Mega-buck toy tie-in movies concerning science fiction, fantasy and horror keep coming down the pike with no end in sight. But are the psychotronic films? For many people, psychotronic films are 'B' and drive-in films from a period in film history. Unfortunately, Michael Weldon's latest book blurs the definition of psychotronic all to hell. His magazine has even gone into the areas he swore he would never carry (porno and animation) as he apes Cult Movies magazine format.

As the definition blurs, I have decided to throw in my two cents worth on this ongoing debate. What is a psychotronic film?Are all films psychotronic?

Throughout the history of psychotronic films - which I define by the name breakdown of 'psycho-' as in horror, '-tronic' or electronic as science fiction - there have been cycles in which mainstream audiences have discovered the world of fantastic films. Lon Chaney, Sr. in The Phantom of the Opera was clearly not a low-budget trash film. King Kong, Frankenstein, Dracula - all these films were made for mass audiences. The Day the Earth Stood Still was as mainstream as you could get.

I believe we just happen to be in a cycle in which studios know there is a huge market for films that go boom in the night. THIS ALONE DOES NOT MAKE THE FILMS BAD. But how on earth could anyone sit through Scream or Starship Troopers and not a) love the films or b) admit they are psychotronic?

Now there are psychotronic film fans that cherish the cheapest, god awful, see-the-zipper-on-the-costume films and more power to them. There are psychotronic film fans that prefer the women-on-the-rampage, juvenile delinquent films of the 1950s and 1960s. No problem for me. All I'm saying is that just because the films are now mainstream multi-million dollar extravaganzas is, in itself, not enough reason to dismiss them.

I discovered psychotronic films as a child when I saw the 1933 version of King Kong on television, and realized that fantastic film could make you believe that the impossible was possible - the magic of film. I also loved the Golden Age, as Forry Ackerman dubbed it, of fantastic cinema. King Kong was hardly a low budget film.

There is one last category of psychotronic film fan. Following Weldon down the slippery slope of one-film-world-criticism and trying to categorize film styles under one roof is doomed to fail and lead to critical illiteracy. Film noir fits a style, a look of film that film fans the world over know instantly when you use the term. Film noir is not psychotronic. If Weldon were articulate why one book some films aren't but in the next they are perhaps this confusion would clear itself up. But he isn't.

If we try to make every film psychotronic, the name will mean nothing.

So - what are your thoughts on this? Believe me, not all Chicago psychotronic members and writers agree on this. Mail Brian and I on this and we'll print your thoughts in cyberspace on what psychotronic is and how far we should stretch the meaning.