Unintentionally Stupid is Better Than Intentionally Stupid

A couple of months ago I watched Revenge of the Samurai Cop, which was a 2017 crowdfunded sequel to a 1991 movie that had become infamous as one of those "so bad it's funny" sort of movies featured on MST3K and Rifftrax and so forth.  The sequel, on the other hand, was just so bad it's really, really bad.  Really I think the director, writers, and performers were trying too hard to make it bad.  Because people liked the first one for being bad, so we should make this really, really bad, right?

The problem is, intentionally bad is not as good as unintentionally bad.  At least I assume the first Samurai Cop was unintentionally bad.  The lame plot, cheap sets, bad acting, dubbing that changed an actor's voice in the same scene, clearly substituted stunt performers, and logical gaffes like someone in a helicopter conversing with people on the ground who don't have radios could not have been intentional for anyone trying to make a decent movie.  I mean, come on, who would be that bad on purpose?

By contrast, I think the second they tried to make it bad because they thought that's what people wanted.  Exhibit A:  they hired Tommy Wiseau, the "star" of The Room and subject of The Disaster Artist.  And then they gave him these long soliloquies or they just let him make them up himself.  Either way it was pretty fucking awful.  Exhibit B:  they also hired Bai Ling, who's been in real Hollywood movies like The Crow and Red Corner or whatever with Richard Gere.  She's not a hack and yet she seemed to be in a competition with Wiseau about about who could chew more scenery.  It did not make sense.  The only other reason could be maybe she didn't read the script beforehand and was trying to get fired.  Exhibit C:  they kept bringing back the flamboyant gay waiter from the first movie.  He had a small part in the first movie but people thought it was funny, so they brought him back a couple of times in this one, but the shtick didn't really work.  I mean the first movie it was funny just how over-the-top flaming this guy acted.  There was really no purpose to bringing him back, because he had nowhere to go; when you've already cranked it up and broke the knob off, there's no higher setting left.  Exhibit D:  Along with Wiseau, they also brought in Joe Estevez, the brother of Martin Sheen (and uncle to Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez), who has starred in bad movies like Soultaker, Rollergator, Baby Ghost, and San Franpsycho.  They even brought in the cheese puff cooking lady from A Talking Cat!? for a small role.  All they needed were Joe Don Baker and Reb Brown to have an All-Star Team of MST3K/Rifftrax movie actors.

So there, I rest my case.  If you still don't believe, just watch the stupid thing.

The problem is, it's not really funny if they're in on the joke, because it's not real.  It feels artificial, like "reality" TV, where ironically no one acts like real people.  Instead of funny, it's just painful to watch.

BTW, this wasn't the first time I experienced this.  I felt the same way watching Birdemic 2:  The Resurrection.  It was the sequel to Birdemic, a 2008 disasterpiece by wanna-be Hitchcock James Nguyen.  The first one was just so hilariously bad for the godawful effects, acting, and story.  But the second one five years later didn't show any signs of improvement.  If anything, Nguyen's "skills" had deteriorated even more.  I couldn't help thinking that was intentional.  People laughed at the first one so why not make the second one even worse, right?

But again, it just doesn't work.  When the subject of the joke becomes aware that you're making fun of him/her and starts trying to solicit your laughter, it becomes more sad than funny.  At least the first time they maybe had some dignity in their own mind; pandering to people shows an utter lack of respect for yourself.  At least to me.  It's much funnier (maybe in a mean way) when someone is being unintentionally stupid because they aren't in on it.  It lets me (and others) feel superior in a way I can't when I know you're trying to be awful.

Another sorta example is the Sharknado movies.  But just by the title I think Sharknado was never trying to be all that good.  It was always intended to be pretty dumb, but it succeeded even beyond its creators hopes thanks again to terrible low-budget effects, bad acting, and a lack of plot logic.  So then the sequels intentionally kept amping things up, kind of raising the stakes of how dumb they could be.  But eventually I think even Syfy's audience reached their limit.  That or the filmmakers reached their limit on just how dumb they could get with the concept of a tornado full of sharks.  And at least for me it was diminishing returns, though I stopped at three of them.    

To put it in a literary context, most of my stories are not really intended to be "literature."  But I do try to not make them too stupid, though like Sharknado, the overall premise might be fairly ridiculous.  Still, I try to have a story that makes sense, some character development, competent grammar, and sex scenes that aren't completely implausible.  But what if I found out that someone had a popular site dedicated to making fun of my books?  And so I decided to cater to that crowd by making the story really ridiculous, using really purple prose, and completely unrealistic sex acts.  Would people who laughed before enjoy that as much?  I would say not, because I'm trying too hard now.  Before, when I was trying to be somewhat good, it was funny because I was failing.  If I'm trying to fail, then what fun is that?

I'm just saying, sometimes it's easier to be funny when you're not trying than when you are.  For stand-up comedians the delivery of the joke is as important as the joke itself.  With bad movies it's kind of the same thing; the delivery matters as much as the joke.

Anyway, maybe you can think of examples of movies that tried too hard to be bad and so were worse.