Talk:Exploitation film

message: 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 77.89.146.210 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Origins

message: Hi,
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)
replies: text: Er, it's not?  What's the first paragraph all about, then? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: 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)
thread_title: suggested merge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Distinctions

message: 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)
thread_title: Guinea Pig series not "simulated snuff"

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Grind House

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: the term itself

message: 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 (?)
*CATIII
*Giallo
*Hixploitation (?)
*Pinku eiga
*Pseudo-snuff
Helltopay27 01:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrible quality; "Subgenres" needs a complete re-write

message: 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 88.110.3.139 (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: 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)
thread_title: B-Movie and Exploitation

message: 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 216.254.156.138 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quentin Tarantino

message: 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)
thread_title: The Deep

message: 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)
thread_title: I Am Legend

message: 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)
replies: text: Answering my own question with a question: does Eurotrash belong here as a subgenre? GuySperanza (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Improve to B-Class

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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 86.151.118.188 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New Subgenre: Remakesploitation

message: 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)
thread_title: One sentence in intro paragraph

message: 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.71.162.2.215 (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rape and Revenge Films

message: *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)
thread_title:  GOCE copy edit, March 2012 

message: 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 [] from MOMI for them with no results. FrankP (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Disputed Subgenre: Hatsploitation

message: There should be a category for Canadian Disaster Movies.
There are so many of them on cable tv...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.133.8 (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Disaster Movies 

message: 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 37.190.36.133 (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gone in 60 seconds is not exploiting 

message: I noticed that many series from Prestige Tv(HBO,Showtime,starz,netflix) have a lot of exploitative elements(High-impact violence,sex,nudity) theorically speaking could be said that exploitative films somehow influeced tv shows and can those shows be considered exploitative?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:85A3:420D:48F:3420:3B0C:12CC (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Carsploitation definitely had an influence on 'The Rockford Files'. James Garner mentioned in an interview that all the car chases had to substitute for the missing gun violence in order to please the FCC.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ED:273B:8730:E8EE:80EC:158B:AF2C (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did exploitation films somehow influenced tv series? 

message: I feel like the encyclopedic listing of sub-genre examples is confusing major motion pictures (those that target world-wide audiences and received critical acclaim) with exploitation films, which do not and usually have not. "Harold & Kumar" and "Knocked Up" are not examples of any kind of Exploitation sub-genres, as they are not Exploitation films at all. I think we need to be more careful when listing examples that they not only fit the genre/sub-genre description, but also qualify as Exploitation films at all. I may try to find time later to purge the examples of major studio blockbusters - Sheriffjt (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes something an exploitation film is a citation that says it is.  Editors shouldn't use their own judgment to determine whether something is an exploitation film – this is original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Genres Vs Exploitation Genres 

message: Hi all, longtime listener, first time caller.
I wanted to ask for help creating a page for Christploitation. This is a slow learning process for me, apologies for my page-editing missteps so far, as I'm nearly sure that I've made some. Will dig more for how to do this correctly. Basically just trying to create that page (at least a stub to start with) for "Christploitation" b/c that genre name is so spot on, in that it is exploitation content. Though I do not support the producer's views, in full transparency, I (and many others simply needing work) have indeed worked on "Unplanned," so I'm not rightly sure I Should be doing this page creation. Perhaps it's best to leave it up to you the group to make that happen. But within the field, I have not see this genre name used, so is was exciting to read. I think the genre name, if more broadly used, best informs audiences of what they're going in for. Lrayd (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! Welcome! Rray (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christploitation page creation 

message: — Assignment last updated by Takeyce (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History and Theory of New Media

message: Are all exploitation films just to get a quick buck? What reference is being used for this? Films like spaghetti Westerns and Splatter films include much more artistic statements than a cash grab would indicate. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:54F0:BFD7:3ECF:A9 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monetary gain? 

message: There has been of late a spate of films such as John Wick, The Contractor, Wrath Of Man, etc. A common link is that they all feature prominently high competence, beyond simply informing the audience that the character is good at something. Instead, the characters are seen to reload realistically and on time, make use of modern tactical equipment, and operate using tactics taken from real life. --RADONVALKYRIE (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical Exploitation?