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)

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.