MadScientist

I'm a no, but I just wanted to say that as a history buff, this episode drove me nuts. I was yelling at the both of you and my coworkers were looking at me funny.

There's some kind of moral imperative to force a Cruise film into the Canon and we're not talking about Born on the Fourth of July? I'll listen in, but I'm not voting for either of those. After listening: why should anyone vote for either one of these when the whole discussion is how ridiculous each one is?

The board ate my post, but it was some snarking at Armond White, and a plea to consider Purple Rain for the Canon instead.

This is an unfairly stacked contest... two of the greatest concert films ever, but people are going to vote for the recently dead guy.

Personally, I think it's worth it just for the fact that the Ghostbusters movies are the only film with Murray, Ackroyd, and Ramis together, and the first one's better than the second. So glad the show's back! Looking forward to getting back into talking movies with y'all here in the forum.

I'm adopting a "wait and see" stance about the show. Many of you have already articulated my feelings about what's going on, and I'm not going to just re-hash all that. I'm also recently on letterboxd and I enjoy talking movies with y'all, so: http://letterboxd.com/themadscientist/

This is probably the only movie where I will give a lot of weight to cultural significance; it's folly to dismiss Trek as a TV show, because that's only where it started. That said, though: there was a lot of talk about this being a great movie for non-fans and yet the non-fan had very little time to talk.

Drink anytime either Devin or Amy says "100 percent". This rule alone will probably fuck your shit up.

I still say Lethal Weapon vs 48 Hrs.

I don't have the "Who lit all those candles?" problem. Masha lit them, slowly, and Jerry had to sit and watch the entire process. (Anyway, easy yes, very much agree with the above opinion drawing a straight line between this and Nightcrawler)

The first ten minutes of Up.

I grew up in California, where we didn't have to pay extra for shaking seats.

I've always thought it was a codpiece sculpted to look as though it isn't a codpiece.

I think we can all agree that at least one version of Body Snatchers belongs in the Canon, but which one? The '50s B&W classic? The '70s version with the final scene everyone remembers? Abel Ferrara's dark, uncomfortable take? Or one of the two more recent ones? I started wondering what film had been remade the most, and Body Snatchers struck me as one of the most interesting options, as good cases could made for at least three of them.

IWTT is an incredibly fun podcast.

No matter how this vote goes, big thank you to Devin for actually saying the words, "nothing is ever actually going to happen in this movie".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, it affected me plenty. I sat there waiting for what was supposed to be this amazing thing to start, this thing that had been built up by the ads and by word-of-mouth, that was supposedly amazing, and new,... and then all of a sudden it was over. There's no need to be insulting about it. But if there is, I can certainly accommodate.

Finally, an episode of the podcast that I won't even listen to. Blair Witch is an awful, overhyped, obnoxious film. The marketing campaign was smirking and self-congratulatory (and it looks as though that's carried over to whatever this new one is). I don't care anything about the terrible, idiot characters, and I hoped through the whole thing that something horrible would happen to them... and then nothing horrible actually happens. Something horrible is vaguely implied to happen to them. That's all the movie is: vague implications of a much cooler story happening around the edge of these abrasive morons lost in the woods, and we never get to see any of it. Lovecraft built a career and legendary status with the exact same kind of story, but something always happens in those stories. It's not as though I need every step spelled out for me, but this is a movie where literally nothing happens. Is it Canon-worthy for spawning (or bringing back, depending on how you look at it) the found-footage phenomenon? Hell, no. Hardly any of those films are any better than Blair Witch (although a case could be made for a couple, V/H/S springs to mind), so in this case, a shitty movie starting a wave of other, shittier pretenders should exclude it from the Canon. In perpetuity. No revisiting, no making it part of a future vs., I just beg anyone reading this to please vote "no".

In an alternate universe, one of those twenty-odd scripts was made into a movie that, coupled with the technical achievements, transcended both story and effects and there's no argument that this film should be in the Canon. But we have to live in this universe, so I'm voting "no".

Mulholland Drive is an inside joke between critics and movie snobs to make casual moviegoers feel stupid. That said, I don't see the need for a best-of-the-century list only 15 years into the century.

Oh man, yes please.

The second one. I've seen Camelot plenty of times (I've even seen it live), but I'd just rather a straight-up Arthurian story than the musical version in the Canon. Personal preference, is all.

There really should be a King Arthur pic in the canon, but really the only choices are Excalibur and Disney's Sword in the Stone. Please don't come at me with "what about Camelot" because yeah, I'm aware of it.

Help is fluff. A Hard Day's Night gives more of a look at the Beatles phenomenon than their other movies. It's a snapshot that shows the beginnings of what would eventually become the world's most popular, influential band (they were, after all, bigger than Jesus). That said, this is one of those picks that's way more about cultural significance and influence than any kind of quality.