Talk:Birdemic: Shock and Terror

	Film portal 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article Takes Birdemic Too Seriously

It seems to me this entry is fundamentally flawed in that it misinterprets "Birdemic" as a movie that was intended as a genuine and serious "romantic thriller" rather than as a spoof of sorts. It was intentionally, consciously made bad, more in the vein of "Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes" than "Night Of The Lepus" or an Ed Wood movie. The makers of the film didn't set out in earnest to make a sincere "romantic thriller", the whole point was to make a horrible movie that was SO bad it would be hysterical to watch. In taking the movie as a project intended seriously which just happened to turn out "so bad it's good" the article mischaracterizes the film in a significant way. Something should be added to the artticle indicating this rather obvious aspect of the movie, otherwise the article is misleading.CannotFindAName (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely. Every source I've found indicates that Nguyen, the film's director, set out to make what he terms "a romantic thriller". At least a few sources have noted that one of the reason the film gained any notoriety at all was because it was a sincere attempt to make something good that didn't quite pan out for Nguyen. The movie was designed to be scary, even if it doesn't come off that way to you or many other viewers. It was certainly not made as a parody or with the intention of being comedic. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 17:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob is right. If you have a source that states the movie was a spoof, please add it. On a side note, I fear the sequel may try to capitalize on the farcical reception of the first and be an "intentionally bad" film like Tomatoes or Thankskilling - which are not as good in my opinion. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of films that are considered to be especially bad, please be aware that director statements can vary quite drastically, making it very difficult to specify if a film was 'intended' to be comical or not. Tommy Wiseau has stated that he intended The Room to be a comedy, but there is little if anything to indicate that this was his intention, so please let's keep the description of Birdemic sincere unless there's enough information that can be accurately dated to pre-production to indicate otherwise? Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that every bad and unsuccesful movie is suddenly "a cult movie", a term that was originally ment Citizen Kane-kind of movies. I agree that the article treats this movie as some sort of groundbreaking experimental film with lots of underground followers, which is far from the truth. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cult film is defined by the passion of the audience rather than the size of it. Since the NY Times and The Guardian say it achieves "cult status", that's all we need. Did you have any specific examples of peacock terms used in the article? Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bagh and Whitney Moore

I'm thinking of nominating those two for deletion. They are really not notable other than having been in this movie. I thought I'd start by asking what others think here. So, what do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. James Nguyen doesn't have an article for the same reason. If Bagh and Moore wind up in other films, we can reconsider giving them their own pages. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. Please see:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You all didn't even bother looking in IMDB? Whitney Moore has done many movies, and is adding more all the time. She's an active, professional actor. I don't know why you would have deleted anything without checking her background and other work. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Birdemic: Shock and Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Birdemic: Shock and Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]