klmonline

Thoughts on the bidding war for the franchise and what new corporate ownership would mean for fans? http://gizmodo.com/apparently-apple-and-amazon-are-in-a-bidding-war-for-t-1800742617

We didn't seem to have a thread for general impressions, feedback, and commentary not associated with a single episode. I hope it is not presumptive of me to start one. I'm so happy to hear "Season Two" back on the air! I missed your easy camaraderie and fun take on the film franchise. Your first few episodes are great... you were able to so easily pick up again where you left off. In Season One, you asked each guest for their first experience with a James Bond movie. I'd like to share mine and maybe other forum guests can contribute their stories as well. ----------- The year is 1973. I am 11 years old. I'm at the drive-in movie theater sitting in the back of the car, watching Disney's forgettable animated version of Robin Hood. I turn around and look through the back window at another screen across the complex. A boat is flying through the air with a police car in hot pursuit! It lands in the middle of a wedding reception, sending tables and food flying! A man in a suit is jumping across the backs of alligators! A beautiful woman is being menaced by a voodoo priest dressed like a skeleton! My life would never be the same. There was so much more to movies than I had realized! By the time The Spy Who Loved Me hit the theaters I was just shy of 16. I went to see it with my buddy. When Bond skied off the cliff and the film went into long shot of a man falling through the air - only to open a Union Jack parachute at the last minute - well, I was jumping and yelling like everyone else in the place. Over time, I came to prefer other actors as Bond and I came to prefer the books to the films. But Roger Moore will always have a special place in my heart as the man who introduced me to the whole exciting franchise. --------- Now that Ian, Roger, and Herve are all together again in one place, perhaps you could round up the old Superego gang for a special ghostly appearance by all three? We haven't been able to enjoy interactions between Herve and Roger since they shared a golf game with Arnold Palmer. Thanks for coming back and letting us all relive the joy of Bond together with you.

And here's another external critic chiming in with their vote! http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/a54788/jonathan-demme-stop-making-sense-talking-heads/

And is the very fact of unavailability a point against canonization?

Back to the topic... Here's a nice, timely article written upon Demme's death and on point with the main discussion! https://www.wired.com/2017/04/jonathan-demme-stop-making-sense/

My fiery hatred of La La Land has nothing to do with the plot or characters. This is a musical with instantly forgettable songs, croaked by terrible non-singers, performing insipid choreography poorly.

This is merely a "me too" post to make it more convenient to gauge listener sentiment. I vote Mr. White out of The Canon. Listening to him swung me back and forth between bored and frustrated. That's a matter of personal opinion, but isn't this entire show a personal opinion meter? Which brings up an interesting point... Is Amy considering bringing back well-liked guests for repeat appearances? It feels petty to critique the critics rather than the movies up for debate, but isn't it valid to say whom we would rather listen to going forward? And if we talk about guest presenters we enjoy or don't enjoy listening to, is mentioning Amy's presentation style off-limits? I don't want to be vindictive for the fun of it, but is it an attack if we point out oft-repeated vocal mannerisms of Amy's that actively distract from being able to listen to the points she is making? I sometimes get so hung up on "like" and "it's true" that I have to force myself to concentrate again on the topic. This has nothing to do with her analysis of the films or quality as a reviewer. But in her role as starring host of an audio podcast, her delivery and performance style matters. The obvious retort is "If you don't like it, you don't have to listen." Certainly true. The fact that I keep listening means I like it enough to stay with it. But if film critics can offer their perception of the creative and technical aspects of a movie that influenced their opinions, are we within our rights to do so as well with regards to the podcast? I have a bad feeling this is opening a bucket o' worms unrelated to this week's vote, but we were already deep into a thread with people opining about the reviewer rather than the reviewed. I have no wish to be disrespectful to Amy or her guests, and I hope I won't be perceived as a troll or flamer. Thank you.

Just stopping by to bump this one back up the list. C'mon gang... You won't regret checking out this insanely insane piece of insanity!

Reference "Top Gear"

Ah, wonderful... An opportunity to be a Wikipenis! "Scuppernong" is the first native grape cultivated in the colonies for juice, food, and wine. There is still a 400-year-old "Mother Vine" growing on Roanoke Island in North Carolina and the grape is the official state fruit of NC. I know I'm an immigrant to North Carolina because I hate scuppernong jam and wine. It can make a lovely arbor though.

There's a good chance this will get me banned from the forum for life, but I couldn't resist when viewing the last few posts about personal attacks on Devin. If you can accept this as all in good fun, then here's a supercut of The Wrath of Devin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3feqyi23Mc This is not intended maliciously or as antagonism. If I see comments that it is not viewed as funny, I will remove this post.

Obviously not. I just started writing at the very end right before you gave your final YES and NO votes.

Nope. At no point did either host give a justification for this being in the canon. This just falls into the general list of "movies we like." Everybody has movies they like. That's nice and it's fun to share those with others. But WHAT makes this a canon film? I don't have anything in particular against the movie. I just can't find any reason to elevate it into a position of prominence above other films. HA! I started writing this right before the very end with their Amy and Devin's votes and I'm listening as they give their opinions. She just said the same thing. I more often side with Devin's viewpoints, but this time Amy and I are echoing each other.

Can I just throw this out there?

Long-time, first-time and all that rot. This keeps coming back to the question of what the Canon represents, which neither of the creator/hosts nor the audience has ever come to a consensus on. Amy's argument felt very much rooted in whether she personally liked the film or not. I agree with the earlier poster who posited that the very concept of a movie needing a special "indulgence" entry for discussion should automatically disqualify it (and yes, I apply that equally to Re-Animator). Canon movies should be Canon-worthy. Everyone is entitled to get personal enjoyment out of whatever piece of entertainment floats their boat, but if we are applying some sort of higher-level objective criteria, the fact that you happened to like it should not be sufficient justification for inclusion. Pennies From Heaven has not influenced cinema in any way, is not representative of superlative craftmanship, is itself derivative of a previous version of the same work, and has largely been relegated to a footnote in film history. This movie belongs prominently featured on Amy's Picks wall at her video store, but not in The Canon.