<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Tongue in cheek bad… or just bad?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Megaforce</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>Balibari</strong> — <em>9 years ago(April 04, 2016 04:21 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I'm doing some prep for a possible book on 'so bad they're good' movies and am trying to come up with a system to categorise these things, I've found this covers most:<br />
'No budget, no talent, no idea' (Samurai Cop, Miami Connection etc.)<br />
'B-movies gone wrong' (Gymkata, Death Wish 3 etc.)<br />
'Studio catastrophes' (Battlefield Earth, Howard the Duck etc.)<br />
But I'm thinking a 'self-aware' category might be a good idea, somewhere to put stuff like Flash Gordon and Buckaroo Banzai. Although they draw on bad movie themes they do it ironically and/or with self awareness (and they're not actually bad movies). This category could cover anything from Ice Pirates to the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Movies that need to be in the conversation but don't fit normal so-bad-it's-good criteria.<br />
So is Megaforce a straight B movie or a self aware ironic movie? Is it meant to be taken seriously or is it winking at us?<br />
Any views would be much appreciated. And feel free to throw out any suggestions, either for criteria to define these things or any so-bad-it's-good movie you think is essential viewing (I'm ignoring pre-70's movies for now). They just have to be bad but, crucially, not excessively boring. I've come to the conclusion that boring is by far the worst thing a bad movie can be!</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/196415/tongue-in-cheek-bad-or-just-bad</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 08:33:58 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/196415.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:29:44 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Tongue in cheek bad… or just bad? on Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:29:47 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>Blue Wave</strong> — <em>2 years ago(August 03, 2023 06:47 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">You ask the question is it tongue in cheek bad, or just bad.  My answer is yes, it is bad tongue in cheek bad, and all the more funny for it; it is meant to be a bad movie that people love as it is not meant to be taken seriously.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1652025</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1652025</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:29:47 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Tongue in cheek bad… or just bad? on Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:29:46 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>RockGrey</strong> — <em>4 years ago(September 10, 2021 12:27 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">It is a self-aware ironic movie.  It is was made by people who clearly knew they were making a cheesy self-aware comedy.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1652024</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1652024</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:29:46 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Tongue in cheek bad… or just bad? on Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:29:45 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>loronamft</strong> — <em>9 years ago(September 09, 2016 08:16 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I was extremely young and recall it being a horrible film.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1652023</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1652023</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:29:45 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>