Philly Cheesesteak

The first film to launch Arnold Schwarzenegger into the pop culture zeitgeist, this loose adaptation of Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age epic of short stories became the model of the stock archetype Ahnuld would come to embody throughout his career: the stoic, rated M for Manly, catchphrase-spewing ubermensch who occasionally screams at you in a thick Austrian accent. The movie itself? Booming orchestral soundtrack, gorgeous set design, an awesome opening narration delivered by Mako Iwamatsu,the stylized graphic violence of 80's genre cinema and James Earl Jones hamming it up as a snake-themed supervillain. Oh, and who can forget one of the best movie prayers of all time? I remember someone once calling the movie "what would happen if they shot and filmed some guy's D&D campaign." Well, if that's true, they sure as hell gave it top notch production design. What do you guys think, does Conan the Barbarian have any qualities that deem it worthy for a Canon candidacy? Or is it just a geeky gen. X property we've given, perhaps, a little too much credit? As Amy has opined in the past, is the Canon truly in danger of becoming swamped by gen X nerdbro nostalgia properties? Does that alone disqualify Conan from the Canon? Would love to hear some thoughts on this.

I like the idea... but it almost feels unfair.

Plus, DM2 had a bout between Jackie and Jet Li. Sold.

The Canon episode or the movie itself?

Also... if I sounded like I was snappy with you there, my bad, I didn't mean to sound confrontational there. Ain't no shame in loving what you love and championing for it.

In one corner, the 1940 fantasy classic The Thief of Baghdad. It won three Academy awards (Cinematography, Art Direction and Special Effects), it's the first documented film to include bluescreening as a practice and Roger Ebert enthusiastically proclaimed it rivalled The Wizard of Oz in imagination, bright and vivid popping colours, good cheer and spirited storytelling. In the other corner, Disney's Aladdin, which not only paid homage (or outright knocked off) several scenes from the aforementioned Hollywood classic but acquired a reputation as the first real "boy's Disney movie" of the Disney Renaissance Age. An iconic performance by Robin Williams, the first 2D animated film to feature a prominently 3D character (the Carpet) and catchy and memorable songs have long made it a favourite for Disney fans for years. Both of these movies take liberal interpretations of their source material in 1001 Arabian Nights. Both influenced and were influenced by the popular culture of their time. Both were pioneers of new filmmaking techniques. On a darker note, both have uncomfortable elements we today would call "problematic," we have dozens of dudes in the former wearing brownface while the latter distinguishes its protagonists and antagonists by lighter skin tone. A lot to unpack there. Of the two, which of the two is Canon worthy? Who deserves the spot and who should get the boot, why and why not? ... And thinking this over, maybe a better Canon episode should have been Thief of Baghdad vs. The 7th Voyage of Sinbad...

Don't forget Kindergarten Cop. Man, a lot of people are fond of that movie. I almost want to argue most of those movies you listed deserve a Canon nomination, but I get the feeling Devin and Amy would only select one or two at best.

Also, I had initially wanted to propose this as a vs. episode between Schwarzenegger's two most defining early films... until I realised just about everyone and their mother would have voted for The Terminator, no questions asked. Didn't seem fair. So I thought I could promote Conan just on its own.

It's a fair point. I almost want to pull a Devin and use the old "well, you see, it's based on early 20th century pulp fiction material where exoticism was just one of the tools of the trade," (see: arguments laid down in Gunga Din and Temple of Doom) but that line of reasoning is sort of a magnet for trouble.

Damn. It almost sounds like you have a personal grudge against the guy... and maybe against the city of New York.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind a few other indie classics from the 90's. A Jim Jarmusch movie would be great, and some of his best include Dead Man and Ghost Dog.

Agreed. I don't see how it at least wouldn't make for an interesting discussion.

Gotta say, some interesting back and forth opinions on this thread. I didn't think this would be one of the "hot" threads, heh.

If you follow Devin's work long enough, you'll eventually know he's kind of a Harry Potter fan. He's a huge supporter of the books and Rowling herself, and he's championed the films for much of the same reason he champions the MCU as a stellar example of long-form storytelling. If the Canon is meant to be a sort of Noah's Ark for cinema, for films to be preserved that we would one day show to visiting alien dignitaries curious about our culture, should Harry Potter (as a staple of the 90's to the late 00's) be given fair credit for its contributions? For instance, without the success of the Harry Potter, would we have the long-form serialized storytelling of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Would The Hunger Games have made that transition from YA novels to the big screen without Harry Potter having paved the way? For good or ill, Harry Potter (alongside Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies and Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings) is partly responsible for the current dominance of geek cinema on current popular culture. But then, that falls into that trap our two hosts have mulled over throughout the show: is cultural impact enough of a qualifier to make it into the Canon? When you strip away that impact, what else qualifies any of the movies into the Canon alongside some of the greats? I hope it's not controversial to mention that, individually, the movies could be a little hit or miss. Everyone and their mum agrees Prisoner of Azkaban was the best of the lot, so hypothetically if it were a candidate for the Canon should it be as a representative for the entire franchise (like A New Hope was for Star Wars) or is that unfair to the long-form story the series is truly meant to be? At least A New Hope was self-contained. None of the Harry Potter movies... aren't, really. And even if Prisoner of Azkaban were selected as the ideal candidate for the series, outside the pop cultural signifiers does it even have any other Canon-worthy qualities? Is it a good enough movie or does "good enough" just not cut it? Well, obviously, no, it doesn't. As Amy has argued to the heavens on high to Devin many, many, maaaany times, the Canon should also require some semblance of higher standards for filmmaking. "Good enough" shouldn't be a qualifier for Canon candidacy. What do you guys think? Would you want to hear Devin and Amy discuss the merits of the Harry Potter franchise? I know I would, personally. Besides, and if we all know Devin, it'd be a perfect excuse to hear him rant about The Cursed Child, the HP fandom and the current controversies surrounding Rowling and her use of Native American lore, religion and culture. Now that, I think, would be a worthy enough endeavour to make it an episode in its own right.

Not for nothing, but I don't think you're the one who gets to decide what is or isn't a classic. History is the judge of that. This movie has impacted Western iconography of Middle East folklore in such a way that can be quantifiably measured, standing the test of time, influencing three generations of artists and creative media. And I disagree about the film's pacing and energy, but we each have different standards for that sort of thing. I know a guy who can't stand Sergio Leone Westerns (or even Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) but will watch through Shanghai Noon on repeat, so to each their own in regards to individual of patience and pacing. I certainly disagree that the film's technical crafts and accomplishments fail it somehow or that the framework doesn't support them. I will also argue your stance is more than a little unfair, maybe even dismissive. You argue the 1940 film is simply dated cinema with an overt reliance on its tech and visual craft to skirt by, yet you champion a film that does just that: silent films, even the best ones, are all about form in a way even most modern cinema aren't. I get it's a favourite of your's, but a favourite by itself or even intense love and passion do not necessarily lay all the groundwork for an inclusion to the Canon. Historical significance, craftsmanship, pop cultural influence and tangible impact matter, and the 1940 version easily has more sway in each of these categories than the Fairbanks silent film. But more importantly, above all else... I'm not disparaging your love for the movie, but I am arguing that it's kind of tangential to the main topic of this hypothetical episode: you cannot have Aladdin without the 1940's film. That's the main point to discuss here. Mind you, I'll argue any day of the week Aladdin is a stronger movie than 40's version. But it still owes it a massive debt. That, in of itself, is worth considering, discussing.

I don't think it's that bad. At least, not on a "Breakfast at Tiffany's" level. James Earl Jones is not necessarily codified as "evil" for his skin colour. In fact, I'd be willing to argue the writing behind his character is rather race-blind, any (incredibly imposing and intimidating) man could have pulled it off. Besides, I think you can tell he's really enjoying the opportunity to ham it up on camera, and Vader doesn't count: that's just a voice acting role. Here's Jones in the flesh showing off his onscreen villain chops. I dig it. As for the Asian characters, in all fairness, without Conan the Barbarian we wouldn't have had Mako playing Iroh in Avatar: The Last Airbender.

In the "But I just haven't seen it so no comment" sort of way or the "I'm rather dismissive towards it" sort of way?

Nah, I don't think you're being rude. S'all good, your points are valid.

Whoops, I misread that. That said, Carpet is still the first 3D animated character in a major motion picture. I still get to maintain my "they're both pioneers" thematic connections argument, woo! But, anywho, as for the rest of the above... I haven't seen the original Fairbanks, I'll cop to it. But, speaking personally as a fan of this period of Hollywood, I'm kind of fond of the broad and over the top vaudeville-inspired acting of this generation. Keep in mind this was made for kids at the time, and I find it helps maintain this children's adventure storybook vibe from point a to point b with consistent aplomb. Not to mention you have to give props for Abu's actor, who did all of his own stunts and more or less stole the whole film under the actual (white) star of the picture. And as for the effects? Man, when you consider the effort that had to be done with the barest essentials we take for granted nowadays, I find it's a little unfair to make that argument. It's dismissive of the real work that went into the making of the movie. I'd like to bring up Devin's argument that, sometimes, a movie can just "be" a visual feast or thrill ride extravaganza and ride on those coattails to victory. For me, Thief of Baghdad is one of those movies. It was a smash hit in its time for a reason. Aladdin ripped it off for a reason. It left a greater impact on the popular culture, shaping all of our Western visual iconography of Arabian Nights and all inspired stories since. The Fairbanks original didn't make that cut. Hence, I'm sticking to my guns for this particular pitch for a Vs. episode.

Now, I don't know about Billy Madison or Tommy Boy, but Ghostbusters and Anchorman aren't based on SNL skits. I'm talking specifically about the wave of SNL skit adaptations from small stage TV improv to big theatrics (i.e. Wayne's World). Sure, they have SNL alumni, but I did specifically cite that quality for a reason. And I absolutely believe there's enough room in the Canon for those movies, especially Ghosbusters. But I wanted to give Blues Brothers my personal thumbs up first.

Yeah, I'd nominate it too.

Aw, man... I've been trying for years to suppress any acknowledgement of that movie... But all kidding aside, I feel it's safe to ignore that movie in favour of the original. It's the original we love, with the kick ass musical numbers and car chase sequences. It's a wild ride from start to finish, with incredible comic performances to make it so damn smooth.

From one of my all time favourite directors, the classic (and controversial) wuxia... Hero. We haven't had a Chinese selection for the Canon yet. In which case, I nominate Zhang Yimou's Hero. Gorgeous cinematography, impeccable choreography, beautiful colour schemes that serve as fun little narrative devices for visual storytelling, a hauntingly powerful score by Tan Dun... and a weighty plot about what it means to build and maintain a nation. Granted, this isn't exactly Hamilton where, though it analyses all its faults, democracy is otherwise lauded as a noble endeavour... Some have argued Hero's political messages are rather, well, hard right. If not heavily pro-authoritarian. It might very well be the prettiest argument for authoritarianism ever put to film. Or, at the very least, if you want to interpret the film in a better light, you can argue this would be the best argument for (in nerdy-as-fuck D&D terms) Lawful Good. Still, regardless where it falls on the spectrum, you have to concede- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGq6FXcpxtY This movie oozes grace out of every pore. Should this film make it into the Canon as an example of excellent modern Chinese cinema or does its personal politics mitigate its candidacy? And before anyone asks, sure, I could have nominated Raise the Red Lantern and I would have... but I haven't seen it yet.

All good points, but speaking as someone who enjoys operatic and "OTT" epics, I dig Hero's big scale dramatic heart.

God, I hope so.