Talk:B movie: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:16, 17 January 2007 editGimmeBot (talk \| contribs)Bots75,273 editsm GimmeBot updating FAC template← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:38, 9 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,348,442 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Film}}, {{WikiProject United States}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(145 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Article history
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=FAC		\|action1=FAC
	\|action1date=20:17, 9 January 2007		\|action1date=20:17, 9 January 2007
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|action1result=promoted		\|action1result=promoted
	\|action1oldid=99601056		\|action1oldid=99601056
	\|currentstatus=FA
	}}
	{{verylong}}
	{{WikiProject Filmmaking\|class=FA}}
	{{Maintained\|{{User4\|DCGeist}}}}
	{{Film\|class=FA\|importance=High}}

			\|action2=FAR
	==Terminology question==
			\|action2date=08:44, 23 March 2007
	from article: "lower half" of a double feature
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/B movie/archive1
	*Does this refer to the writing on the marquee or maybe to projection order?--] 03:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
			\|action2result=kept
	**Usually, both. The b-movie was regularly shown last and billed last. --] 20:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
			\|action2oldid=116746775
	***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.—] 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

			\|currentstatus=FFA
	== Merge proposal ==
			\|maindate=August 14, 2010
	I disagree with the merge proposal. B-movies are different enough from exploitation films that merging is not warranted. ] 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
			\|action3 = FAR

			\|action3date = 2021-07-05
	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 ] or other articles. ] 08:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
			\|action3link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/B movie/archive2

			\|action3result = demoted
	: I've just removed another request to merge this article with ], based on the lack of support for such a merger both here and at ], 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. ~ ] ] 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
			\|action3oldid = 1031827031

			}}
	==Neutrality discussion==
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	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). --] 22:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Film\|Filmmaking-task-force=yes\|American-task-force=yes}}

			{{WikiProject United States \|importance=Low \|USfilm=yes}}
	== Jennifer Aniston ==
			}}
	Sure about Jennifer Aniston starring in B-Movies? ] 20:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
			{{archives\|banner=yes}}

	: 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 '']'', and that was a Trimark picture. Therefore, I've removed her name from the AIP stable list. ~ ] ] 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Hello to hollywood ==
	Does Roger Corman really not capitalize Hollywood in the title of his book? ] 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. --] 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

	== References still needed ==
	We still need references for the copious amount of information in this article that ] 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. ~ ] ] 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?

	: 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.
	:: What about those SF movies the Sci-Fi Channel produces -- like ''Mansquito'', for example -- wouldn't they be considered B-movies?

	: Aren't DTV movies another modern equivelant of the B movie? Shouldn't there be a note about this in the article? ] 11:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Salt of the Earth? ==
	Could ] be considered a notable B-movie? -] 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. --] 00:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
	::Oops, that should have been "John Agar". --] 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. --] 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
	::Not exactly an expert on early B-movies, but ] surely qualifies, so I added him. ] 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:
	<ref></ref> --] 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

	== ~~"Hail~~ to ~~King,~~ ~~Baby!"~~ ==		==Genre movie not the same as B movie==
			I find it strange and wrong that Genre movie gets redirected to B movie, as if they are one and the same thing.--] (]) 03:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

			I agree, my perception was always that "B movies" are cheap &/or cheesy exploitation films. While exploitation films are genre films, not all genre films are exploitation films. --] (]) 03:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
	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".

			:I think we should avoid using our impressions and perceptions and get to objective, concise information. This entire article is all over the place and very imprecise.--Davmpls 01:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Move to ''B movie'' ==

			It seems a few years have passed without this issue being addressed. I came here following a link to Genre Movies and this isn't what I expected at all - B Movies ARE completely different. ] is a genre movie, ] is a genre movie - would you have me believe they are B Movies too? There's a page for Genre Fiction; why isn't there a page for Genre Movie? ] (]) 12:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
	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.—] 07:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

			Who else is reading this in 2020 because they came here to complain about the redirect from Genre film?
	==]==
			Seriously, can we somehow queue writing the article "Genre film" into a to-do list for writers? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Seeing as this falls well into the ] category, I was wondering if a better mention of these films. ] 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

			== More glamorous brother needs a home ==
	:They're appropriately acknowledged in the "C movie" section.—] 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
			] and ] redirect to unexpected places. It's tough to search for these phrases. Anybody have any suggestions for sources to create an article? ] (]) 22:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
			:I'm going to move this to ]. Any comments should go there. ] (]) 22:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

	== ~~What~~ ~~the!?~~ ==		==Merger with Low-budget film==
			{{Discussion top\|Discussion at ]}}
			I suggest the ] article should have information merged with the B-movie article. The subjects seem almost the same. However, some sections of the Low-budget film article fit better fit in the ] article. However, the Z-movie article is a merit of enough importance and long enough I do not propose all three articles merge together. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			{{Discussion bottom}}

			== Merger proposal ==
	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. --] 05:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

			This article has the same topic as ]. I don't understand why we have two articles. There are links all through the body to the "main" article. ] (]) 20:12, 11 December 2014 (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.
			: I've publicized this discussion to ]. ] (]) 23:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
			:: Sorry, I changed my mind and removed the merge proposal. There's an overlap with actually five different main articles in the history section. I redid the sections so there are now only one of each "link to main article". I think it is ok now but this article is bloated. ] (]) 01:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

			== might i suggest that the references reprogrammed ==
	: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 added two last images, covered an additional, significant motivation for 1930s exhibitors to switch to double-billing, and 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."

			it is rather long so what i suggest is that it is hidden behind a button. it will make the article more managable.] (]) 16:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
	: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—] 06:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

			== How is it 'ambiguity on both sides of the definition'? ==
	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 Misplaced Pages. 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. --] 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
			In the introduction it currently states that "A B movie is a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not an arthouse film. In its post–Golden Age usage, there is ambiguity on both sides of the definition: on the one hand, many B movies display a high degree of craft and aesthetic ingenuity; on the other, the primary interest of many inexpensive exploitation films is prurient."

			The 'other side' should, I guess, be something that fulfils the definiens but is arguably NOT a B movie. But an inexpensive exploitation film is in my mind (and in the current characterisation given in Misplaced Pages) a paradigmatic example of a B movie. If 'both sides' should remain, a better example/description is needed. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::At this juncture, FA criteria is not what's relevant. The objective should be to make the article as useful to Misplaced Pages 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.

			== External links modified ==
	::The comparison to ] 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 Misplaced Pages (as has that of ], 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 ] and ]), 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::Jayzel is simply wrong when he writes, "the enormous amount of copyrighted pics is unacceptable." As we find under ], "There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Misplaced Pages has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Misplaced Pages 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.—] 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:::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." <P>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. --] 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020055922/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/roadshow.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/roadshow.php
			*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xiiQcggz?url=http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19740101%2FREVIEWS%2F401010319%2F1023 to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19740101%2FREVIEWS%2F401010319%2F1023

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::::P.S. Misplaced Pages 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. --] 03:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:::::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? :) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 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. --] 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. --] 05:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 23:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
	:::::::OK. Can we hope for a retraction of "duped" to follow?

			== External links modified ==
	:::::::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.

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:::::::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 Misplaced Pages'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 ], that will be a big help in allowing ''B movie'' to compress. When someone, someday writes a detailed article on ], 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 ] 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 ] fan who realizes his guy didn't even get mentioned in the article at its current exorbitant length...and the first ] fan...and the first ] fan...and the first ] fan...and the first ] fan...

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:::::::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 ]? If not 17 movies spanning 76 years, what is the magic number? In sum, the article is on secure ground.—] 06:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225201701/http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews11/primer.htm to http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews11/primer.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203004153/http://www.spectrumstrategy.com/Pages/GB/perspectives/Spectrum-The-Hollywood-movie-business.pdf to http://www.spectrumstrategy.com/Pages/GB/perspectives/Spectrum-The-Hollywood-movie-business.pdf
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=700004011

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::::::::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, --] 13:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:::::::::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.] 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 08:28, 13 July 2017 (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. ] 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

			== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
	:The Filmmaking banner doesn't have a parameter for importance, I've moved it to the Film banner. ] 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
			The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
			* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2020-06-23T00:10:06.673814 \| Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg -->
			Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 00:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
			== Featured article in need of review ==
			Another 2007 promotion that needs to be checked. There is one major issue right away with this article. It is way ]. Nearly every section of this article is bloated beyond belief and can be separated into other articles. In fact, ] ] ] ] ] articles, and these sections still feel the need to be long as if they don't have other articles to present the details in. Additionally, the lead has statements not in the body, such as "is a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not an arthouse film". The fact that the word search feature in my browser only found Karen Black, Bela Lugosi and other actor names only one time in the page (which was in the lead) should also tell you something. I will say, however, that a lot of the sources are from reliable print books, and at least there's no IMDb cite, and I haven't look too close on the prose to make comments on this, but we really need to check this article if it still meets FA standards. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:51, April 28, 2021 (UTC)</span>

Latest revision as of 23:38, 9 February 2024

B movie is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 14, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 9, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
March 23, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
July 5, 2021	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Filmmaking / American

	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
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Archives: 1

Genre movie not the same as B movie

I find it strange and wrong that Genre movie gets redirected to B movie, as if they are one and the same thing.--Tchoutoye (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, my perception was always that "B movies" are cheap &/or cheesy exploitation films. While exploitation films are genre films, not all genre films are exploitation films. --124.176.80.52 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should avoid using our impressions and perceptions and get to objective, concise information. This entire article is all over the place and very imprecise.--Davmpls 01:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

It seems a few years have passed without this issue being addressed. I came here following a link to Genre Movies and this isn't what I expected at all - B Movies ARE completely different. Star Wars is a genre movie, Red River (1948 film) is a genre movie - would you have me believe they are B Movies too? There's a page for Genre Fiction; why isn't there a page for Genre Movie? Bee-jay (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Who else is reading this in 2020 because they came here to complain about the redirect from Genre film? Seriously, can we somehow queue writing the article "Genre film" into a to-do list for writers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EC:974F:1CA3:3001:7824:8AF9:D114 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

More glamorous brother needs a home

A Movie and A Film redirect to unexpected places. It's tough to search for these phrases. Anybody have any suggestions for sources to create an article? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film. Any comments should go there. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger with Low-budget film

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion at Talk:Low-budget_film#Merger

I suggest the Low-budget film article should have information merged with the B-movie article. The subjects seem almost the same. However, some sections of the Low-budget film article fit better fit in the Z movie article. However, the Z-movie article is a merit of enough importance and long enough I do not propose all three articles merge together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

This article has the same topic as B movies (Hollywood Golden Age). I don't understand why we have two articles. There are links all through the body to the "main" article. Bhny (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've publicized this discussion to WT:FILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed my mind and removed the merge proposal. There's an overlap with actually five different main articles in the history section. I redid the sections so there are now only one of each "link to main article". I think it is ok now but this article is bloated. Bhny (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

might i suggest that the references reprogrammed

it is rather long so what i suggest is that it is hidden behind a button. it will make the article more managable.84.213.46.153 (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

How is it 'ambiguity on both sides of the definition'?

In the introduction it currently states that "A B movie is a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not an arthouse film. In its post–Golden Age usage, there is ambiguity on both sides of the definition: on the one hand, many B movies display a high degree of craft and aesthetic ingenuity; on the other, the primary interest of many inexpensive exploitation films is prurient."

The 'other side' should, I guess, be something that fulfils the definiens but is arguably NOT a B movie. But an inexpensive exploitation film is in my mind (and in the current characterisation given in Misplaced Pages) a paradigmatic example of a B movie. If 'both sides' should remain, a better example/description is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knyckis (talk • contribs) 14:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on B movie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Featured article in need of review

Another 2007 promotion that needs to be checked. There is one major issue right away with this article. It is way WP:TOOBIG. Nearly every section of this article is bloated beyond belief and can be separated into other articles. In fact, some already have their own articles, and these sections still feel the need to be long as if they don't have other articles to present the details in. Additionally, the lead has statements not in the body, such as "is a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not an arthouse film". The fact that the word search feature in my browser only found Karen Black, Bela Lugosi and other actor names only one time in the page (which was in the lead) should also tell you something. I will say, however, that a lot of the sources are from reliable print books, and at least there's no IMDb cite, and I haven't look too close on the prose to make comments on this, but we really need to check this article if it still meets FA standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanxAnthro (talk • contribs) 13:51, April 28, 2021 (UTC)

Categories: