CaptainAmazing

Fun fact that didn’t get mentioned on the podcast: The original version of the first movie actually does include CGI. The sequences of the targeting computers on both the Falcon and in the Death Star trench run are what CGI consisted of at that point. So is the 3D animation that explained the battle plan for attacking the Death Star. It took several months to render and the design for it was changed during that time, which is why it has the dish for firing in the middle instead of the top.

Or should I say “inn-uendo?” Thank you, I’ll be here all night. Be sure to tip your waitstaff

It’s obvious why women find inns sexy. It’s the innuendo in the name “inn!”

I vaguely remember hearing about a real-life hotel that charges double for a supposedly haunted room. Wanna say it was the Omni Grove Park Inn in Asheville, NC, but I’m getting no relevant results on Google.

Just gonna throw this in there: LOTR has a cliffhanger ending and is on the list by itself. That said, it is there as a stand-in for the whole trilogy.

I got banned from the podcast’s Facebook group for a week for saying that people who voted that The Godfather shouldn’t be on the lists’ “feelings were ugly and wrong.” Guess the group admins didn’t know that it was a Simpsons reference.

Kind of shocked that this one hasn't been recommended yet. It's a 45-minute CGI-animated special that aired once on The WB in 2002. Somehow they got Mark Hamill, Nancy Cartwright, Grey DeLisle, Jodi Benson (the voice of Ariel in The Little Mermaid) and Paige O’ Hara (Belle in Beauty and the Beast) to provide voices. Clearly, that's where all the budget went. But the first thing that strikes you, other than the terrible title is the quality of the animation. To steal from the great write-up that I learned about this from, "Imagine the worst animation that you've ever seen. Now multiply that by 1,000. It's nightmarish. It's like someone just learning to make CGI made the entire special by themselves. Other highlights/lowlights: -The plot revolves around the main character trying to win the heart of a girl who would be the materialist "shallow popular girl" in any sane movie. He gives her a teddy bear that his mother gave him, and she throws it away. His heartbreak magically converts her to a great person. This takes place in one of those universes where things thrown away are instantly completely gone, because they never talk about giving it back. -The title. Oh man that title. It's like two terrible puns had an ugly baby. -One of the main characters just wears a scarf 24/7 so they don't have to animate his mouth. -As the title suggests, there's something in it that resembles rapping. About as much as this resembles proper animation. Wooowww. -Despite being in the title, Santa himself only appears briefly in silhouette. -Like Mac and Me and several terrible movies before it, it teases a sequel that never got made. -Best of all, it's all available on YouTube I realize it's too late to do this for this Christmas, but should be done at some point in the future.

Didn’t there used to be a way to embed YouTube videos in these threads?

Agreed. I only saw it about a year later at home and I enjoyed it, but really felt like I was missing something by watching it this way. Kind of feel the same way about how I saw 2001 on the tiniest TV imaginable back in the year 2001.

I think that doing Star Wars when they are is a great idea. It not only will make it close to the release date of the new film, it breaks up all the "Best of the Decade" episodes nicely (especially great for me as I tend to have seen like 20% of those films), AND it even gives movies released towards the end of 2019 a better shot of making it in. They'd pretty much have to be released on Dec. 31st to not make it before recording. And even then, Paul and Amy may have gotten the chance to see them early.

It's like someone said "You know that Lego movie from five years ago that was such a big hit and great advertising for the brand? What if we did that, but with our knockoff toy that's about 20% as popular?" It's even combined live-action and animated. Then the second Lego Movie just barely broke even and they came up with the $5 gimmick, possibly also after this one didn't do well overseas. RT score of 17% and their Critic's Consensus is "Much like the toys it advertises, Playmobil: The Movie seems sadly destined to be regarded as a superficially similar yet less desirable alternative to the competition." FWIW, the toys appear to be German, not French, but it's not like anyone cares that much about them.

So Nathan Rabin (who I won’t stop advocating being a guest until it happens) did a recent write-up of it here. He has a feature on his site where for $100 he’ll review any movie you want, and for the first time in the feature’s 18-month history, two people paid for him to do the same movie at the same time, this one. Must have been a popular choice.

Do you remember what they said, or in what way they hinted it wouldn’t be released or why? For anyone wondering, I brought this up again to confirm its status before writing about it on TV Tropes.

As the first post says, this was recorded in summer 2018. Most of the stuff from the summer 2019 tour is already out, and being released either in the order they were filmed or every other episode. Got a link to that? I've found some topics mentioning it, but not with Engler's comments.

I guess we can officially start referring to this as a mythical lost episode?

From seeing this turd around 2003, here's what I remember/reconstructed from later, but not recent, readings: -Having to watch the DVD menu screen for ages before we could start, and thinking "This movie had better be REALLY good." It wasn't. -A metric fuckton of college parties that had no relevance to the plot. -Not much happens for much of the movie. The only even mildly interesting thing in the first half is a scene where another girl seems to be spying on the main character in the library before running away, which turns out to be a red herring that is never brought up again. -The main girl meets a lot of guys and then never talks to them again. I think we're supposed to wonder if she's murdered them or something. -This "mystery" is anticlimactically solved at a random moment more than halfway through when we just suddenly see her "going to work on one of her victims." -Finally seeing the original movie years later and learning that this movie didn't even start out as a sequel to it, which made a LOT of sense. It's like the writer had only just barely heard of the first movie. -One review of it said "When the best part of this movie is William Shatner's acting, you know it has problems."

Here a pretty great look at the short-lived Jeremy Renner app and how hilariously terrible it was before it was apparently destroyed by trolls.

Been meaning to post Nathan Rabin’s breakdown of this movie for a while. Also, they really need to have him on the show some time. He’s basically the perfect studio episode guest.

Here’s a good primer on it by someone they need to have on as a guest some time: https://film.avclub.com/my-year-of-flops-case-file-86-body-of-evidence-1798213010

A little disappointed that they didn’t talk more about the third one and what did and didn’t work about it. I have a lot of thoughts on it, but then again, it’s not the featured one.

Nitpick: The Jason expert got one thing wrong, or maybe just firmly interprets it one way- After Jason’s mother is killed in the climax of the first movie, the only surviving counselor, at the point of total exhaustion, escapes into a canoe and falls asleep in it as it drifts out into he middle of the lake. She suddenly wakes up and- JASON’S DECOMPOSING BODY JUMPS OUT OF THE LAKE AND PULLS HER UNDER! Absolutely the best moment of the movie, IMHO. A true surprise kill. She wakes up in the hospital and is told that there was never any sign of any boy at the camp, so she concludes that he’s still out there. You could interpret that as her having imagined/dreamt/something elsed Jason jumping out of the water, but it’s a little weird to not even mention it as a possibility.

I got chosen on this one (asked to pet the kitty). It was my first attempt, but I did indeed sound terrible. They cut out a part of me excitedly cooing over the cat, and that's fine.

Just randomly thought of another good one: Drink when someone says something akin to "I didn't understand the part where..." and then someone, usually Jason, jokes "because that's the only part of the movie that didn't make any sense."

I haven't seen it, but I read this about it and was under the impression that its sort of a parody of "the Egregiously Unconvincing False Genius trope." "The Egregiously Unconvincing False Genius trope involves a TV show or movie or book constantly trying to convince us that its characters are geniuses creating transcendent, incontrovertibly brilliant and undeniable art when the snippets of work we get to see and experience suggest they’re talentless phonies." Seems like it's also a parody of the troubled genius/genius slacker trope. Sounds like there's basically nothing likable or redeemable about McConaughey's character, yet everyone loves him and he gets laid like crazy.

One thing I'm surprised they never got into is how so many things are ripped off from Star Wars, but then they’re flipped between good and evil. It's like the laziest possible way to make them "totally different." There's an all-black metallic character with no visible face that's more machine than man...but he's a good guy. There's a space empire, run by an emperor...but they're both good. There's a movement against this empire...but it's bad. I'm sure there's more, including more that get away from the whole empire thing, but it's been a while since I saw this movie.