Talk:B movie

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia) 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:

• 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.

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,

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:

• 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 {{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.

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) 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)