>>211705254The whole "bad on purpose" as a defense for its apparent poor quality is untenable when the work appears unironically substandard. You're implying deliberate crafting of a film to be flawed, often for ironic or comedic effect (AKA Plan 9). However, intentional shittiness requires clear, consistent signals (i.e. exaggerated performances, absurd dialogue, or overt technical incompetence) convey the filmmaker’s self-aware intent. Without these, the argument falls apart, as it assumes a level of creative control absent in genuinely poor execution.
Anyone who uses "bad on purpose" to justify a film’s flaws is likely misreading incompetence as irony, an intellectually lazy as fuck stance that avoids critical engagement with the work’s actual quality. Films with incoherent narratives, weak acting, or shoddy production are typically products of limited skill or resources, not calculated camp. To believe otherwise without evidence is, frankly, idiotic, as it dismisses the need for art to stand on its own merits. Audiences judge films based on tangible outcomes (story, visuals, emotional impact) not speculative intent. Thus, this "bad on purpose" faggotry is a hollow rationalization unless the film explicitly supports such a reading, and clinging to it reflects one's brown-skinned IQ.
Never fucking breed.