Let's settle this!

[Tyrant]

Yeah... So good movies, bad movies, in-between, or both? :^)

  Both. One person's good movie is another person's bad movie. Do both, and you get both sets of people. The more people, the merrier. 

[6079SmithW]

Sorry to get all serious, but I'm really tired of the idea that just because it's a religion, it should be exempt from mockery. It's a series of beliefs, and if they are absurd and even destructive, then there is no shame in saying so.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I'll leave it there I think.

As a somewhat religious guy, I would say that it depends on the type of mockery- I don't mind the 'wait, you eat crackers and then you go to heaven?' kind, because that's just calling out something that seems absurd. I do mind the 'gosh, anyone who could think logically would know that the whole god thing is silly and I realized that when I was six.' I guess it's a matter of arrogance- I feel no qualms about finding it strange that the holy symbol of Buddhism is a goofy lookin' fat guy, but I would feel badly about trying to tell them that their belief system is childish (not that I think it is.) One is saying that something you don't get seems strange, the other is saying that something that doesn't make sense to you is automatically stupid and meaningless.

[Variety of Cells]

Sorry to get all serious, but I'm really tired of the idea that just because it's a religion, it should be exempt from mockery. It's a series of beliefs, and if they are absurd and even destructive, then there is no shame in saying so.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I'll leave it there I think.

As a somewhat religious guy, I would say that it depends on the type of mockery- I don't mind the 'wait, you eat crackers and then you go to heaven?' kind, because that's just calling out something that seems absurd. I do mind the 'gosh, anyone who could think logically would know that the whole god thing is silly and I realized that when I was six.' I guess it's a matter of arrogance- I feel no qualms about finding it strange that the holy symbol of Buddhism is a goofy lookin' fat guy, but I would feel badly about trying to tell them that their belief system is childish (not that I think it is.) One is saying that something you don't get seems strange, the other is saying that something that doesn't make sense to you is automatically stupid and meaningless.

I believe it's necessarily to have both to effectively criticize.  You're right, if you just call a religion childish or stupid then that only makes people defensive.  First you need to give examples of how silly and harmful it is, then call it deceptive and wrong.

As we all know, The Passion of the Christ will never be a Rifftrax, so I almost feel foolish continuing the discussion.  But I agree with Teaflax, the reason it won't be riffed should not be because it's about a religion. 

[Teaflax]

Yeah... So good movies, bad movies, in-between, or both? :^)

Oh, right. Silly me, The OT King.

I'd say both, because I know many people like Braveheart and I can't wait to see that piece of crap pulled apart at the seams by Riffer Pros.

[6079SmithW]

Yeah... So good movies, bad movies, in-between, or both? :^)

Oh, right. Silly me, The OT King.

I'd say both, because I know many people like Braveheart and I can't wait to see that piece of crap pulled apart at the seams by Riffer Pros.

FHREADOM!!!!

I think the writer had the whole script worked out, but with blank spaces where Wallace's motivation was supposed to be. Deadline comes, s/he panics, and just scribbles the word 'freedom' into every spot, over and over if necessary.

[shortstack]

I've posted on this before in other threads, and I'll see if I can more or less repeat myself:

I don't think it has anything to do with the film being good or bad- (aside from the fact that quality can be a matter of taste) I think it's a matter of looking at a film, and seeing things that just BEG for funny comments or friendly jabs.  I already liked Fellowship of the Ring before, and aside from the length, I really enjoyed the Rifftrax commentary because it made fun of all that stuff that I could see, and even more. I mean come on, 'Brokeback Mount Doom"? That was awesome.

I've read that the MST3k movies that Mike had the most trouble writing stuff for were the ones that were bad because nothing really happens.  But a lot movies, even the absurdly terrible ones, have something happening, and odds are, even the most revered of films will have something worth taking a jab at. (especially by people who like them)

Though I do agree that films with really sensitive subject matter wouldn't be much fun.

Well said my friend. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Now, just copy and paste that somewhere so you can pull it out the next one of these threads pop up again.   

Done!

Maybe we should start a new thread about films that are 'untouchable' for reasons of subject matter....

Like the 9/11 film for instance, or in the case of my country, Carla.

[Nunyerbiz]

FHREADOM!!!!

I think the writer had the whole script worked out, but with blank spaces where Wallace's motivation was supposed to be. Deadline comes, s/he panics, and just scribbles the word 'freedom' into every spot, over and over if necessary.

Yea... if you completely ignore that part where the English slit his wife's throat... I guess the "screenwriter panic/let's use freedom over and over" theory works perfectly.

[6079SmithW]

FHREADOM!!!!

I think the writer had the whole script worked out, but with blank spaces where Wallace's motivation was supposed to be. Deadline comes, s/he panics, and just scribbles the word 'freedom' into every spot, over and over if necessary.

Yea... if you completely ignore that part where the English slit his wife's throat... I guess the "screenwriter panic/let's use freedom over and over" theory works perfectly.

Did you notice how that stopped coming up after the first like ten minutes? Actually, the dream sequence implied a choice between getting his wife back (through suicide or what have you) and continuing to fight. And he chose... FHREEEEEEADDOM!!

(I just think maybe he should have had a bit more depth to his dream than the one word, which must appear in that script twenty or thirty times. He's never particularly clear on exactly what he means by freedom, either.

And if it was intentional that he didn't really know what he was fighting for (which would actually be pretty realistic and a good angle, imo) they ought to have made that a bit more clear.

[Nunyerbiz]

FHREADOM!!!!

I think the writer had the whole script worked out, but with blank spaces where Wallace's motivation was supposed to be. Deadline comes, s/he panics, and just scribbles the word 'freedom' into every spot, over and over if necessary.

Yea... if you completely ignore that part where the English slit his wife's throat... I guess the "screenwriter panic/let's use freedom over and over" theory works perfectly.

Did you notice how that stopped coming up after the first like ten minutes? Actually, the dream sequence implied a choice between getting his wife back (through suicide or what have you) and continuing to fight. And he chose... FHREEEEEEADDOM!!

(I just think maybe he should have had a bit more depth to his dream than the one word, which must appear in that script twenty or thirty times. He's never particularly clear on exactly what he means by freedom, either.

And if it was intentional that he didn't really know what he was fighting for (which would actually be pretty realistic and a good angle, imo) they ought to have made that a bit more clear.

All I was saying is that his wife's murder was clearly added as a motivational element. The screenwriter had something in place for Wallace's motivation, even if it wasn't really expanded on later.

I haven't seen the movie in quite a few years, so my recall is not going to be perfect. That being said, if I still recall the wife's execution scene all these years later than I would maintain that it was an effective motivational device for the film.

[6079SmithW]

FHREADOM!!!!

I think the writer had the whole script worked out, but with blank spaces where Wallace's motivation was supposed to be. Deadline comes, s/he panics, and just scribbles the word 'freedom' into every spot, over and over if necessary.

Yea... if you completely ignore that part where the English slit his wife's throat... I guess the "screenwriter panic/let's use freedom over and over" theory works perfectly.

Did you notice how that stopped coming up after the first like ten minutes? Actually, the dream sequence implied a choice between getting his wife back (through suicide or what have you) and continuing to fight. And he chose... FHREEEEEEADDOM!!

(I just think maybe he should have had a bit more depth to his dream than the one word, which must appear in that script twenty or thirty times. He's never particularly clear on exactly what he means by freedom, either.

And if it was intentional that he didn't really know what he was fighting for (which would actually be pretty realistic and a good angle, imo) they ought to have made that a bit more clear.

All I was saying is that his wife's murder was clearly added as a motivational element. The screenwriter had something in place for Wallace's motivation, even if it wasn't really expanded on later.

I haven't seen the movie in quite a few years, so my recall is not going to be perfect. That being said, if I still recall the wife's execution scene all these years later than I would maintain that it was an effective motivational device for the film.

I suppose 'motivation' isn't quite the right word, so much as 'goal'. He has a one word goal and it bugs me.

Also, the political intrigue never really came together, as far as I'm concerned. The English side worked all right, but there was no clear reason for what was happening with the Scottish lords.

[Nunyerbiz]

FHREADOM!!!!

I think the writer had the whole script worked out, but with blank spaces where Wallace's motivation was supposed to be. Deadline comes, s/he panics, and just scribbles the word 'freedom' into every spot, over and over if necessary.

Yea... if you completely ignore that part where the English slit his wife's throat... I guess the "screenwriter panic/let's use freedom over and over" theory works perfectly.

Did you notice how that stopped coming up after the first like ten minutes? Actually, the dream sequence implied a choice between getting his wife back (through suicide or what have you) and continuing to fight. And he chose... FHREEEEEEADDOM!!

(I just think maybe he should have had a bit more depth to his dream than the one word, which must appear in that script twenty or thirty times. He's never particularly clear on exactly what he means by freedom, either.

And if it was intentional that he didn't really know what he was fighting for (which would actually be pretty realistic and a good angle, imo) they ought to have made that a bit more clear.

All I was saying is that his wife's murder was clearly added as a motivational element. The screenwriter had something in place for Wallace's motivation, even if it wasn't really expanded on later.

I haven't seen the movie in quite a few years, so my recall is not going to be perfect. That being said, if I still recall the wife's execution scene all these years later than I would maintain that it was an effective motivational device for the film.

I suppose 'motivation' isn't quite the right word, so much as 'goal'. He has a one word goal and it bugs me.

Also, the political intrigue never really came together, as far as I'm concerned. The English side worked all right, but there was no clear reason for what was happening with the Scottish lords.

I guess I don't really know what you were expecting to get out of the movie. If you only have a one word goal, is "freedom" such a bad choice? We're you expecting him to gain freedom for his people while avoiding high interest credit cards? What secondary goals would enhance the story beyond the struggle for freedom?

I'm really not trying to play fanboy for Braveheart. It's just that I find it a little silly that you find fault in the main character's motivation and/or lack of secondary goal(s). I never really thought about Luke Skywalker's secondary goals while he was attacking the Death Star and I guess I never really thought about Wallace's secondary goals while he was fighting the English.

[Tealeaf]

In response to my statement that I didn't really want to see "The Passion of the Christ" or "Schindler's List" riffed, HE said:

Wow, I seriously hope you're not making some sort of comparison in terms of quality between those two films. I think from what little I've seen and the reviews I've read that the Passion... is a pile of crap. I wouldn't give a damn about it being riffed, in fact I encourage it.

    Nope, not talking about the quality at all.  I'm talking about the emontion charge these films seem to inspire in a fair number of folks, judging from what I've seen, heard, and read.  I'll admit that I might be something of a sensitve soul.  I thought it felt a bit weird to hear Mike riffing on Swaye's sex scene in Roadhouse.  Funny, but weird.

    I feel that quality movies can be riffed just as well as the crappy ones.  Doesn't mean that all movies make good candidates for various other reasons.  But just to be clear, if Mike did do The Passion or List, I would still purchase them.

[6079SmithW]

I guess I don't really know what you were expecting to get out of the movie. If you only have a one word goal, is "freedom" such a bad choice? We're you expecting him to gain freedom for his people while avoiding high interest credit cards? What secondary goals would enhance the story beyond the struggle for freedom?

I'm really not trying to play fanboy for Braveheart. It's just that I find it a little silly that you find fault in the main character's motivation and/or lack of secondary goal(s). I never really thought about Luke Skywalker's secondary goals while he was attacking the Death Star and I guess I never really thought about Wallace's secondary goals while he was fighting the English.

I can't believe I'm still going on this, but it's the fact that he had a one word goal, and that he kept repeating that one word over and over, that bugged me. He says 'freedom', but I'm not sure he really knows what he means (anarchy? completely severing all relations with England? a Scottish king? a revised constitutional monarchy for Scotland?) but he never goes into any more depth.

[Nunyerbiz]

I guess I don't really know what you were expecting to get out of the movie. If you only have a one word goal, is "freedom" such a bad choice? We're you expecting him to gain freedom for his people while avoiding high interest credit cards? What secondary goals would enhance the story beyond the struggle for freedom?

I'm really not trying to play fanboy for Braveheart. It's just that I find it a little silly that you find fault in the main character's motivation and/or lack of secondary goal(s). I never really thought about Luke Skywalker's secondary goals while he was attacking the Death Star and I guess I never really thought about Wallace's secondary goals while he was fighting the English.

I can't believe I'm still going on this, but it's the fact that he had a one word goal, and that he kept repeating that one word over and over, that bugged me. He says 'freedom', but I'm not sure he really knows what he means (anarchy? completely severing all relations with England? a Scottish king? a revised constitutional monarchy for Scotland?) but he never goes into any more depth.

I can see where you are coming from, I guess it's just that I never had that same issue with the movie. The purpose of the character wasn't to work out governmental framework or form political alliances. That was made fairly clear in the story, he had no interest in bickering with the Scottish nobility or negotiating with the English. His only purpose was vanquishing his people's oppressors. I wasn't expecting him to become Prime Minister Wallace and write the Magna Carta or anything.

Anyways, I'll stop the Braveheart discussion. While I don't think it was anykind of masterpiece, I thought it was a very solid film.

[Famous Mortimer]

As a somewhat religious guy, I would say that it depends on the type of mockery- I don't mind the 'wait, you eat crackers and then you go to heaven?' kind, because that's just calling out something that seems absurd. I do mind the 'gosh, anyone who could think logically would know that the whole god thing is silly and I realized that when I was six.' I guess it's a matter of arrogance- I feel no qualms about finding it strange that the holy symbol of Buddhism is a goofy lookin' fat guy, but I would feel badly about trying to tell them that their belief system is childish (not that I think it is.) One is saying that something you don't get seems strange, the other is saying that something that doesn't make sense to you is automatically stupid and meaningless.

Neither I or anyone else in this thread is calling religion stupid and meaningless, but thanks for putting words in our mouths. Religion makes perfect sense to me, I just don't agree with it. Okay? You are aware that people are atheists for reasons other than religion doesn't make sense to them, aren't you?

And besides, we're talking about films about religion, not religion. Unless "The Passion of the Christ" is now part of official Christian teachings?