There are LOTs and LOTs of lists on the Internet about bad movies and which are the best. But really Stinker Madness isn't about "bad movies". We're about Stinkers.
For years, I've had trouble defining what exactly a "Stinker" is. Well with starting this project, I think I've figured it out.
: a feature-film that has failed miserably at least in one area of its production and reception but must also succeed in at least one area of its production and reception.
That opens the door up considerably. Consider this: would you put Fast & Furious 6 on the same "bad movie" level as "The Room"? Would you say that "Birdemic" is just as good as "Ninja in the Dragon's Den". No you wouldn't. Some movies fail on multiple levels making them bad whereas others may only fail on one level thus making them just a Stinker.
Take for instance "Punisher: War Journal". Now this movie was well directed, had unbelievable action, fit the source material, good writing, solid acting and amazing cinematography. So why is it a Stinker? Well the marketing was awful. It was debuted during the Oscar season instead of a fitting late August release. Meaning no one was interested.
Now take for instance "The Room". Bad acting, bad action, bad story, bad writing, bad directing, editing, on and on and on. It's bad. BUT it succeeds in one brilliant area, its marketing. There's a that this holds the record for longest running theatre release. Its because Tommy Wiseau shows up at screenings and stands three feet away from you and throws a football to you. Thus making it a Stinker.
And those are the types of films we are all about.