ScottMorris

I did not know what Letterboxd was but apparently I've been using my Facebook as one for awhile. I feel bad for all the innocents I've forced to look at my walls of text prattling on about Cat People, now.

Weirdly, I think I'd be fine with bonkers, impossible-choice barely-related Versus' if we're talking movies getting *into* the Canon, but booting out of? Just can't do it, even as a conversation-starter. It's the difference between picking your weapon for a gladiator battle and being asked which limb you want chopped off for one. It's just no fun this way.

Whatever the show's future is I'm probably going to refuse to participate in this because it's ridiculous (assuming it isn't a troll before the reveal of the "real" Knockout), and now all my concerns about Re-Animator being booted out seem quaint. FWIW I guess on the basis of hard objectivity I'd have to go with The Thing as the *AHEM* least essential, but that's also my favorite movie, and as this is not Saw and my life is not on the line if I don't play ball, yeah, no, not participating.

I feel like all we can do is wait and see what happens, how Devin/BMD responds officially (if at all), but unless the woman comes out and says she was lying* his entire public persona is stained pretty irrevocably at the very least, in terms of consequences, and the show certainly couldn't go on as is without, like, a Very Special Episode or something, considering how much Devin and Amy are specifically, personally wrapped up in its appeal. I can't imagine the silence continues, being that Devin is what I guess you'd call a big figure in the film journalism world. *And I'm certainly not saying she's lying, just that that'd be about the only salve for this situation, though I guess YMMV depending on whatever he ends up saying and the extent of forgiveness and personal growth and all that.

I honestly think that Texas Chainsaw Massacre is too...traditionally-good, to represent exploitation film, anyway. The craft and tension-building is too well-done. Something like The Last House on the Left, which like Cannibal Holocaust is kinda goofy and amateurish, but still very visceral and powerful, would be closer to the mark, I think. That's not to say we need to be rid of Cannibal Holocaust, mind. I'm very much for it remaining. Though it'd be funny if it got booted out and the next week Devin brings out the great Umberto Lenzi head-to-head.

The more I think on it, the more I'm inclined to lean no, as well. This is one of those movies you're gonna come across if you have any interest in genre, anyway, so I don't think it needs to be enshrined as Canon, given how unsatisfying it's rendered by the ending. I mean, if the girl had lived and the mom had failed and died, or the mom succeeded in killing her beloved daughter, I could go either way, but this wishy-washy thematically-inappropriate happy-ending bullshit is a real downer. Which other killer kid movies could make contenders, though? My personal favorite would be Jaume Collet-Serra's Orphan, which...I could maybe muster an argument for Canon? But maybe it's a bit too recent for all that. The most obvious contender would be The Omen, I guess, but that's another movie where I have a real problem with the ending.

I'm not sure where I land, here. I really enjoy this movie, I think it'd be a good addition to The Canon, for the most part, but there's one big sticking point for me--that goddamned ending. I hate this ending. Completely undermines the creepiness, and is structurally awkward at that, given that it plays out as though the film ends and then another coupe minutes is added on. And I realize that it's very much tacked on to appease censors, which makes it difficult. It doesn't seem like there's been an "alternate" or "real" version released, so this all comes down to the question of how much the viewer should engage with a film--ie, is it okay to just turn a movie off and pretend it ended correctly if some bullshit got added on? I dunno if I can do that. And this ending *really* does undermine the film in a pretty deep way, I'd say. I kinda want to see what some others think.

At least twenty-thousand people listen to every one of these, I wonder why relatively-few ever end up voting.

Yeah, it's mostly this I'm referring to. The comment about Amy as well. But in general a lot of these threads have one or two people, sometimes a lot more, saying less-than-civil things.

Personal attacks on Devin and Amy always make me uncomfortable. I don't really agree with one of them's style of criticism, and the other's manner of argumentation, but I feel like that's part of the package deal with this podcast. If these were two perfectly empirical, eminently polite critics, it wouldn't be much to listen to, and they don't seem to have problems with one another that ever extend beyond the heat of the debate. I also feel like Devin gonna Devin, in terms of pointing out what he thinks are crummy opinions. That said, it seems like he mostly takes issue with the question of what genre this is, and how it fits in said genre, and whether this even matters when considering its possible inclusion, that's raged throughout the comments. Now, I'm one of those people who will argue rather definitively that, say, Star Wars, is not a science fiction film. As for this, I'm inclined to say that it's a hybrid, a sci-fi drama/thriller. I don't think it uses the sci-fi to particularly good effect, but I think the question of Project Genesis, and the presence of however-clumsily-executed matters of ethics as they pertain to Starfleet and Genesis, gives it a sufficiently sci-fi leaning to place it within the genre. But I also don't think that matters terribly much here, honestly. The two biggest questions you have to ask about a Canon film are "how good is it?", and "how important is it?", and these apply to genre only selectively, I think. My own argument for Wrath's noninclusion is primarily based around not thinking it's good or specifically-influential enough, whatever exact type of film it is, and secondarily, not quite representative enough of Star Trek, if you allow that that point even matters.

Heyheyheyheyhey now, DeForest Kelley sells the best damn ham this nation has ever seen, and we will not besmirch him by questioning it. The best evidence that Bones never seeming too ridiculous in Kelley's hands is a minor miracle is Karl Urban. Saw Star Trek Beyond recently, and, yknow, solid movie, and I got used to Urban by the end, but speaking the way Bones does just doesn't sound right out of anybody but Kelley's mouth.

This is interesting because it was something of a running joke on TOS that Scotty had a habit of getting into brawls and shenanigans on shore leave, but someone not terribly familiar with Star Trek probably would just assume that Scotty had picked up the clap or something. Can be interpreted either way, I think.

This is one of the quintessential "broken by ONE single element" films, for me, but what that element is is something of a spoiler so I won't discuss it.

I agree, but picking which one would be a helluva task. The Hallows' put together? Sorcerer's Stone? Often-said-to-be-peak Prisoner of Azkaban? Arguing about the entire damn thing, now that'd be interesting. It's difficult to deny that Harry Potter has to enter one way or another, but asking future Canonologists to watch all 20 or so hours, whether they give a damn about the story? Potentially a dealbreaker for a lot of people. But does any one installment encapsulate the series enough on its own to warrant singular induction? I'd be inclined to stump for Sorcerer's for posterity and delight or Azkaban for damned-goodness, or else, hell with it, all of em, myself.

I think the most convincing theoretical argument for Khan I've heard is what Dave said about it being an early example of a dressing-down/deconstruction of a franchise from within a franchise, though I don't think Wrath really executes that well enough for it to change my mind. There's some interesting stuff in the film paying lip service to the role/ethics of Starfleet and Kirk's capability*, but it doesn't really go anywhere with any of it, and certainly nowhere in a compelling way. It's just sorta like, "well, stuff happened, we gotta take care of this, here's a throwaway scene with Kirk's shitty kid to wrap this up". *Incidentally, this movie is super unfair to Kirk. The idea that Kirk would let an unknown-status vessel approach, shields down, is ridiculous, and it's equally ridiculous that he'd ignore the advice of a Vulcan to put them up, and doubly ridiculous that Spock of all people would shush said Vulcan. I mean, the smart way for that scene to play out would be if SOMEBODY from Khan's ship had hailed and let Kirk's guard down, then he would look competent enough but justifiably unsure of said competence. I also don't think Kirk would be so quick to trust Chekov and Terrell, after being told of the mind control bugs. Kirk was always getting in people's faces about his distrust and wariness, back in the day. It's instinctual, for him. I dunno if this is a pet peeve I have and should be willing to ignore for narrative purposes, but Kirk's characterization in this always rubs me the wrong way.