MegadethOfSuperman

I have such fond memories of seeing the Breakfast Club over the years - at home, in theaters, on cable - and I think that it resonated with me in high school even though I graduated almost 30 years after it came out - I mean it opens with a Bowie quote. It was one of the movies that legitimately made me feel like I belonged somewhere (even if that place was in front of the TV or movie screen). I love BREAKFAST CLUB, but did have to really think about its place in The Canon. The women are super undeveloped on the page (despite nuanced performances that make them worthwhile), some of the jokes don't quite land, the psychology is overly simplistic, and it is absolutely problematic through a modern lens. But despite the things against it, it still is so iconic, such a cultural touchstone, that its shortcomings almost become an important part of film academia. I know that can seem like a cop out, but this is probably the quintessential Hughes movie, and for good reason. For me, it speaks to kids and adults about how inescapable and tragic being misunderstood can feel. Don't show me class on Monday, but let me live in detention on Saturday. Absolutely YES

If Michael Paré wore a beret and ate crudité and sang Walk This Way, it sure as shit would make my day

This vote was so difficult and almost heartbreaking. Get Out is one of the rare movies that is as entertaining as it is is insightful. It operates at such a high level of thriller/horror fun while also being the most important cultural touchstone of the year. I think people will look back years from now and see it as emblematic of the current sociopolitical climate and of the Blumhouse takeover of modern horror. While mother! is also metaphorical and is very effective, I think it speaks to a much more universal experience of just general outrage (almost feeling entitled in certain aspects), as opposed to the way Get Out is such an important viewpoint from a black man. I know so many people that identified with the horror of mother!, but were exposed to something new with Get Out. I will be watching this movie for years to come and while I loved the other options - I can't say that they make me as excited to both re-watch and talk about in equal measure. Florida Project is such a close second and I think it's a film that is so special and alive, but not as culturally significant.

This episode had a truly funny and thoughtful discussion. Rarely does that happen when talking about the greats. The movie itself is a blast to watch and always makes me more curious as to what happened and why. Personally I respect Wiseau's passion to keep his movie strictly tied to his vision. And yes, he's a legendary and enigmatic character due to his cryptic and guarded nature - but he's also an asshole in a lot of stories and interviews. Which brings me to my favorite part of the episode - Paul and Amy poking fun at Kubrick at and Fincher. I think any movie that can inspire this much conversation and have it vary between curiosity, reverence, distaste, hilarity, and even cause you to rethink what makes a movie canon-worthy, is worth canonization. But like Amy said early on the episode, I'm not even sure if I believe what I'm positing as far as theory goes. I vote yes not because of the movie, but because of the importance of the conversation it inspires.

I hope if this doesn't come across in any way as rude to Amy or the folks behind the scenes. After having read the great replies here, I've decided to vote on the movie without any regard for other entries or potential entries. Long live the canon!

Hey everybody, Over these past 128 episodes there has never been a definitive take on how to vote for a film that could be argued as having something similar in the canon. This is not about the merits of much debated films within the canon like Working Girl or Cannibal Holocaust, but rather about new entires and their potential place in the canon alongside a similar film. This is to say, should The Blair Witch Project be voted in despite Cannibal Holocaust already being in the canon? They're both found footage horror, but one is from the extremist Italian movement of the 70s and the other is a great low budget picture that's release and online discussion was something novel and important. Or something like Re-Animator existing alongside Evil Dead II. They're both horror comedies from the mid/late eighties that lean heavily on the gore. However, one is a rehash/sequel that shows what adding budget to a previous film and the progress of a director can do, while the other is a great example of cashing in on the name Lovecraft, B-pictures stealing the score from a more iconic film, and cutting a film down to a lean 90 minutes can make it highly effective. The Driver vs Le Samourai? Arguments can be made both ways. So here's the question: What if Return of the Living Dead was nominated? It is nearly identical in tone and approach to movies like Evil Dead II and Re-Animator. Is the canon a place for small distinctions to be made to justify a variety of films within a genre, or is one example enough? As it pertains to this most recent episode - is They Live the only sci-fi satire of fascism/totalitarianism we should put in the canon, or should Starship Troopers and Robocop be things we judge for entry as well? What do we do if we agree Robocop is better than Starship Troopers AND They Live? Should something be switched out or is this the bed we've made? I'm genuinely curious what folks think on the subject. Is the canon and endless list of films or is there a certain number to make a cut off? Should we allow any movie the majority of voters deem great? Should there only be one example for a message/genre/type of movie? Should we stop nominating movies that resemble ones we already have in the canon? I love a good versus episode, but what happens when an individual candidate is put up against what has already been canonized? Will I ever find true love? WHO KNOWS! But I'd love to get a discussion going. Thanks for reading and hopefully for chiming in, MegadethOfSuperman

I'm waiting to cast a vote because I'm genuinely curious what people think about the number of entries into the canon that fit a certain criteria. Should we allow all movies that are genuinely great, or just the best example of a certain trend in filmmaking? Is it redundant to have Evil Dead II and Re-Animator, or is it the more the merrier? I love Starship Troopers and find it's characters to be far more compelling and fleshed out than anyone in Robocop, so that's not really my hang up. I do think that a larger discussion should be had (and I may start a new thread for it) about redundancy vs. options within a time period/genre of film. Let me know what y'all think.

I wholeheartedly agree with both arguments of LAST TANGO being a relic that no longer has the effect it must have in 72/73, and that the conversation surrounding this movie is one that has merit. I think it's gross that it's so apologetic for Brando's character and that his performance is very mannered. The film meanders and isn't all that cohesive in terms of message, but the tone is somehow always consistent. I don't know. I could say some positives and a lot of negatives, but considering that this was such a talking point, and while it's not the same erotically or culturally as it was, there's still so much to discuss. I feel like this is a great example for the canon to have a film that's a perfect distillation of a talk-piece film. It's almost a blueprint for conversations of merit, technique, historical relevance, performances (both great and bad), and film criticism itself. I feel weird voting yes because I don't think the film is worthy of the canon, but the conversation is.

I was very curious to hear what arguments would be made in either direction. While I personally love this movie and see it as an indie oddball that touches from black filmmakers who are constantly underrepresented, I completely get why it's not an easy yes for a lot of people. It touches too many genres and is often falsely categorized as a stoner comedy. To be completely honest, I was worried I wouldn't like it upon rewatch because I don't smoke weed anymore. But I can gladly say that I still find it an odd curio with a great deal of heart and simplicity that has more than enough laughs and cultural relevance to merit it's place in the canon. It's the other side of the Boyz N The Hood coin. Yes for me

I feel like I might be completely wrong here, but I've become a little disappointed in the fact that since the show has returned, there seems to be less discussion about the films themselves than personal anecdotes. It's not that this isn't interesting (particularly Jake's stories of John Waters), but I haven't heard topics like shots, editing, music, tone, effects, etc. discussed as thoroughly as they were before the show went on hiatus. I'm hoping that there's a way to maybe strike a balance between personal stories and how they relate to the film at hand, and the techniques of the film itself. It seems that Devin's dogmatic attention to the structure of the show was the case for this, but that's just a theory. However, like I said, I may be nitpicking or just flat out wrong. Chime in if you have an opinion of any kind as it relates to this. Love the show, love the guests, love the discussion. God(?) bless Amy Nicholson. I'll listen to the show no matter what happens.