Talk:Exploitation film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


I'm currently doing a thesis on exploitation films and I'm just wandering: Where did they really originate from? I know the old grindhouse clubs were stip joints which later became homes from showing these sorts of films, but they did not become synonymous with the genre until the 1960s, but who first distributed exploitation films? What was the first one? Were they a soely American invention (as opposed to the horror film which had its roots in late nineteenth century gothic literature)?

It would be great to get some answers, and plus it would really help add to the article's clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I added some historical material pointing out that the designation is more of an American thing, that what Americans call 'exploitation' may be 'transgressive art' to the Europeans. That makes the definition of 'the first one' tricky. After all, porn was invented shortly after the camera; but it would be good to know at what point cinema developed an underground. It's clear that they proliferated with the demise of the Hays Code, a topic that could use some expansions. The question of who distributed them is interesting and would be good for the article, but will probably take some digging to find out how the distribution system worked in the earlier days of cinema. Since major studios sometimes owned theater chains, and did not produce exploitation films, what theaters showed these, and who served them? GuySperanza (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)



I've recently made quite a lot of additions to the exploitation film page, and would appreciate a peer review. --Jahsonic 08:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

What is an exploitation film? It is not addressed in the article. Roman Soldier 04:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Er, it's not? What's the first paragraph all about, then? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've revised the opening to more directly describe the subject in the first sentence.

I believe the words 'eschew' and 'prurient' are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Whoever wrote that sentence obviously just needs to be reassured that he or she is intelligent, yet, ironically, the very use of those words proves the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

suggested merge[edit]

I think the merge of B-movie is a bad idea; surely not all B-movies are explotation films. I think the articles stand well on their own. Same goes for Z-movie. On the other hand, merging grindhouse makes sense since this already has a section on that. Brighterorange 00:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So Ron Reagan starred in explotation films? Next thing, wikipedia will list ketchup as a vegetable. Ghosts&empties 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging all these things together would be a bad idea. Mabey some of these things are Explotation films, or whatnot, but merging them altogher will result in an article that is far to complex to find out the thing you are looking for. Keep them seperate. <unsigned>

in that case please rewrite Exploitation film to clearly distinguish it from B-movie and vice versa as to a layman like me i'm totally confused by all these different classifications that all appear to be the same thing. Catherine breillat 21:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Some B-movies are exploitation films but not all exploitation films are B-movies. A B-movie is a movie with acting, writing, directing and production values not quite up to par with A-movies, they are not necessarily designed to shock or titillate like exploitation films. Anthopos 21:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Suppose that you're a filmmaker in the 1950s. You get someone who sold a few stories to the pulps back in the heyday of pulps to turn one of his old stories, a by-the-numbers crime-and-punishment story, into a film. You line up an old actor who used to pack them in the theatres, and a young would-be star who might actually be good if he can learn not to overact, and crank out the flick, directing it yourself to avoid paying someone else. That's a B-movie.

Now suppose you're another filmmaker in the 1950s. You open up your paper and read about Charles Starkweather's rampage across the Midwest. You get on the phone immediately to your one friend who works for a major studio; he assures you that the major studios would never dare risk such tastelessness as to rush out a film about a spree killer and his barely-pubescent girlfriend. You crow with delight to hear that you're not going to have competition; before the day is out you've lined up a hammy young actor who can snarl and wave a gun on cue, a girl who can't act to save her life but will bare her breasts if it means starring in a movie, and you've got a hack writer to churn out most of the script but you're writing in extra sex scenes to make sure they're lurid and scandalous -- after all, if your film gets banned in one town because it's so shocking, that means you're going to have huge crowds for it in the next town over, because everyone wants to see what they know they're not supposed to see. That's an exploitation film. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Very well put, altho your definition of 1950s B-movies is better suited to 1970s (post-studio-era) B-movies. In the 50s, studios had A- and B-list directors under contract just like they had A- and B-list actors. --Tysto 04:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


The proposed merges do not make sense to me. Here's why:

A B-movie, a matter of budget and quality, originally refered to products of the Hollywood studio system with low production costs, obviously as opposed to their A-movies. The heyday of the B-movie was 1935 through around 1960 when the studio system collapsed. Making these movies at a lower standard of quality served multiple purposes: training ground for directors and stars, 'filler' material for studio-owned theatres, smoothing out holes in the production schedules. Sometimes B-movies were accidentally successful, like Casablanca. In a looser sense 'B-movie' has been used to refer to any movie with substandard production values.

A Z-movie, a matter of budget and quality, is a less exact term for movies with extremely low production values. I've seen it used to refer to the output of Poverty Row or to independent producers, but never to the output of a major studio.

Exploitation film, a matter of content, refers to movies whose chief attraction is violent, prurient or other sensationalistic content. The heyday of exploitation film is probably from 1965 through now, but the category stretches back at least to the 1930s and Kroger Babb. Up through the late 1960s the major studios did not touch exploitation films. They were too worried about their reputations and the Production Code. One case after 1960 is when 20th Century Fox chose to distribute Beyond the Valley of the Dolls in 1970, but it's unusual.

Paracinema is new to me, I have no opinion about it, other than it looks like a pretty loose category that could encompass all of these.

Does this help? --Lockley 01:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the conclusion I came to just now after seeing the merger on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and reading the three relevant articles (B-movie, Paracinema, and Exploitation film). Since the consensus seems to be against a merger, I'm removing all merge tags and taking it off the proposed mergers list. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I too have to agree that B-movie and Exploitation films should not be merged. There are many examples of early cowboy films and other inexpensively done films like Gun Crazy that are absolutely B-movies, but not necessarily exploitation. Exploitation films are necessarily defined by their content. B-movies are completely B due to their budget. Sensorium 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Guinea Pig series not "simulated snuff"[edit]

The article uses the Guinea Pig series as an example of snuff simulation, a "sub-sub-genre" og shock exploitation. While it can be argued that the second instalment of the Guinea Pig series, "Chiniku no hana" (aka "Flower of flesh and blood"), was essentially a snuff simulation, this does not apply to any of the other movies. Some seem to think that the first film, "Akuma no jikken" ("Devil's experiment")is a fake snuff; I dispute this because the girl victim, as far as I know, isn't actually shown being killed at all (though it might be argued that her death is implied, or that she might be dead in those scenes where she is shown dangling from a tree in a sack), so it can't be called a snuff simulation. As for the other movies, none of them contain anything that could be called snuff, allthough many of them are exploitative (and very comical). Thus I changed this in the article. Hope nobody minds. Mogura 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Grind House[edit]

I added an alternate link to the 2007 film Grind House, as I was redirected to this page by looking for "Grindhouse". If this is not appropriate, please revert. Erik 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is somewhat important but highly confusing. XdiabolicalX 00:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Grind House redirects here, I added this term also to the introductory section. Tikiwont 16:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In the article it claims that "grinding out" movies is a reference to hand crank cameras. This seems like nonsense to me, I don't think the term to "grind out" lots of something has cinematic origins at all. It seems like someone just thought the two things were similar and stuck that in the article on his own whims. I'm taking it out.

Verification on Bump and Grind origins: I'd like to see a citation on Grindhouses being named for 'bump and grind' burlesque houses. I live in the land of the now extinct grindhouses. Wikipedia was the only place I have read this. The generally held conception is that grindhouse was a term used for places that used to play films from studios like Troma, the Chinese market and other low budget studios that would 'grind out' film after low budget film. They didn't cost much to make or for the theaters to buy.

The reason I question this also is the burlesque houses here were more the type of runway and pole setups. They usually weren't big enough to be real theaters. We didn't have a vaudeville era with strippers on a big stage and comics etc. Burlesque here was and still is just strip joints which were just converted storefronts and restaurants. Although I was in one stripjoint that used to be a theater but never a theater that used to be a stripjoint. Well there are the newer "Gentleman's Clubs" which can be pretty big. But they came in the nineties. I am not expert enough on grindhouse theaters to say its wrong. It just sounds wrong based on my experience of Los Angeles. So I would like to see a citation.

"One of the most famous grindhouses in American cinema is Troma, which created the Toxic Avenger series along with a variety of other cult films."

Um... the paragraph this closes just finished explaining that grindhouses were movie theaters. Troma is a studio. I think this sentence needs to be struck. Monkey Bounce 00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • My impression is that the "grindhouse" was an urban theater showing the kind of exploitation movies usually associated with the rural drive-in theaters: "B" or double-bill movies, plus the soft porn and "mondo" movies. After our local mall multi-plex took over booking "A" list single-bill first-run movies, our old grand theater downtown started showing second-run "A" movies and midnite movies like "Flesh Gordon" and "Groove Tube". We never had burlesque theaters. The explanations of the origin of the term "grindhouse" all strike me as after-the-fact surmise or speculation. When was the first use of the term and in what context?Naaman Brown (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Emily Booth on the dvd trailer compilation : 'Grindhouse: Trailer Classics' the term 'grindhouse' refers to the defunct 'bump n' grind' burlesque theatres on sleazy 42nd Street where these exploitation films were shown. The name referred to these venues - not the production process. Colin4C (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On there is an explanation of the origin of the term grindhouse: Many of these inner-city theatres formerly featured burlesque shows which included "bump and grind" dancing, leading to the term "grindhouse. However, I don't know how reliable this source of information is! It could be used as a reference though. ( (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. Also one of the characters in the 1943 film Lady of Burlesque refers to the venue they are performing on 42nd Street at as a 'grindhouse'. Colin4C (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

the term itself[edit]

It would be nice if the article could explain why they are called "exploitation" films. Who or what is being "exploited", or am I missing the point entirely? I am probably not the only person confused by this term. — coelacan talk — 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to do some work on this article. The term is mostly about the subject matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article in the very first paragraph to immediately address these concerns while trying to maintain as much as possible the intent of the previous author.

The opening should now be more direct and economical and very specifically addresses what areas of the public psyche are being exploited. The previous was more equivocating about the term exploitation. Since it handles a lot very quickly, it tends to make portions of the following paragraph dealing with advertising and promotion redundant. And I have done nothing about that for fear of rewriting everything in my image of what it should say.* — 08:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed someone adjusted the advertising paragraph and shifted my list down. Very well done the opening is really shaping into a much better article than was there this morning. — 08:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite misunderstood the origin of the term "exploitation". Exploitation films were not called so because they "exploited" the audience's baser instincts, but because they relied on heavy promotion, or "exploitation", of the film's contents. "Exploitation" existed as a common show business term for promotion long before "explitation film". The show business bible Variety used it regularly, for example, in sentences like, "Heavy exploitation in opening week could bring out audience for this peculiar pic." — Walloon 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Subtle but important and educational distinction...just as it should be. —, 08:27, 27 April 2007) (UTC)

  • Exploitation in movie terms seems to refer to the advertising and selling of the movie. With "The Beast with a Million Eyes" or "I Changed My Sex" the posters existed before the movies were even scripted, much less filmed. Of course, the movies exploited the public interest in the shocking or astounding subject matter as well. With most exploitation movies, the ads or trailers are more entertaining than the movies. It is a double-edged term.Naaman Brown (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrible quality; "Subgenres" needs a complete re-write[edit]

First of all, "Shock exploitation" is a purely fictional "subgenre". The films listed fall into the actual subgenres of "Rape and revenge", "Pseudo-snuff", and "CATIII".

The term itself is redundant: most, if not all, exploitation is meant to be shocking.

Plus, "Pornochanchada" (I believe I spelled that right) is a subgenre of sexploitation, and I would go as far as arguing that "Chambara" is a subgenre of splatter films. These specific sub-subgenres shouldn't be listed as strictly subgenres of exploitation.

These are the subgenres I believe should have a small sgement written about them:

  • Blaxploitation
  • Cannibal films
  • Mondo films
  • Nazisploitation
  • Nunsploitation
  • Rape and revenge
  • Sexploitation
  • Splatter films
  • Women in prison films
  • Zombie films

...and these are the ones I believe should be listed under "other subgenres" -

  • Bruceploitation (?)
  • Dyxploitation (?)
  • Giallo
  • Hixploitation (?)
  • Pinku eiga
  • Pseudo-snuff

Helltopay27 01:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Chambara isn't a subgenre of exploitation, although some chambara films are exploitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


i added to the "grind house" section of this article stating that mark kermode believes the eponymous move Grindhouse to be not of the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

B-Movie and Exploitation[edit]

What's the difference between B-Movie and Exploitation ? Is it about the genre or the times when it was made ? (unsig 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

I Would say that the primary difference is in the content. A low-quality monster movie of the type currently made for the Sci-Fi Channel would be a B-movie. What takes it to the level of exploitation cinema is the addition of gratuitous violence, nudity, etc. Exploitation, though not universal, is generally applied to films from the 60s and 70s while B-movies are still made. (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino[edit]

Why is Quentin Tarantino not mentioned anywhere? Some high-budget and star actor movies have been mentioned as being exploitation movies, so that should not exclude him. In all other ways, his movies seem to define the genre, right from the early Three Stooges take-off on up. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • That's a good point, his films often pay blatant homage to many of the films listed here. However, Death Proof is mentioned in the article. GuySperanza (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Deep[edit]

Why is The Deep listed as a "nature run amok" film? Was the writer thinking of a different movie? The Deep has human villains, it doesn't have any animal content. Also, Night of the Lepus predates Jaws, although it is mentioned here as being inspired by Jaws. In fact, the whole "nature run amok" subgenre may have experienced a revival after Jaws (and largely because of increased ecological awareness in the 1970s), but it can be traced back to the "giant animal" films of the 1950s such as Them!, Tarantula, et al. It's also debatable whether Orca belongs here: it was marketed as a "nature gone wild" film, but it plays out like more of a traditional revenge film. It's not about a generalized attack of nature on man, it's a personal vendetta between the whale and the sailor. GuySperanza (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I Am Legend[edit]

The final sentence of the section on "Zombie" films is incorrect. Some of these modern movies, such as 28 Days Later, I Am Legend and Planet Terror provide a new twist for the genre in that their zombies are not so much reanimated dead as they are living humans infected with a disease that gives them zombie-like qualities. I Am Legend was originally a Richard Matheson story in the early '60s, about a disease that turned the entire human population into vampires. Among other movies (notably, The Omega Man), Night of the Living Dead was adapted from this story. So, what is being called here a "modern twist" is actually the origin of the entire genre. Nightmare City is another earlier example of "infected", as opposed to undead, zombies; also, Rabid, Virus/Hell of the Living Dead, and The Grapes of Death. GuySperanza (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Improve to B-Class[edit]

I like this article a lot. I'm looking over the checklist for improving it from Start-Class to B-Class status. I would put it in for promotion, but I don't think it has enough citations to pass. The grammar and structure are solid. Is there any dispute that the article is complete? Are there any major facts missing, or are there any images or infoboxes that it ought to have? If the main points can be supported with citations (which will probably have the side effect of fleshing out the article a little bit), the article can advance in class. GuySperanza (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Answering my own question with a question: does Eurotrash belong here as a subgenre? GuySperanza (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Eurotrash has similar (sub-?)sub-genres to Exploitation in the US but still characteristic... Maybe it is worth a mention, anybody who has even seen an Italian giallo, an Italian post-apocalyptic movie or a French sexploitative-artistic vampire flick could tell it apart from a horror-thriller or a sexploitation from the US. Virtualdog (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


In the "History" section, the first section needs work:

Exploitation films feature uncut unrated material. They specialize in numerous sex and nudity scenes, bloody gore, violence, and taboos. They were most popular in the late 1960s to late 70s. Most are low budget films that would not be played in theaters today and would most likely receive an NC-17 rating.

Using some good references would clean this up. It's not true that most exploitation films were unrated and would most likely receive an NC-17 rating, a vast number of them were rated "R". You could also find examples of "PG" rated exploitation films that fit in a subgenre but don't feature a high level of sex or violence (Darktown Strutters, for one, maybe also Car Wash). Some were submitted for rating and received an "X" rating. In that case, you've got "uncut" material that is not unrated. The word "uncut" should be changed to "uncensored", anyway, as it's more specific. All movies are edited: even a G-rated movie could be said to have "cut" and "uncut" material, so "uncut" is basically meaningless. It would also be good to discuss some of the reasons that these would not be played in theaters today, i.e. the advent of direct-to-video films and the decline of the drive-in theater. GuySperanza (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The connotative meaning of the word "uncut" in this context would be "censored material/scenes which had been cut, now are included" or something to that effect. You are correct "uncensored" would be more accurate, and true any and every movie has cut and uncut material. However, its over stating the point by saying "uncut" is "basically meaningless" because it does in fact mean or at least imply a specific meaning (which is consitant with its intended meaning) to most people, regarding these genres of films. I don't know where the mention of uncut material was in this article if it was deleted. Are you speaking of movie studios advertising versions of their films as "uncut"? Either way I dont see any problem with the use of the word in this case. - Racerx11 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Advertising films as "uncut" would be fine, but the context was somebody trying to define exploitation films as "films that feature uncut material". If the point is to describe the kind of material these films contain, simply saying "uncut" is far too vague, and rather inaccurate. GuySperanza (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Aw shoot! I see it now. In your excerpt in your first post: "Exploitation films feature uncut unrated material" I see your point. In this case "uncut" makes little sense once you really think about how its used here. Must have missed it when I read through. Sorry bout all that. Racerx11 (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

New Subgenre: Remakesploitation[edit]

I think there should be a section about Remakesploitation: The act of unauthorized remakes of popular/big films. Such as "Lady Terminator", films from The Asylum or the controversial remake of Oldboy: "Zinda". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but the section as written has numerous problems, so I'm rewriting it completely. First of all, "mockbuster" is a well-established name for the genre; few use the name "remakesploitation". Second of all, that section was written with not one single reference cited, other than mentioning a blogger. Websites and blogs are not reliable sources of information. Third, the section as written was ungrammatical and incoherent. Fourth, there's barely a nod given to the history of the subgenre, which is one of the problems caused by lack of references. I've removed most of the original material, and replaced it with solidly-researched material. The rest, I'll edit and keep if I can find some references supporting it (and if I can make sense of what's written). Dementia13 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

One sentence in intro paragraph[edit]

I am curious about a particular sentence in article's intro paragraph: The term "exploitation" is common in film marketing, used for all types of films to mean promotion or advertising. Is this correct, and if it's so, what's that supposed to mean? --Wayfarer (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Rape and Revenge Films[edit]

From what I know, The Last House on the Left is far better known than I Spit On Your Grave, contrary to the article's claim. The budget and box office gross of both respective remakes just about says it all. The Last House on the Left was the name attracting a bigger production team and a bigger audience. (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit, March 2012[edit]

  • Linking directors' names: where directors are mentioned independently of specific films, I've kept the links, but where they are right next to films, as in "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange", I have unlinked the director's name. This to avoid running two blue-links together, and because the information is readily available from early in the film article. Also, readers of this article are probably more likely to follow links to films than to directors. --Stfg (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    Studios treated the same. --Stfg (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Date of Beyond the Time Barrier: given as 1960 here but 1959 in the film's article. To avoid controversy, I've just removed the date. If experts want to restore it and make the articles consistent, great. --Stfg (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Piped links losing date information: several piped links here take a form like ''[[The Accused (1988 film)|The Accused]]'', which creates ambiguity for the reader because there are several films of that date. Better to pipe to something like "The Accused (1988)". Where I spotted it I changed it, but I'm not a film buff and I'll have missed most of them. --Stfg (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Steven Spielberg’s Munich: Does it really fit the definition given in the lede: "An exploitation film, however, relies heavily on sensationalist advertising and broad overstatement of the issues, regardless of how they contribute to the intrinsic quality of the film"? My understanding is that it's a mainstream historical film. So what if it's about jews? Many films are. The source doesn't support calling it Jewsploitation, either. --Stfg (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Tags: Article was tagged as POV, but it wasn't explained on the talk page, and I didn't find any except a very small number of peacock terms that I took out. I removed the tag. But I added {{example farm}} -- less would definitely be more here, as the examples sometimes rather overwhelm the explanation, especially with so much blue. --Stfg (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Disputed Subgenre: Hatsploitation[edit]

I'd say this section is clearly intended as satire. I reverted it once but it was reinstated by anonymus IP who claimed to believe in it. Original addition was by different IP-user. The overall approach seems inspired by avant-garde manifestos such as Dogme 95. As such this insertion is essentially a parody, and quite a funny one, but not encyclopedic. My initial reaction is -- thanks, you've had your fun, now let's put the article back how it was :) But let's WP:assume good faith and check out its references.

The article refers to four films: Kleinman, The Fedora, El Salvador and Sombrero. Do any of these have IMDB entries for example? I cannot find any further info about Leon Cushman or Ross Manum either. And there are three citations from periodicals -- Contemporary Cinema, The Massachusetts Filmmaker and The Motion Picture Medium. Can anyone provide details for these journals, such as ISSN, publisher, or a listing in a major reference library? I've searched the British Library catalogue and this resource [[1]] from MOMI for them with no results. FrankP (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved section to bottom per talk page convention The journals do not appear to exist, the films don't appear to exist and the term "Hatsploitation" searched on google only brings up the wikipedia page. It is most likely a hoax or, if, real so obscure that it is not notable in any way. I am removing the section because it fails WP:V (the "references" given are fake, the journals don't appear to exist). It is up to the person adding the information to prove its notability and to verify the information BEFORE adding it into the article. Wikipedia does not work by adding your thing made up one day, slapping a citation/verification needed tag on it, and then hoping someone will see it an write about it. If someone can prove that the journals exist (this would be providing a link to a publisher or an ISSN) then at least we can argue if the thing is notable, but without verification that it even exists, it has no place in the article. Ravendrop 00:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Redsploitation Films[edit]

Why is there no mention of Native American themed exploitation films? Shouldn't this be listed as it;s own sub-genre with Billy Jack, Navajo Joe and Soldier Blue starting them off? How about the Thunder Warrior Trilogy? Ever heard of a little film called Scalps? How about Go Tell Them Willie Boy is Here or War Party?, There are many lists in this category on Amazon. Come on people! Those poor Native Americans... and now they have fucking Johnny Depp's Tonto to contend with? They need our help here people!

Canadian Disaster Movies[edit]

There should be a category for Canadian Disaster Movies. There are so many of them on cable tv... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Gone in 60 seconds is not exploiting[edit]

Gone in 60 seconds (1974). For what i know, i've seen this film, and it doesn't senselessly show cars crashing to gain attention. In this movie they created rather a sort of a classic of car chase. On the contrary - all other films with car chasing (almost all action movies) after this movie seem to have a car scene just for the exploitation of it. This film was (seems) stuffed here just because it is "about cars", but it's not exploiting. It may be called B-grade because car chasing is such a thin subgenre, and also because it's an action subgenre, but that would be wrong again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)