to read (it prints out to something like 25 pages) I won't have the time to thoroughly look it over until Saturday evening. --Jayzel 05:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Can we hope for a retraction of "duped" to follow?


 * Point of fact: It is wildly incorrect to claim that "the article was tripled in size after all but one person gave their support". Quadzilla99 gave his support on 07:23, January 3; igordebraga on 21:29, January 3; and Anthonycfc on 01:39, January 7. From the point that Quadzilla99 gave his support to the administrator's determination that consensus had been reached on 16:29, January 9, the article did not even double in size (see ). It was 77 KB when Quadzilla99 supported, bigger when igordebraga supported, bigger when Anthonycfc supported, and 125 KB when it was judged an FA. (And, of course, much of the increase in the final days was not text, but images.) That's a far cry from Jayzel's claim. Nonetheless, the article is, indeed, very long.


 * I imagine there was no objection to the length of the article during its FAC because (a) it arguably didn't get into "very long" territory until the final week of the process and the last three voters weighed in and (b) those reviewers (as well as some earlier ones) recognized, as I attempted to discuss with Jayzel, both (i) the unusual scope of this article vis-à-vis the existing literature and (ii) the fact that, at this point in Wikipedia's development, there simply don't exist the other detailed articles on cinematic topics that would allow this one to go regularly into summary mode. For example, when someone, someday writes a detailed article on History of U.S. film exhibition, that will be a big help in allowing B movie to compress. When someone, someday writes a detailed article on Series movies, that will also help. Et cet. Instead of blankly applying policy, think about the specific content: One could easily and justifiably write a substantial paragraph or more about the impact of Italian giallo on American B filmmaking, marketing, and exhibition. The topic is summarily dealt with in an image caption. I sure hope everyone sticks around to deal with the first Dario Argento fan who realizes his guy didn't even get mentioned in the article at its current exorbitant length...and the first Herk Harvey fan...and the first William Beaudine fan...and the first Peter Lorre fan...and the first Brigitte Nielsen fan...


 * P.S. On the crucial matter of fair use: The proviso that "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible" is clearly relative to the subject matter. This article covers eight decades' worth of commercially produced movies. What noncopyrighted matter might possibly be substituted for the current images? On what basis is 17 images, each of them of uniquely represented films, from 14 different corporate entities (there are two from AIP; one each from defunct Monogram and heir Allied Artists; one each from defunct Mascot and heir Republic), all with fully articulated fair use rationales, "unacceptable" given the subject matter and Wikipedia's non-profit educational mission? If not 17 movies spanning 76 years, what is the magic number? In sum, the article is on secure ground.—DCGeist 06:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * DC, I don't know why you are hung up on my "duped" comment. I'm sorry you are offended by the word, but it describes exactly how I feel. You have recently stated you expanded the article because you felt it wasn't complete. It would have been helpful if you had mentioned that during the article's FAC. As the main editor of the article you should have announced your opposition to it being given FA status if you knew very well you had planned to make a complete revision and massive expansion of the article. Additionally, it would have been a good idea to bring these radical changes to the article to the attention of those of us who had supported the article at our talk pages. It is because of these reasons I feel I was duped. I was totally shocked when I came back to this article. As for my statement the article was tripled in size, I will clarify myself. It was tripled in size from the time I gave the article my support. As for what to do with the article itself, we will discuss this at FAR. It appears many others agree with my opinion the article has issues to be resolved. I will thoroughly read the article tonight and give my ideas what to do with the article sometime in the next couple days. Regards, --Jayzel 13:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, I just came here to put a maintained by tag on the talk page as I remembered how much work DCGeist had done with this article, however I have to say that I also feel the article is too long now and unfortunately would have to withdraw my support if asked to re-vote today. Try to find ways to split off the article into other articles, if at all possible. I feel very sorry to say it becomes boring after a certain point, I honestly don't feel the average reader would want to read this much about the history of the B Movie. Maybe I'm wrong. My advice would be to let it stay the way it is now and see how the review goes and then based on the consensus of other Wikipedians we will then know better what course of action to take. They may deem it's current length fine so perhaps DC will be justified in making his additions.Quadzilla99 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Importance rating
When you click to edit it you can see it's rated as high on the importance scale however it doesn't show and says unassessed. Quadzilla99 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Filmmaking banner doesn't have a parameter for importance, I've moved it to the Film banner. Doctor Sunshine 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion on how to split
I think everything can stay, but the sections 1.2 "B's in the Golden Age of Hollywood (1): 1930s" and 1.3 "B's in the Golden Age of Hollywood (2): 1940s" should instead be heavily summarized and link (with a "main article" tag) to a new article B movies in the Golden Age of Hollywood, where the full text can be reproduced. then, the sections 1.5 "The golden age of exploitation (1): 1960s" and "1.6 The golden age of exploitation (2): 1970s" can instead be heavily summarized and link (with a "main article" tag) to a new article B movies in the golden age of exploitation where the full text can be reproduced.

this will not only bring the article length down to normal length, it will create two new featured articles, and in one stroke reduce the number of fair use images.

if you can summarize those sections enough, you dont need to remove anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.237.186 (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Actually, that which is split off from the main page does not automatically become a featured article.--Rmky87 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite right. And this one will definitely be reviewed as well. My current plan is to create four new articles: B movies (Hollywood Golden Age), B movies (Transition in the 1950s), B movies (The exploitation boom), and B movies (1980s to the present).—DCGeist 23:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it! You don't have to wait for the FAR- it'll be reviewed anyway- and the longer the verylong tag is there the worse. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Blood simple
For one, the film is not mentioned in the article (fortunately), for another this film is like a fly in the milk here. A mention in the article that this film although low-budget went beyond B-movie standards would be by far more precise. Can't a more representative B-movie image be given in its place? People that haven't seen the film might get a very wrong impression from the image's description. Hoverfish Talk 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * B movie doesn't equal bad. It just means it was made on the cheap. There's tons of great B movies like Blood Simple. Doctor Sunshine  talk  02:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflict in External Links
I noticed the BadMovies.org external link had been removed on 8 April, reinserted and re-removed. The second removal includes the comment "clearly personal website; evidence suggest's Irishguy's identification as linkspam is correct; reinserter associated with obvious vandalism." Though I have not done any of the edits under consideration, I would like clarification about why badmovies.org is unacceptable to the community but bmoviecentral.com, jabootu.net and stomptokyo.com are. All four sites are informative, provide reviews and a base for the bad and cult movie communities. It seems to me that badmovies.org is for some reason being singled out. Ulthar 21:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, this is not the most clear-cut of calls. I don't know what originally drew editor Irishguy's attention to this site, but I do give his perception weight over that of an anonymous user who committed obvious vandalism on another article within 20 minutes of restoring the link (see this article's edit history, and then that IP address's contributions). From my own reading, Badmovies.org, while fun and informative, is self-admittedly an individual fansite with self-admittedly low-quality writing (see here). While a case could be made against the inclusion of any of the three sites you mention, a stronger case is easily made against Badmovies.org.—DCGeist 21:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I should chime in, as I am Andrew, from Badmovies.org. The reinsertion of Badmovies.org was mine and that is my sole contribution to Wikipedia. The IP address you are identifying as a vandal must be the main USMC firewall. You will probably see a huge number of access and edits coming from it or other IPs close to it. To be clear, the only action I took was to reinsert Badmovies.org. I have never added any other information to Wikipedia in any way or shape. Later, having had some time to do research on how Wikipedia operates, I went back in to remove the link (having found the bit on conflict of interest), but it was already removed. My bit of humor in the FAQ is intended to keep in tone with the rest of the site. Perhaps reading a few of the articles would be best to appraise the quality of writing. I am also interested in the standard for linking to external sites. Andrew Borntreger.


 * Thanks, Andrew. Just to be clear, I think a lot of your writing on the site is quite enjoyable, and of a quality comparable to that on similar sites. As you say, your humorous FAQ (and identification on the homepage of the site as a personal one) is totally in keeping with the site's tone--it does, however, make it easier for Wikipedians to identify the site as not meeting the standard. The standard...oy...what is the standard. Your site would seem to fall short of clause 13 in Links normally to be avoided in Wikipedia's links policy: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." However, I see a way to address this: you do include objectively informative interviews with a number of industry professionals. I'll include a link to Badmovies' Interviews portal. Best, Dan—DCGeist 22:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "The standard....oy." Yes, that does seem to be central to issue.  I cannot speak for Andrew, but my guess is that his use of the phrase "personal web site" was to distinguish from a purely commercial, for-profit site.  Is that meaning of the usage of "personal" in the policy?  Good to settle it now, for this page at least, since it may arise again in the future for other sites.  John---  Ulthar 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The External links guideline statement (not technically "policy"—I misstated), as indicated above, links directly to the Wikipedia definition of personal web page: "World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature. The content can be about that person or about something he or she is interested in." Badmovies.org is clearly a "personal web page" under that definition. Among the standard exceptions to the "no personal web pages" guideline are (a) if the site is evidently (i.e., objective evidence shows that it is) the leading fansite in its field or (b) if it contains unique, informative, professionally derived content (as Badmovies' interviews do).—DCGeist 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Query
I am trying to edit the first few paragraphs of this page. At first I was successful, but now, I just get taken to an "archived version" of the page instead of the most recent version. Why is this happening? AlbertSM 18:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you edit extensively, it is helpful to explain your edits on the discussion page.--Davmpls 06:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

An objection (1)
This (1) and (2) thing needs to go. Its completely unprofessional. Please either combine the sections so there are sections about 2 decades or find new titles. Atropos 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No. About twenty-five reviewers in FAC, FAR, and FARC passed on those section titles without a single objection. Suggestion: In the future, when issuing a proclamation such as "Its completely unprofessional," you will avoid unintentional humor if you remember how to spell "it's."—DCGeist 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the rating, the subject has been opened for discussion.--Davmpls 06:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was actually confused as to why the (1) was even there. Why can't we just remove the (1) and (2)? after all it still says the year. Hintswen   Talk |  Contribs 02:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Done.—DCGeist (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What is this page really about?
Is this article a history of 'B' movies (a term it never really defines), or a history of exploitation films (which feature greatly through the latter half of the article)? It is lengthy, confusing, and none to clear as to exactly what it covers. The article needs serious and significant work to tighten it's focus and to move extraneous material out of it and into more appropriate pages. 24.16.177.215 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, the article "really defines" B movie in the very first paragraph. The fact that the definition of B movie has shifted over time is probably the source of your consternation, but the article is in fact quite clear about what it covers: B movies as they were defined during the Golden Age of Hollywood and B movies as they have come to be defined since then. Thus the title of the article: B movie.—DCGeist (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose that we stick to the objective dictionary definition of B movies and put the rest of this article in the appropriate places. I think it's fine to note the used of the term in general parlance, but general parlance does not change the definition of the term.--Davmpls 01:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

B-actor
The tiny stub b-actor should be merged into this much longer article. It doesn't seem like the term is possible without B movies. Thoughts?--TM 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Direct-to-video
I added something about Direct-to-video to this article, but obviously the self-appointed "authorities" decided that it should be taken out. This is what I just "love" about Wikipedia. This whole article, really, is arbitrary and an opinion piece and if Wikipedia were a normal scholarly publication, it wouldn't be included. But it isn't and so such opinion pieces are included and that's a good thing because I, like many of you, enjoy pop culture, but they shouldn't be treated like holy scripture. And it also means you have people who think they are some kind of Phd in pop culture and if "they" don't think something should be included, it isn't. Let me state my case. Roger Corman is, indisputably, a pioneer of the "B movie" who now largely releases his movies direct-to-video. THAT'S why I think this subject should included here. Of course the authority gods at wikipedia don't agree. I try to help here whenever I can, and I'd like to think my edits have been helpful and accurate. But I don't have time to fight these arbitrary authorites who are experts on what ultimatley are arbitrary opinion pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.156.116 (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So the whole article—which is rated a Featured Article and passed a Featured Article Review—is just "arbitrary opinion"...but your inclusion of a stubby section that makes no sense in the context of the article's structure and formatting, concerning a topic that's already mentioned in the article—that's not "arbitrary"? Gotcha.—DCGeist (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care what the rating is. Ratings don't change the fact that this article is all over the place and is very imprecise.  It seems like people are throwing their unattributed subjective impressions in at random with no serious respect for film history or the definitions of terms.  I shall remedy that as best I can.  Extensive cutting will be required.--Davmpls 01:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)


 * No, it shan't. I'll be reverting you as required unless you build consensus for your desired changes here in Talk. Speaking of which, why don't you start getting precise about what it is you think should be done. Because frankly, your complaints are both entirely contentless and all over the place—quite a trick.—DCGeist (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's clean up your lousy, snotty attitude while we're at it, shall we? I've been totally concise in all of my edits.  Please read the notes.  It's fine if you'd like to see a consensus, but I don't take orders from you. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but your feelings really are not the issue here.  A consensus will not resolve the schism between the content of this article and the concise and limited way this term is used in the industry and in film criticism.  There is too much speculation and assumption and not enough verifiability.  Let's focus on what's best for Wikipedia on not on what's best for you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs) 06:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Taves's name
Someone may say
 * Gosh, if his name really is "Brain", a lot of people would change it to "Brian" without checking.

True enuf. But surely his publisher got it right on the cover of his book, whose facsimile is low-res but utterly inconsistent with "Brain". --Jerzy•t 19:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraphs
There is too much original research and a lack of citations in this section. My attempts to remedy this were deleted. The definition of a B movie is not a subjective matter and we should be looking for concise definitions consistent with the term's use in the industry and in film criticism. I realize the "B movie" has evolved - perhaps as a misnomer - beyond its original industrial definition, but this needs to be delineated. --Davmpls 06:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)


 * Please familiarize yourself with our guidelines. In general, there is little need for citations in the lede (WP:LEAD). In particular, the lede comes under close scrutiny in FAC and FAR, and you appear to be alone in believing there is anything controversial in its current content, whose concise definitions are indeed in accord with the term's use in the industry and in film criticism. In addition, a couple of the websites you wanted to cite that rely on nonprofessional contributors, such as IMDb, are not considered reliable (Reliable sources).—DCGeist (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Split this article
This article is extremely long and goes off topic. I propose that one article deal with the concise concept of "B movie" as the industry understood it (historical) along with a brief section on how the term continues to be used. There's an awful lot of stuff about exploitation films that belong in a different article. There is also an awful lot of detail on film series and on changes in the industry that really warrant separate articles.--Davmpls 06:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

I oppose the proposal. All that "stuff about exploitation films" is intimately connected both with older bottom-of-the-bill movies and the current nature and status of low-budget commercial motion pictures. There are no clean breaks in this history.—DCGeist (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Psychotronic movie
Can we get some documentation and consensus that "Psychotronic" warrants mention as a legitimate cinema term outside the branding of a particular book and its author?--Davmpls 06:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)


 * The citation at the end of the section references two essays by outside scholars that use the term. Here's a usage from last year by widely published film critic Michael Atkinson: .—DCGeist (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

POV
As noted elsewhere, this article needs attention to resolve original research and neutrality. The general approach and organization of this article should be discussed.--Davmpls 06:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)


 * You can start by providing a couple specific examples of where you believe the article violates neutrality, as you have placed a tag atop the article raising this serious issue. "Neutrality", of course, has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia, summarized thus: "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Where, exactly, do you find significant views treated unfairly, disproportionately, or with bias?—DCGeist (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please watch your tone. Thanks.  I think the entire article needs discussion because it is too long, too detailed and comes across like a monograph or a book.--Davmpls 04:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

On "recently"
A well-intentioned editor mistakenly believes that the word recently may be used only in reference to right now. This is absolutely false. Here's a page from a major 2004 biography of Thomas Jefferson that shows an example of its proper use in the context of a discussion of past events:. It would be easy to provide a thousand other high-quality examples if one had but world enough and time. Simply put—there is no problem at all using recently with some moment in the past as a reference point.—DCGeist (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally revised the language to specify the actual timeframe specified in the source. I think it's better this way anyway, and we now avoid the word "recently" (which I agree a common reader may find clumsy) and attempts to replace it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) First, let me say that I quite enjoyed the article and see you are its principal writer—good work. We were both trying to improve the article, if we disagree over this issue. I have posted at Reference desk/Language, in I believe very neutral terms, such that I don't think someone reading the question there can make out which way I am leaning on the issue. Let's see what others have to say. It hurts my writer's ear, but I'll live if opinion is against me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice job Burpelson. I actually looked at the two sources cited after the offending sentence to see if I could winnow out the specifics to change it in that fashion, but did not find the material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * DocKino's edit seems to improve further on mine . Nice job, all. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Intro
The intro contrasts B movies with "arthouse" films. I think rather than "arthouse" it would be better to use "prestige picture" or a similar term for the kind of classy, big budget production of the studio era that the B movie is actually related to (the idea that B movies have anything to do with pornography is ludicrous so I have no idea why that's even in the intro.) It's VERY important to point out that many B-grade films from the studio era were the kinds of films that actually prompted many so called "arthouse" filmmakers to start making films. JonasEB (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to see someone raise these points. If it can lead to a further refinement of the definition, I'd be pleased. Here's my initial response:
 * Once we define a B movie as a "low-budget commercial motion picture", there's no need in its basic definition to further differentiate it from a studio "prestige picture" or anything of the sort, because—as you suggest yourself—they are almost invariably the products of budgets far from "low".
 * Once we define a B movie as a "low-budget commercial motion picture", we do need to differentiate it from pornography. Why? Because virtually all pornographic movies are...low-budget commercial motion pictures.
 * I believe the lede does make clear that B movies are most certainly capable of possessing artistic value. The first paragraph states: "many B movies display a high degree of craft and aesthetic ingenuity". The direct links and crossovers between genre and arthouse filmmaking are explored at several points in the main text.—DCGeist (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Another thought: Before the mid- to late 1980s, we could have written, "A B movie is a low-budget commercial motion picture intended for general theatrical distribution". That would nicely have taken care of the distinction from both arthouse pictures and porn without requiring the mention of either. Given the drastic changes in distribution modes over the past-quarter century that's no longer possible. For example, many of today's B movies go straight to cable and video in a manner almost exactly like that of porn.—DCGeist (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One more thing. I don't want to sound disrespectful, but your statement that "the idea that B movies have anything to do with pornography is ludicrous" is simply belied by the historical facts. May I suggest you read the entire article? Particularly the sections on the 1960s and 1970s, to familiarize yourself with Russ Meyer, sexploitation, and the grindhouse.—DCGeist (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I exaggerated a bit. I do understand that the earlier pornographic films could have some overlapping tendencies with some of the more outrageous B and exploitation movies but by the home video era I thought that the boundaries were more apparent as to what these things actually looked like. So I thought in a historical sense someone might read and learn about those links between the two in the article but I didn't think they would come to the page with the notion that a B movie and a porno were the same. No problem.

If I were to suggest any changes, I would recommend some mention of the directors who made up the French New Wave (Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut, Claude Chabrol, Jacques Rivette, and Eric Rohmer; particularly the first three men.) As critics for Cahiers du Cinema, they often wrote about B films and filmmakers (anything by Sam Fuller, Anthony Mann's early noirs, and Budd Boetticher's westerns for example.) Those films and filmmakers contributed to their conception of Auteur Theory (in these cases, the director's capacity to elevate and personalize elementary level material with cinematic technique.) Later as directors, they often referenced B crime and noir pictures in films like Shoot the Piano Player and Breathless (those early cinephilic qualities of their films decreased over time as they found their artistic voices.) These films later prompted the New American Cinema/New Hollywood, films like Bonnie & Clyde, which would soon enough be copied in Roger Corman productions like Boxcar Bertha.

To return to the idea of B movies, sexploitation, and pornography, I can't believe I forgot about Martin Scorsese's debut feature, Who's That Knocking at My Door (1968). It's in the tradition of John Cassavetes, Italian neo-realism, and the French New Wave. It's a personal drama, a proto-Mean Streets, but the distributors wanted Scorsese to add some sex to the film to help market it towards the seedier groups.

The opinion among many serious cinephiles is that the distinctions between "high and low" movies are artificial so I'm glad to see that those perceptions of B movies are addressed in the article. Unfortunately, I'm not prepared to proactively assist in working on the article, I don't have a lot of time and my activity here is mostly suggestive. A quick glance at the articles of the various subjects above looks like a dry well and would require me to track down some websites and dig through some books to get some good sources up. But I hope my comments are of some use. Thanks for the response! JonasEB (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

produçorial
I have added a Wiktionary page for producorial. Perhaps the person who added it to this article might like to add a pronunciation over there. I have a sinking feeling that the c is pronounced, rather than as spelling would suggest. jnestorius(talk) 14:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline of the B - 1990s duplicated
This section is duplicated in the article, with different information in both sections. This is unacceptable for any article, especially an "article of the Day." The two sections need to be merged. 142.162.33.177 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Shocking! But untrue. One section on the 1980s, one on the 1990s.—DCGeist (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right you are, sorry. I misread the subtitle and saw that they were sourced to the same article, so I jumped to a false conclusion. 142.162.33.177 (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Easy Rider
I'm not sure what the idea is of delaying the name Easy Rider almost to the end of the paragraph discussing it. Is it expected that readers will already know the name of "he most important exploitation movie of the era"; or is it expected that readers will interpret the preceding sentences as a teaser dropping hints; or is it intended as a crescendo building up to a climax; or something else? As I saidin my edit, I found it confusing: I stopped, reread, scanned back over the section, and scanned forward to the end of the paragraph before alighting on the name Easy Rider. No doubt many people found no problem, but I doubt my reaction was unusual. The rest of the section has established a pattern of naming a movie near the beginning of its discussion. The article as a whole is a good read, managing to use style and language appropriate for the theme without compromising on its encyclopedic qualities. But, respectfully, I think this one bit just doesn't work, and a plainer exposition is called for. jnestorius(talk) 08:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I can see your point. I do think it is valuable rhetorically and conceptually to open the paragraph with the strong, declarative first sentence as is. And yes, I was aiming for something like a "crescendo building up to a climax". But I have no problem bringing in the name at the top of the second sentence, as I've just done.—DCGeist (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. jnestorius(talk) 13:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Harry Carey
Before someone wants to fix this link per WildBot's suggestion at the top of this page, please see Talk:Harry Carey (actor born 1878). Cheers, theFace 15:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As no one seems to care, I've done what I think is best, see and . Link in the article is now fixed, and related WildBot template is removed. Cheers, theFace 14:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)