Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
devincf

Episode 84: RE-ANIMATOR

  

289 members have voted

  1. 1. Is RE-ANIMATOR Canon?

    • Yes!
      144
    • Call time of death on this one.
      145


Recommended Posts

 

 

 

Hahaha, fair enough points all. I still think Re-Animator is a damn fine taco; a cut above the rest.

This is definitely a nail-biter. Pretty much 50/50 down the line. I'm curious to see how it will turn out over the rest of the week.

 

It's a damn fine taco indeed.

Share this post


Link to post

There are more votes for either side of this poll than total votes in the KIKI'S DELIVERY SERVICE poll.

 

Devin called in reinforcements from Birth.Movies.Death.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Picture the Ride of the Rohirrim, except all the soldiers are slightly chubby and wearing JAWS and HALLOWEEN T-shirts.

 

Some of them have the same beards, though.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Picture the Ride of the Rohirrim, except all the soldiers are slightly chubby and wearing JAWS and HALLOWEEN T-shirts.

 

Some of them have the same beards, though.

This is me, minus the beard. :(

Share this post


Link to post

 

Devin called in reinforcements from Birth.Movies.Death.

 

The fact that his call has spiked the votes but hasn't caused a landslide victory says a lot about how the regular listeners feel about this film...

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that his call has spiked the votes but hasn't caused a landslide victory says a lot about how the regular listeners feel about this film...

But the real question is what, if anything, that actually means. This conclusion could be interpreted many different ways.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a great movie but it's not great enough for me to vote yes without a major importance to it. I'm with Amy on this. I'd hate to cash in horror chips on Reanimator when we could still put An American Werewolf in London in

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

This is a great movie but it's not great enough for me to vote yes without a major importance to it. I'm with Amy on this. I'd hate to cash in horror chips on Reanimator when we could still put An American Werewolf in London in

 

Don't feel leveraged out of voting how you feel. I seriously doubt AWIL doesn't get in because of cashed in horror chips.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Long-time listener, first time voter!

 

I have to echo the thoughts of many others, I felt kinda bad for Devin getting knocked around over a movie he loves (less bad when he keeps calling Amy ignorant to prove his point) but I overall I agree with Amy. It's over-reaching to me to say EVERYONE likes these kinds of movies and I think some great examples are already in The Canon. This isn't my cup of tea, and neither really are They Live and Evil Dead 2, but I recognize the historical cultural value of those films. I don't see it here...sorry Devin :mellow:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I voted no because Devin was mean to me on twitter once.

This comment made me laugh out loud while I was riding the train home from work. Why does everybody stare at me all of the sudden?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Oh man. I started posting in the forums because I enjoyed reading the discussion so much that it felt lecherous to not contribute. In the past few weeks the active users and the word count have both been bursting at the seams; I love it, although it's a cruelty that it blew up biggest in a week that I wasn't around. Even so, it's all been great to read. Feel no need to read any of this - it's just one guy rambling after the party already let out. But I've gotta get my thoughts out. I'll try to neatly divide the subjects.

 

1. DEVIN AND AMY

 

I find it hard to compliment people online without feeling like a sycophant, but I love Devin and Amy. I love their opinions, their perspectives, and I love this little corner of film fandom that they've carved out for us all to enjoy (a non-broken fandom to boot, I think). In pro-wrestling they say "styles make matches." It's true in many things, and here Amy and Devin's weirdly different takes on film clash beautifully.

 

Your instincts weren't wrong; I wrote that to to qualify some disappointment. Our hosts spent a great deal talking about what ought to define the Canon when perhaps they owe themselves an internal discussion about what ought to comprise their Canon debate. I imagine a spectrum of what this podcast's content can be. One side reads: "Discussion that interrogates the films merits;" the other, "Devin and Amy struggle to win an argument." I'd say that this week's content leaned well to the right, and often I found myself wishing I could scrub away the petty griping and just get to talking about the film, unencumbered by ego. Sparks are fun to look at, but in episodes like these I long for a healthier ratio of "genuine conversation" to "petty power plays."

 

One of the issues is that Devin is often all offense and no defense. By that I mean that Devin starts in his comfort zone of laying out his opinions. He gives two or three different theses in a row. If you think a co-host's input would be a great way to spice things up here, well, this is when Devin takes a counterpoint from Amy as a "fight-or-flight" level survival event. Either he flees by disagreeing quickly and immediately changing the subject, or he fights by going hard and calling her "ignorant" and relishing the future shot he gets at attacking her film. Way more than usual in this episode Devin goes to ten, and when Devin goes to ten it's clear at once that he's stopped talking about his genuine beliefs in the film and starts bullshitting to win an argument that he has committed to. It sucks to listen when it gets like that - you need look no further then the Homework thread of last week to see how excited people were to hear about the film and not someone misrepresent their own ideas to win a fight. If you must look further, look to the discussion thread to see how disappointed people were in his arguments. That "too-hot" approach fails because he never rests on a position to defend, he just darts around rhetorically to finish a fight.

 

And when things cool down, his insight is great. The second half of the episode was wonderful, with Amy making her case against a passionate-but-reasoned argument from Devin. He's got a great critical mind and a passion for this film, and it's just a shame that those two things have to oppose when they should compliment one another.

 

The difference in this case is that it was Devin's indulgence pick. Of course he got emotional in its defense, who wouldn't in theirs? But if this is meant to be a regular feature in the build to #100, I'd suggest a greater rigor and/or care to its approach. It's easy to get too hot, and when the emotion gets high the episode and argument quality suffers. It'd be another thing if it kicked up the quality in a meaningful way, but instead it leaves much of the episode to be side-stepped.

 

I thought Amy's argument was great, and it throws into relief the value of a consistent argument that a person actually defends, whether or not it's valid. In fact I don't agree with every single point, but I agree with the spirit that the Canon ought to be somewhat more discriminating. I think I'll address the argument proper separately, but she approached her response to the movie in a way I really appreciated.

 

I'm bothering typing this at all because I think there's a value to pausing and reflecting before we get another indulgence episode that runs thin on interesting analysis and high on uncomfortable bickering. I hope I'm not suggesting what two creators' show should be. Otherwise maybe my fandom's broken, too. But understand it's meant with humility and genuine constructiveness. Disregard at will.

 

I'd like to write about the larger Canon argument, but I'll post that separate below.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm bothering typing this at all because I think there's a value to pausing and reflecting before we get another indulgence episode that runs thin on interesting analysis and high on uncomfortable bickering.

 

This is what I was trying to say in my earlier post, though I fear this point got muddled in my ramblings about the merits of the canon. If it seemed like I was just opposed to canonizing Re-Animator because it's a genre favorite, that was not my point, though I don't think it's canon-worthy and there has been a lot of similar material in recent episodes. This could've been a great episode except the level of discussion was low and hindered by bad "debating" on Devin's part. It doesn't represent why I started listening to this podcast in the first place. Indulgence picks should be limited, because too many of them will skew the nature of the podcast from the original idea of the canon. Next week's versus episode is a brutal lineup, and I just hope the level of discussion on that show will be worthy of the caliber of films being considered.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

2. The Canon and Genre

 

Did you know that of the 22 single (non-versus) episodes of 2016, the Canon voters have voted in 19? Only Broadcast News, Lolita, and The Lost Weekend failed the cut.

 

What do we think of that?

 

I don't know, for one. I know I don't want a Small Canon. I've argued before that the format of the show will always skew towards the hosts picking stacked candidates. Occasionally there's a Lolita or Shawshank Redemption that makes for a compelling discussion because it isn't a strong candidate. But by and large a movie that inspires a meaty discussion probably has a good shot of winning out. Better that then Amy and Devin choose average films that inspire little discussion and get voted out for the novelty of padding the ledger with losses.

 

So what's the line? Amy re-animates the old discussion this week, teeing the world up for a shitty pun. For her, if I have this right, Re-Animator represents yet another piece of good genre fare overpraised and which would over-represent B-movie comedy/horror, especially with Evil Dead II is running circles around it up in Canon heaven already. Why are we arguing about yet another genre horror film of the late 80s when there are so many other unexplored areas, and even better horror movies, that haven't been discussed yet? And how far down the list of presidential succession do we go before we actually start saying no to something instead of everything that's just fun?

 

Perhaps, first, we address this genre argument that everyone's buzzing about before we get into the macro-stuff.

 

The posts on the forum might have you believe that there is a sharply contested conflict between people who think genre film is too niche and minor to get massive representation, and those who believe such films deserve far more consideration then they're given. Let's take a look at that.

 

There are plenty of anti-genre arguments. I can make one. It goes like this:

 

"People over-respond to genre fare in all media. Some people are uncomfortable with the status quo of what gets praise, so when, say, a really fun B-movie comes along they overreact huge to praise it with an argument like: 'Man, it's just fun! Fun stuff doesn't get its due from the mainstream.'In truth, genre stuff deserves legitimacy, it's really fun, and it's valuable for the variety and influence it provides to cinema. But some people seize on it and trick themselves into thinking its better than it is so that they can be in the ahead-of-the-curve contrarian minority of fandom. Or they."

 

Now that argument exists nowhere in the forums but here. That argument probably works in extreme cases, but I don't believe it describes a majority of genre fans. Most people are fine with it even if it isn't for them, and I'm confident that more film fans like genre film then don't. Many just have opinions like brianoblivion's, with which I agree:

 

I feel that there is such a glut of genre content online (not just online anymore, as geek culture has become mainstream pop culture), so I'm personally not interested in hearing people "geek out" over films like Re-Animator or They Live. Those are two of my favorite movies, but I've been talking about them with friends and reading other people's takes for years. I'm not suggesting that the Canon should only tackle classics of world cinema (even though I really enjoy those conversations), but I do think the premise of "the greatest movies to live on forever" should be preserved to meaningfully distinguish The Canon from the multitude of interchangeable "here's a movie I like" content that proliferates online.

 

Those people simply don't want fan's eagerness for genre film to cloud their judgement. But does that opinion, either, appear in the forums anywhere? Look at what DocScotticus wrote:

 

Yes, yes, totally yes. Important as a major, well-done example of levity being added to horror after the oftentimes grim, disturbing, and baroque 70s. Amazing effects, tight plot, great characters, great ending. Definitive Jeffrey Combs. Definitive Stuart Gordon. A fine exploration of the multiple dark sides of men, and devilish fun. All this Evil Dead instead talk is claptrap (I refer to some comments I've seen, not whatever Amy said, just starting the podcast). This ain't Highlander, there needn't be only one.

 

Also, I understand where Amy is coming from, but it's not like you guys are considering Prince of Darkness or House of Wax or even later Gordon like Dagon, all to one degree or another solid, well-made, sometimes great movies, but not on the same level as Re-Animator. It has more meat, more nuance, more good. It's a top-shelf splatter film and a fine, classic horror entry. I don't think the standards have slipped. There are many metrics by which we grade a great film. Gojira may not be The Godfather but I certainly hope it makes it in when it comes up, because it's doing exactly what it wants to do exceedingly well, and better than most of its kind. Maybe that's the real test: is it better than most films trying to do similar thiings?

 

I admit I'm choosing my favorites, but I promise I'm not selecting against the grain. People aren't going overboard here. And that goes both ways. Look at Joseph Daley's screed here:

 

Only genre film is treated so disdainfully, and so belligerently when we're talking about Canonization... and yet speaking as someone who holds films like 'Re-Animator' and 'Videodrome' to the same standard as films like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or 'Taxi Driver', or 'Seven Samurai', or '8 1/2', I'm supposed to just be all like: "Well, We got the prerequisite horror slot filled y'all... We'll just have to settle for that." instead of approaching each film separate and on its own terms? Who gives a shit if 'Evil Dead II' made it in the Canon already? This isn't a damn Vs. episode where that's even a legitimate consideration...

 

Again, I don't really see people making the errors people are afraid of - just reacting as though they're happening all around them. There aren't people being unfairly hard in this forum against Re-Animator (who aren't named Newlin). Check out good ol' Nathan Roberson:

 

I'm of a similar opinion to many in the thread, and some of Amy's opinion. I like this movie. I find it to be fun, but it is not an all-time classic. If we want more body horror in the canon we should be looking to Cronenberg first. I would recommend Videodrome to someone before this in terms of a great body horror movie. Again, Re-Animator isn't bad, it's as Devin has said before: "It's fine." Fine does not equal greatest of all time.

 

I think that the episode for this movie was a perfect time to discuss the size of our canon. I'm OK with a large canon, but lately I've been wondering if we haven't been discerning enough. I don't know the answer to that. I voted yes on They Live, a movie some felt undeserving, but I also voted no on Kiki's Delivery Service, which proved to be a divisive choice. Either way, I hope that this debate continues to come up from time to time as it made for a very entertaining debate, and that's in part what I listen to this podcast for.

 

I disagree personally with his take on Re-Animator, but it's as reasonable as can be. He's not taking a hard line against genre. In fact, I agree with his second paragraph in total. I thought that They Live passed muster, and I thought Kiki's Delivery Service wasn't nearly substantial enough a movie to warrant Canonization.

 

Which brings me to a reiteration of the crux of this genre argument: people are voting based on whether or not they think the movie is

 

People are mistaking a war for the nature of genre. Genre films are divisive! Horror movies especially! People have wildly different reactions to them; to use a statistical term, the standard deviation of their reactions are way larger then the average. Someone's favorite horror movie is another's terrible schlock. Threshold, a poster who I respect a great deal, said he hates Re-Animator more than Working Girl. He's not wrong, he just responded to weird art differently.

 

So when it comes to genre and beyond, people ought to stop confusing naturally different reactions with intractable ideological disagreements. And that includes me - if I'm being honest I had a real sourness about Kiki's Delivery Service passing the bar. My knee-jerk reaction was that there was something rotten with people's Canon philosophy, and I don't think there is. People just got considerably more out of that film than I did. I'm happy to be outvoted in that case, and I think others would be too if they really read these posts and considered the true perspectives of their dissenters.

 

If this sounds familiar it's because Morgoth said it way better already:

 

There's room enough in the canon for foie gras and street tacos. (Hell, up to me I would put Fast & Furious 5, 6, and 7 on the shelf right next to Kubrick or Felini any day.) There is a character, a quality, that does single out Re-Animator above other (generically putting it) '80s horror; and horror in general.

 

I'm not sure why it's been difficult for some of us (myself included) to articulate. Maybe it takes a subtle appreciation to notice it. Like, a person observing from the outside would say "all Ramones albums sound the same", but someone who actually listens to them can hear the distinct difference between the Tommy period, the "reaching for pop-status" albums, the hardcore/metal-influenced period, and the later loose post-Dee Dee material.

 

So as far as the genre discussion and the Canon voting in general, I think people are working themselves into a false argument. Every vote has people who likes it more or less than you. People are basically voting on the same criteria all around: Is this movie great enough to be considered in the Canon of all-time greats. When people vote differently, it's their reaction and not their criteria.

 

This brings us to one final area: slots and comparisons. The tension is that in defining a Canon of all-time greats, we absolutely have to compare movies to each other. And yet, the idea of their being quotas on certain fare grosses everyone out - again, everyone talks about it like someone is saying that ought to be the case when no one is. Maybe Amy.

 

Let's take two quotes at once. Those of Rotmonian and Stickman Cinema:

 

The thing that has always bothered me about the "we already have a movie of this kind in The Canon" argument is that it basically just boils down to which movie was chosen for an episode first, as opposed to judging each film on its own merits. Let's say Re-Animator happened to be done on a prior episode and got in, does that mean Evil Dead II would have to be kept out just because it came up on a later date? If you wanna vote no on a film like Re-Animator because you don't think it's Canon-worthy, that's fine. But to vote no on a film simply because another one of its type got in first is silly to me.

 

I get it. We already have Cannibal Holocaust, Evil Dead 2, The Thing, and now, possibly Re-Animator. The rub is, while all of those are indeed horror genre films, they’re all VERY DIFFERENT films. There was a conversation in the episode about whether or not we should let in more westerns, and the consensus seemed to be yes, we should—because you can make many different, many great kinds of westerns. How impossibly illogical is it to conclude the same cannot be said for horror and gore films?

 

I agree with both of these posts. A movie's either that good or it isn't, and it would be silly to treat every movie in the Canon as a strict bar for each new film to clear. Rotmonian gets at the idea behind my own personal criteria: a film must be great and exceptional to make it into the Canon.

 

I want to hone in on the latter, because it makes all the difference to this issue. And I don't want to put words in Amy's mouth, but I always took her comparisons to voted-in films to mean this: the Canon has no quotas, but a candidate must distinguish itself from other successful entries (e.g.: be exceptional from one another). I believe that Amy doesn't feel the movies that Rotmonian listed are different enough from one another to all warrant inclusion. I disagree, but again, we need to take a person's answer as one based in personal reaction and less in argumentative difference. I absolutely agreed with her when it came to Slacker being the millionth 90s indie film that all claimed to be the same big deal - that's too far. There is a line somewhere.

 

Let's look at the Empire Strikes Back. Not the greatest example since it was rooted in versus episodes, but I saw someone react to it on the site. To some, Empire Strikes Back is unique enough from Episode IV, and then obviously great enough to warrant its inclusion. To me, personally, Empire Strikes Back is great, but not exceptional from the first installment to warrant its own spot.

 

So one has to vote understanding that part of the rigor of the Canon probably should require that we don't pack in too many similar movies, and that these comparisons are useful to the process. But also we ought to not worry about "too many" of some kind of movie in general, and have an understanding that the difference between two movies being indistinguishable from one person and vibrantly dissimilar to another is what I think has caused most of these Canon debate issues: people easily mistake different personal reactions to film as different criteria for voting. I swear, and it's obvious when you read the comments, that our voting philosophies are all extremely similar, just not our reactions. Look at the Homework for Boogie Nights vs. TWBB! People are nervous to admit that they don't get anything from the latter while others are praising it as the greatest film of a decade. Find that understanding of the other side of the reaction.

 

I'll finish in my next post with my reaction to Re-Animator.

 

The arguments for and against are all compelling. I really want to write a ten-page essay here about the value of certain genre films, as that is my main area of expertise as a cinephile, but I’m not narcissistic enough to assume anyone cares...

 

I shuddered when I read that. Have no fear, I don't think anyone should care about this stuff!

 

EDIT: By the way, Lancelot Link at the bottom of page 4 of this thread had my favorite response of the whole thing. It's great, go read it! I just couldn't find a place to quote any of it. And I'm not in the habit of upstaging myself, in any case.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

3. Re-fuckin'-Animator

 

Yes!

 

Yes, all that preamble aside, I think that Re-Animator belongs in the Canon. It's that good! All that shit above talking about the discussion and the Canon... a lot of that was based in the fact that I'd love, in the depths of my heart, so see more then 3 of 22 films get voted out of the Canon. I do want more "no" votes. But at the end of the day, I believe that people are just voting based on whether they think it's worth it to them, and that's what they should vote on - not some nebulous notion of reaching some mathematically pleasing ratio of no's to yes's. I wanted to sync up with Amy's argument and make the argument that while Re-Animator's great, it isn't exceptional enough to go in.

 

But fuck that, Re-Animator is exceptional squared. I just don't know another film like it. It succeeds like few films do. I've heard the guys at RedLetterMedia call Robocop a perfect film. Not the greatest film ever, but a film that sets out to do something interesting and does it PERFECTLY. I have a few nitpicks about Re-Animator, but it is quite nearly perfect at what it wants to do.

 

Devin said it best, in the second half of the episode, when he described its perfect tone. It has this knife's-edge balance between comedy, horror, suspense, and gory thrills. Herbert West is a FUCKING MADMAN, and it's a marvel how much zany fun is capable with a character that's so repulsive. The multitudes of West are total in every scene, not just over the course of the film. In his early interactions with Dr. Hill he is such a disrespectful asshole, but you also love his guts and passion when he dresses down a doctor that you immediately recognize to be a stuck-up hack.

 

I don't want to shortchange the script, or even the editing (the movie is pared down to an extremely tight 87 minutes, minus some fat between HIll dying and the final confrontation), but the performances really steal the show. It's essentially a five-hander, and each hand is attached to a perfectly casted character actor giving their best.

 

I think Devin maybe oversells it with the Grand Guignol stuff, but he is right that the movie explores a theme spectacularly. It isn't a deep, nuanced study of death and mortality. But it uses a core theme for the emotional throughline of the film, and I do think it leaves you with a statement. So many horror movies are about the fear of death through some weird supernatural mediary: this film gets a lot out cutting out the middle. I think the film posits that wanting to prolong life is good, and fear of mortality is natural, but it gets at the perversity of trying to thwart death. Failing to accept the natural course of death obsesses West, Hill, and Cain by the end; it gets at the real unnaturalness of people who refuse to accept death, and insist themselves above the natural order. You can find the Lovecraftian center in the concept. It's surprisingly potent for a comedy/horror, and its a marvel alone that they manage to power the whole narrative with this simple concept.

 

I don't think it's all that remarkable for a movie to be "fun," but Re-Animator exists as something like a spectacular adventure-thriller. It's such an odd beast, but it succeeds at such a high level. It bustles at the speed of Herbert West, who the audience get to watch pivot from grifting to scheming to seizing opportunities for research while evading the penalties for his crimes. It's all a delight, and Dan Cain is a surprisingly interesting ingredient to the whole film working. Watching West blustering all over the amenable Cain mirrors how West's antics sweep the audience off their feet even as he causes more and more carnage. The film has enough craft to keep all these elements working in sync, and still have enough focus to keep the final confrontation thrilling, but also able to sustain West yelling "OVERDOSE!!" and sealing his own fate with one final irreverent ambitious urge.

 

I just fucking love this movie like few others. I get that to some it plays as a misfire, but to me it's a perfectly measured symphony of intestines and Jeffrey Combs. And one final shoutout to Richard Band's score, which pirates the Psycho theme to maintain musically that weird midpoint between thrills and spills. It may be the single most important factor to the film's tonal success. Some films are as great, but few are as exceptional as Re-Animator.

 

OK I'm exhausted. Goodnight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Considering opinions that are contrary to your own is a pretty healthy intellectual exercise, one you may not want to shut yourself off from engaging in.

 

I did consider it. The opinion. It was weird bs. In my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Devin called in reinforcements from Birth.Movies.Death.

 

Also, people had a hard time finding anywhere to watch Kiki's Delivery Service. Hell, I never even heard of it before.

Share this post


Link to post

Here are the total votes in the past few episodes' polls:

#79 - The Usual Suspects - 128 votes

#80 - Monroe versus - 76 votes

#81 - Ed Wood - 88 votes

#82 They Live - 114 votes

#83 - Kiki's Delivery Service - 127 votes

 

Right now, both sides for this poll are over 130 votes each. And not only that, the vote is currently only separated by 6 votes. That's 2.3% of all votes cast. This is without a doubt the most contentious vote in the history of the show - I'd argue even more than the tie for Jurassic Park versus The Empire Strikes Back, as there were (I believe, I'd have to go back to look at WolfPop to see) less votes cast for that episode.

 

I'd be really interested what the vote total would be if we only considered "votes" cast via post (the old WolfPop method) rather than the poll. I have a feeling like there's a big lot of people who just voted but didn't contribute (although we are on page 6 of this thread now, which I also think is a record).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

i think a lot of people skip out on voting after listening to an episode if it seems that their preferred choice will win -- Re-Animator was an extremely contentious episode, so a lot of listeners probably felt just as strong as the hosts about their opinions and cast their vote while usually limiting their involvement to listening.

Share this post


Link to post

At the end of the day, the prospective addition of RE-ANIMATOR to The Canon only adds notable value to The Canon. Nothing about The Canon is in any manner diminished or devalued by the incorporation of this major work. The vaunted and esteemed standards and pedigree of The Canon staunchly remain unchanged and sacred!

 

And again, there's no such thing as too much fun. In life, in love, in film, in music, in The Canon - anywhere. And fret not, Ms. Nicholson, The Canon knows no numerical limit! You've both said so yourselves. Thus, there's always plenty of room for PENNIES FROM HEAVEN. Just make sure to file it next to WORKING GIRL when it gains admittance.

 

Couldn't find a place to quote Lancelot Link in my earlier posts, but it as a postscript to the most contentious vote in Canon history.

Share this post


Link to post

 

This is without a doubt the most contentious vote in the history of the show - I'd argue even more than the tie for Jurassic Park versus The Empire Strikes Back, as there were (I believe, I'd have to go back to look at WolfPop to see) less votes cast for that episode.

 

I would blame that first on the design of that site compared to this one

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Here are the total votes in the past few episodes' polls:

#79 - The Usual Suspects - 128 votes

#80 - Monroe versus - 76 votes

#81 - Ed Wood - 88 votes

#82 They Live - 114 votes

#83 - Kiki's Delivery Service - 127 votes

 

Right now, both sides for this poll are over 130 votes each. And not only that, the vote is currently only separated by 6 votes. That's 2.3% of all votes cast. This is without a doubt the most contentious vote in the history of the show - I'd argue even more than the tie for Jurassic Park versus The Empire Strikes Back, as there were (I believe, I'd have to go back to look at WolfPop to see) less votes cast for that episode.

 

I'd be really interested what the vote total would be if we only considered "votes" cast via post (the old WolfPop method) rather than the poll. I have a feeling like there's a big lot of people who just voted but didn't contribute (although we are on page 6 of this thread now, which I also think is a record).

 

Curiously, I went a few episodes back on that list. Boyz N The Hood has 131 votes, with "no" beating out "yes" 67 to 64. We know it went in, so I wonder how many of those came in afterwards.

 

Marathon Man and Lost Weekend are now exactly tied with 72 and 48 total votes, respectively. Is someone going in after the fact and tying up the ball-games out of compulsion?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Curiously, I went a few episodes back on that list. Boyz N The Hood has 131 votes, with "no" beating out "yes" 67 to 64. We know it went in, so I wonder how many of those came in afterwards.

 

Marathon Man and Lost Weekend are now exactly tied with 72 and 48 total votes, respectively. Is someone going in after the fact and tying up the ball-games out of compulsion?

They've never really told us when the exact cut off for voting is, so some of the votes may have been cast after the new episode was ready to go out. I wish they'd tell us the exact last minute that we can vote.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×