HoldenMartinson

That's kinda what I love about Keaton films: He loooooves women.

Oh, stop it you!!

I personally admire and respect Head Spin and Joseph Daley have to say, really whenever they speak to any topic, and I think I see where they're coming from. The movies are a part of a franchise. A major part, though certainly not the focus. That said, Harry Potter was so meteoric to the culture. As far as film goes, you've launched at least Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson--who are slowly, but surely rising as some of our most exciting actors. Not that this is a serious argument, but one of the best episodes Extras is easily Daniel Radcliffe's, and we don't get things like that without the Harry Potter films, specifically. Also, I look at it the same way we look at including films emblematic of other things--like inducting Cannibal Holocaust because of what it represents for exploitation films and found footage. I think for better or (mostly) worse, Harry Potter is sort of the reason YA franchises exist the way they do. Maybe that means Twilight, or The Maze Runner, or The 5th Wave, or whatever, but it also means The Hunger Games and A Series of Unfortunate Events--which I think gets better as time passes. One could also make the argument that properties like Harry Potter, as well as The Lord of the Rings made things like Game of Thrones possible. I think it helped prove that these kinds of films could make money. The first one came out a few months before The Fellowship of the Ring, and still made more money--just shy of a $1 billion worldwide, years before that was the standard. I don't think that box office is necessarily indicative of quality, but these films consistently made hundreds of millions of dollars. Seriously. When your eight film franchise sustains momentum so consistently that your lowest grossing entry is just short of $800 million, you can't ignore that. Hell, you can be sure that we're gonna tackle Marvel at some point, and you have to acknowledge that the comics come first in the same way the books come first with Harry Potter. We have Superman in the canon. We're gonna get something for Marvel. We should have something from Harry Potter. Franchise films are important. I'd love to talk about Ozu and Malle as much as the next guy. Prisoner of Azkaban is not even in the same league as any of those directors' films, but it's still a really artful franchise film that we typically don't get. I think that, whatever place it has in the hierarchy of its core franchise, Prisoner of Azkaban is among the best that type of filmmaking has to offer.

Yeah. All of Keaton's films were recently on Amazon. If you had Prime, they were streaming for free. I don't know what happened to them.

I actually think that the third one is terrific. It has this really icy, foreboding tone that is able to manage moments of quirkiness, tenderness, and tension with equal grace. The direction is solid--which, of course it is--and the cinematography is so nimble, capable of grandiosity, intimacy, and often great visual jokes and storytelling. I honestly think you could watch Prisoner of Azkaban without any dialogue, and still know what is happening--even the time travel stuff. Thematically, it's a bit harder to peg, but I see it being largely about the nature of perception, one's understanding of the past, and making up for lost time. We also see Harry grow as a character, or at least into a real character. In the first two films, he's proactive enough to service the plot, and he's sort of being guided through this crazy world. In Prisoner of Azkaban, we see Harry actually making mistakes, being impulsive, and trying to carve his own path. He's trying to be his own person, but he's caught in the middle of a legacy that he didn't choose, and is being pulled into situations for which he's predestined. Daniel Radcliffe allows Harry to struggle without being overly angsty or insufferable. I think it stands alone as its own film--though, I think they maybe should have kept the Firebolt subplot as was in the books, if I had any serious complaints; otherwise, it feels like a tag that doesn't quite work as well as it could. Do I love this film? No. I think Deathly Hallows Pt. I is more cinematic, and has a stunning performance from Emma Watson--not to mention "The Tale of Three Brothers," which should have gotten an animated short Oscar nomination--but if I were to pick one that encapsulates this world, and where these characters get to do their thing in even doses, I'd go with Prisoner of Azkaban.

And there is no film without Birth of a Nation, yet They Live is in the canon. There's room for both, just as there's room for the films and books as pillars of modern pop culture. Also, who cares if "normals" like Harry Potter for the movies? That's such a condescending, hipster bullshit argument, no matter who made it. Populism is totally valid. Movies are for everyone, not just those who put the work in to understand every facet of art and media. If the films helped popularize these huge stories, just as Casino Royale and the 007 films popularized the Ian Fleming novels, then why can't we indulge them? This is a podcast about film, and Pottermaina was clearly so huge. Why can't we represent that through inducting one of the movies? One question that we should ask ourselves: Should the canon represent solely the medium, or should it represent our culture as well? We've inducted films on cultural significance before. Harry Potter is culturally significant. We should 100% consider one of the films for the canon.

Yeah. The Harry Potter series is so significant that even the films are canon-worthy. I'd go so far as to say that the films are stronger than the books--or at least that I enjoy the films more than I enjoy the books, since it's kind of silly to compare works across mediums. I think they end up streamlining the story in a big way, and it works to the series' benefit that they trim nearly all of the fat from the books. Prisoner of Azkaban is the obvious choice, since it's the best of the series--though, I do think that Deathly Hallows Pt. I is a knockout picture. The first film is probably also worth discussion, since it carves out the world we follow for eight films, and it proves that this is a viable film franchise. 100% for Harry Potter for consideration in the canon.

YEESSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Keaton is one of my absolute favorites. I am beyond excited for this. The General is one of my absolute favorites. Also, my birthday is that week, and so it feels extra great to be doing this one film.

One could argue that Platoon is the American Beauty of Vietnam films. FULL METAL JACKET FOREVER!!!!

I'd was talking about this film with a co-worker last night, though in conjunction with another feminist masterpiece: Legally Blonde. Go ahead. Try and refute that Legally Blonde is so ahead of its time that pretty much no one understood what it was saying when it was released. I mention this, because I think you could make a really great versus episode out of Mean Girls and Legally Blonde.

I know that's a joke, but I would pay so much money to see Michael Bay remake Au hasard Balthazar. Can you imagine what his take on human suffering and self-sabotage would look like? Plus, his actor work is cut out for him. All he has to do to make people miserable for the film is to show them his movies one after another.

I see what you mean, and to be honest, it is way more fun to pit two titans of cinema against one another. That's why, in the Casablanca thread, I wanted to do that one as part of a versus: It'd be way more entertaining to argue two GREAT films that are 100% canon-worthy on their own. Part of me is reluctant to put It Happened One Night in a versus episode, partially because I love it so much. But if that's what it came down to, I'm sure I'd live, no matter the results.

Personally, I'd love a standalone episode for It Happened One Night, because it so clearly informs nearly every romantic comedy that follows it. That, and it's such a phenomenal picture that it really deserves to be discussed by itself.

No. I mean, if the song revived it, it's arguable that it would have stayed kind of forgotten. And, as was said on the homework thread, there are better Audrey Hepburn films and performances. There are better Blake Edwards films. As far as the yellow-face goes, couldn't you argue that Pete Postlethwaite's Japanese-tinged performance in The Usual Suspects is an example of yellow-face in a great film? In the tradition of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Breakfast at Tiffany's is, at best, a film of note. So, this is an easy no.

We restored Au hasard Balthazar to technicolor???

For real, though: The Beatles' Let It Be versus The Replacements' Let It Be. Wouldn't that be fun??

In the Mood for Love is a must. Christopher Doyle's cinematography alone is canon-worthy. The fact that there's an amazing film within those frames helps quite a bit, though.

I've said this on this forum before, but you can tell that George Miller was looking at The General when making Mad Max: Fury Road. This just happens to be a lot funnier, and with trains. THAT SAID, if we're talking about Keaton, Sherlock, Jr. is my poison. Such an incredible final sequence.

This is fine. I love both, but it's no contest that The General is superior on every front.

What can I say? This podcast is rubbing off on me.

The Johnny Depp of movies.

Yeah... Call me when we do Roman Holiday. I don't know. Maybe I'm being a snob--which is often the case--because I'm just not in love with this film on any level. It's one of those classics for which I feel nothing. I don't love it. I don't hate it. It's perfectly beige to me.

That last one is totally unfair. Knife in the Water stands zero chance against Beverly Hills Chihuahua. This is like pitting Citizen Kane against a bowl of rice. A BOWL OF RICE WINS EVERY DAMN TIME.

Wasn't cocaine a huge problem in the 80s? Definitely makes me reconsider what Amy said, which makes the conflict more about the times and their changing, rather than just drugs.

Eeeexactly. Way to shit on the grave of a cinematic legend. I hope you're proud of yourselves.