riffing good movies = mistake

[Natureboy]

The Matrix and Halloween Rifftrax were a scream.....hilarious.

The Matrix is a fun film, but it is just flashy and loud enough to have a lot of areas to which it would be fun picking it apart and I thought Mike and Kevin did a great job.

Halloween is a very dated film and it has enormously long stretches of nothing going on whatsoever....so that was also perfect for rifftrax.

X_Men was not a good effort in my view, The only whiff from Rifftrax so far....The whole Toothpick-o, Cerebro thing got boring fast.  X-men is a landmark film just from the fact that prior to its release....all comic book films were for the most part complete trash.

You can go either way with this thinking.....Do you want to go buy DVDs (assuming you want to) of good films like Matrix or do you want to be forced to buy a pile of mush like Armeggeddon, Godzilla or Batman and Robin? 

Personally, I am a purest and like the riffing to settle some scores for the movie going public.....so idiots like Michael Bay and Joel Schumacher get their come-up-ance for putting out such pathetic diaper filler.

[Hugo]

Whether the actors are proud of the crap in which they participate is not the issue. All I'm saying is that I hope MN is only riffing movies that HE believes are bad.

The difference between Rifftrax and MST3K is that he's not making that value judgment, because there is no Hodgsonesque "premise" he must maintain. Instead he's simply choosing movies that he thinks will support riffing, that will be the basis for something funny. Whether it's The Sound of Music or Casablanca (both of which are VERY riffable, despite being beloved classics) or Crossroads, the value judgment of "good" and "bad" are irrelevant.

As for losing you as a customer if he riffs a movie you apparently have decided to invest your ego in, well, lighten up, dude.

Sampo

I don't think I should "lighten up" in this case. There are times to be serious and principled in life, and I think this is one of those times. We are talking about the proper treatment of good and bad art.

I disagree with your belief that "the value judgment of 'good' and 'bad' [is] irrelevant." As long as MN, in interviews and commentaries, promotes or encourages the idea of RiffTrax being about riffing "bad" or "horrible" movies, then such value judgments are very relevant. I would not be a fan of RiffTrax if I thought it was about riffing movies merely for the sake of riffing movies in general, even good ones. I don't enjoy watching someone piss on good art.

[Natureboy]

Whether the actors are proud of the crap in which they participate is not the issue. All I'm saying is that I hope MN is only riffing movies that HE believes are bad.

The difference between Rifftrax and MST3K is that he's not making that value judgment, because there is no Hodgsonesque "premise" he must maintain. Instead he's simply choosing movies that he thinks will support riffing, that will be the basis for something funny. Whether it's The Sound of Music or Casablanca (both of which are VERY riffable, despite being beloved classics) or Crossroads, the value judgment of "good" and "bad" are irrelevant.

As for losing you as a customer if he riffs a movie you apparently have decided to invest your ego in, well, lighten up, dude.

Sampo

I don't think I should "lighten up" in this case. There are times to be serious and principled in life, and I think this is one of those times. We are talking about the proper treatment of good and bad art.

I disagree with your belief that "the value judgment of 'good' and 'bad' [is] irrelevant." As long as MN, in interviews and commentaries, promotes or encourages the idea of RiffTrax being about riffing "bad" or "horrible" movies, then such value judgments are very relevant. I would not be a fan of RiffTrax if I thought it was about riffing movies merely for the sake of riffing movies in general, even good ones. I don't enjoy watching someone piss on good art.

I hope this clears this up for everyone.  This is an email I wrote to Mike and his response:

Mike,
Do you choose movies that you dislike, or just pick movies that have a lot of action that would make funny riffs?  I know I will like X-Men, but Batman and Robin or Spawn are really crappy movies and deserve to be brutalized.  I am just curious as to how you choose the films to riff.  Sorry to email you again, I know you are busy, but this question has been on my mind.

Thanks
(Natureboy)


Natureboy,

Thanks for the email.

For movie choices, I just pick those that I think will be funny and are for the most part readily available. No other criteria.

Cheers,

Mike Nelson

[Variety of Cells]

You can't get much more clear than that.  Now all that's left is personal taste. 

[Bob M.]

So far, it appears they've not riffed anything that can be remotely considered good art. As near as I can tell, there isn't a one of those films I'd put up as art, with a small 'a' or capital 'a'. The understanding of what is 'art' is ALWAYS subjective; it's a discussion that's raged for thousands of years, and we're certainly not going to establish the global framework on this board

Remember, what is art to one group of individuals is nothing more than yard waste to another. All other arguments are just open (and hopefully civil) discussion, especially given the explanation from Capt. Mike of the Good Ship Rifftrax.

[LadyKenobi]

Capt. Mike of the Good Ship Rifftrax

I far prefer this to "The RiffMaster Himself."

[Bob M.]

Capt. Mike of the Good Ship Rifftrax

I far prefer this to "The RiffMaster Himself."

I picture him in a yellow slicker, geared up like the Gortons fishstick captain, standing proudly on the poop deck with his first mates, Big Kev and Lil' Bill, pointing the way to great humor.

*consider metaphor completely stretched. And I'm spent.

[Hugo]

Whether the actors are proud of the crap in which they participate is not the issue. All I'm saying is that I hope MN is only riffing movies that HE believes are bad.

The difference between Rifftrax and MST3K is that he's not making that value judgment, because there is no Hodgsonesque "premise" he must maintain. Instead he's simply choosing movies that he thinks will support riffing, that will be the basis for something funny. Whether it's The Sound of Music or Casablanca (both of which are VERY riffable, despite being beloved classics) or Crossroads, the value judgment of "good" and "bad" are irrelevant.

As for losing you as a customer if he riffs a movie you apparently have decided to invest your ego in, well, lighten up, dude.

Sampo

I don't think I should "lighten up" in this case. There are times to be serious and principled in life, and I think this is one of those times. We are talking about the proper treatment of good and bad art.

I disagree with your belief that "the value judgment of 'good' and 'bad' [is] irrelevant." As long as MN, in interviews and commentaries, promotes or encourages the idea of RiffTrax being about riffing "bad" or "horrible" movies, then such value judgments are very relevant. I would not be a fan of RiffTrax if I thought it was about riffing movies merely for the sake of riffing movies in general, even good ones. I don't enjoy watching someone piss on good art.

I hope this clears this up for everyone.  This is an email I wrote to Mike and his response:

Mike,
Do you choose movies that you dislike, or just pick movies that have a lot of action that would make funny riffs?  I know I will like X-Men, but Batman and Robin or Spawn are really crappy movies and deserve to be brutalized.  I am just curious as to how you choose the films to riff.  Sorry to email you again, I know you are busy, but this question has been on my mind.

Thanks
(Natureboy)


Natureboy,

Thanks for the email.

For movie choices, I just pick those that I think will be funny and are for the most part readily available. No other criteria.

Cheers,

Mike Nelson

Unfortunately, it doesn't clear anything up, because he still hasn't told us how he decides what will be funny. What criteria does he use to make such a determination? If he "thinks" something would be funny, then what actual thinking led him to that conclusion? What is it about the movie that makes him think it would be a funny RiffTrax? Is it bad acting, bad plotlines, bad special effects, etc.? Is it good acting, good plotlines, good special effects, etc.?Does any movie with Keanu Reeves, Patrick Swayze or Tom Cruise automatically qualify, regardless of its overall quality? These and others like them are questions that remain unanswered by MN's one-line reply to your question.

Anyway, I don't think we'll get a clearer answer than this:

"You know, I just do it by instinct, and I’m probably not going to do 'Casablanca' or something like that." -- MN

So, I'll shut up now and keep my eye open for the RiffTrax of bad movies, such as the latest on Episode I.

[gvona1]

I'll riff anything. I have torn apart just about every movie i have ever seen. i can't help it...

[excalibear]

I honestly loved the job Mike did with X men, AND Halloween. There are people out there who worship the ground Top Gun walks on as well. I think any film is ripe to be picked on and others are begging for it...liek Disney's "Pocahontas" and of course "Titanic"

[Msampo]

Unfortunately, it doesn't clear anything up, because he still hasn't told us how he decides what will be funny. What criteria does he use to make such a determination? If he "thinks" something would be funny, then what actual thinking led him to that conclusion? What is it about the movie that makes him think it would be a funny RiffTrax? Is it bad acting, bad plotlines, bad special effects, etc.? Is it good acting, good plotlines, good special effects, etc.?Does any movie with Keanu Reeves, Patrick Swayze or Tom Cruise automatically qualify, regardless of its overall quality? These and others like them are questions that remain unanswered by MN's one-line reply to your question.

Anyway, I don't think we'll get a clearer answer than this:

"You know, I just do it by instinct, and I?m probably not going to do 'Casablanca' or something like that." -- MN

Well, I think now you're getting into the realm of art. It's like walking into an artist's studio, standing behind him and saying: "Why did you buy that brand of oil paint? Exactly how much yellow are you mixing into that glob of red, and why didn't you consider other amounts? What made you pick that particular canvas? Why did you put a pear in your still life and not a peach? Why did you rent this studio? Show me the classifieds listings for all the other studios you considered and give me a detailed description of your reasoning for this selection." You're tearing apart his creative process to see how it works, and as Gandalf the Grey once said, he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

Let me try another approach: Look at the choice of "This Island Earth" for the MST3K movie. Is it a "bad" movie like, say, "Red Zone Cuba"? Of course not. It has A-movie production values; it moves along; it's has a detectible storyline that makes a modicum of sense' the visuals, while they look dated and silly now, were impressive in their day; it keeps your interest. But is it a "good" movie like, say, the far-superior "Day the Earth Stood Still" (a movie that is almost always invoked by offended fans of TIE, I guess because the two are from approximately the same era)? Again, of course not. The performances are bland; some of the plot developments are ludicrous; the lead character, Cal, goes on a mind-bending journey to the far reaches of the galaxy and back--and is UTTERLY UNCHANGED by the experience; despite attempts to make the character Ruth feisty and modern, she is essentially luggage throughout the film; the movie is amusingly self-important, even self-righteous, and undeservedly so; there are snickeringly silly aspects (nobody suspected the big-foreheaded Charlie Rich guys?). And I could go on and on.
My point: TIE is not a "good" movie. It's not a "bad" movie. It's a RIFFABLE movie. Yes, I know, within the premise of MST3K: The Movie, Dr. F calls it a "stinker" or some such, but, remember...he's mad. ;-)

Sampo

[Pak-Man]

I also think that most artists (Not to be confused with Arteests) are just trying to evoke a reaction. Film is art. I'm not disputing that. But art can have different effects on different people. Let's take this art thing all the way. Have you ever seen that ol' Pepe Le Pew cartoon where he's going through the Louvre and all the paintings are having a reaction to his odor? One has all the paint fall apart to show a paint-by-numbers underneath. The Mona Lisa has a line of dialogue about how it's not easy to keep the smile.
You can't get any more 'art' than the Mona Lisa. Was it wrong for Chuck Jones to do this? Nope. It was funny. They weren't saying these were bad paintings, but if you put the right spin on it, it could be made funny. So too go films, and so too goes Riffing.

My pair o' pennies. :^)

[torgosPizza]

I think it's true that what is considered art is and always has been subjective. I went to school for it, and have had to sit through 3-hour-long Art History lectures where we looked at pieces from the Renaissance, and the Bronze age, and modern stuff, and everything in between. Believe me when I say, there are PLENTY of examples there where we art students were not convinced of a particular piece's value as art.

Some would scoff and say "What? THAT thing is the start of all modern color theory?" To some it was just a crappy painting, but to others it may have been genius.

I think it's even doubly so as movies - even my roommate and I, who agree on almost every single thing, find some movies that I hated but he considers favorites. Neither of us is wrong; we just have differing opinions. We can't really explain to each other why we thought the acting was bad in one, if the other thinks that the actors did a stellar job.

With RiffTrax, I think we can be sure that everyone will have their favorites and their not-so-favorites; that's what makes it great! Everyone is fair game, especially if Mike thinks it will make for a funny and entertaining track.

[Hugo]

Well, I think now you're getting into the realm of art. It's like walking into an artist's studio, standing behind him and saying: "Why did you buy that brand of oil paint? Exactly how much yellow are you mixing into that glob of red, and why didn't you consider other amounts? What made you pick that particular canvas? Why did you put a pear in your still life and not a peach? Why did you rent this studio? Show me the classifieds listings for all the other studios you considered and give me a detailed description of your reasoning for this selection." You're tearing apart his creative process to see how it works, and as Gandalf the Grey once said, he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

First of all, there's a difference between creating art and criticizing (or riffing) it in a humorous way. I think it's wrong to equate RiffTrax with art. It's commentary on art. It's joke-telling. Second, I'm not attempting to "break a thing," I'm trying to understand it. DVDs these days are filled with special features and documentaries on the making of the movie. Do they "break" or ruin the movie? No. They make it more meaningful to you. It is wise to understand something.

Let me try another approach: Look at the choice of "This Island Earth" for the MST3K movie. Is it a "bad" movie like, say, "Red Zone Cuba"? Of course not. It has A-movie production values; it moves along; it's has a detectible storyline that makes a modicum of sense' the visuals, while they look dated and silly now, were impressive in their day; it keeps your interest. But is it a "good" movie like, say, the far-superior "Day the Earth Stood Still" (a movie that is almost always invoked by offended fans of TIE, I guess because the two are from approximately the same era)? Again, of course not. The performances are bland; some of the plot developments are ludicrous; the lead character, Cal, goes on a mind-bending journey to the far reaches of the galaxy and back--and is UTTERLY UNCHANGED by the experience; despite attempts to make the character Ruth feisty and modern, she is essentially luggage throughout the film; the movie is amusingly self-important, even self-righteous, and undeservedly so; there are snickeringly silly aspects (nobody suspected the big-foreheaded Charlie Rich guys?). And I could go on and on.
My point: TIE is not a "good" movie. It's not a "bad" movie. It's a RIFFABLE movie. Yes, I know, within the premise of MST3K: The Movie, Dr. F calls it a "stinker" or some such, but, remember...he's mad. ;-)

Sampo

As I said, I'm not going to continue debating whether RiffTrax is about riffing bad movies. But, I will briefly address the question of whether This Island Earth is a good or bad movie. You claim that This Island Earth is not a "good" or "bad" movie. It's a "riffable" movie. But what is the point of this statement? Clearly you can riff on any movie you want. I don't think that is up for debate. Good, bad, so-so, all movies are riffable, because a riff does not need to directly relate to something bad about a movie. It can relate to something else entirely, such as Tom Cruise's personal life issues. A riff can make fun of something completely unimportant to the movie as a whole, such as how Tom Cruise smiles. So, even if This Island Earth was the best movie ever made, it would still be a "riffable" movie. It may be tougher to riff than a truly awful movie, because you need to work harder to find something obscure or unimportant to crack a joke about, but it could be done.

As to your evidence that This Island Earth is not a bad movie, I'll take your points one by one:

1. "It has A-movie production values"

Having A-movie production values does not disqualify a movie from being bad. Some of the worst, crappiest movies in history had A-movie production values. All you need to do is look at the plentiful amount of filth that Hollywood puts on display each summer. Do I need to name them?

2. "It moves along"

A movie can "move along" and still be total crap if the story is ridiculous, the plot contradictory, the acting atrocious, etc. The existence of action in a movie does not make it "not bad." I submit Ultraviolet for your consideration.

3. "It has a detectable storyline that makes a modicum of sense"

I don't think that having a "modicum of sense" is evidence for a movie being "not bad." It's evidence that the vast majority of the movie doesn't make sense. Thus, it's bad.

4. "The visuals, while they look dated and silly now, were impressive in their day"

Again, having good production values doesn't mean the movie can't be a pile of crap. There's more to a movie than how the sets look.

5. "It keeps your interest"

Pornos keep my interest, but I wouldn't classify them as "not bad" movies. As a movie, most of them suck. As sex on film, many are stellar.

None of your evidence proves that This Island Earth rises above the rank of bad. I was far more convinced by your evidence for the movie being "not good." However, I would go one further and call a spade a spade. The movie is bad.

[AmandaGal]

This Island Earth isn't actually that bad.  I would say it's one of the better movies featured on MST3k.  Besides it's datedness, what is so "bad" about it?  Halloween is dated too so I don't understand why that's "classic" and TIE is "bad."

As for riffing good movies, I must admit that when the Matrix came out, I was a huge Matrix fan, even posting to boards about "meanings" and "matrix philosophy" (I've seen the err in my ways, please don't ban me from the forum ).  Granted, the movie has been ran into the ground by now and the Matrix 2 and 3 sucked the life left out of it but I still do enjoy the film a lot (and it did do the miracle feat of making Keanu Reeves look reasonably attractive for a split second which I still can't believe).  What is my point besides proving I'm a geek? I love the movie but I laughed my butt off at the Matrix Rifftrax.  It was the most hilarious thing I've heard in a long time. 

I really think it's partly because I think the movie is good.  It's like those art snobs who take themselves so seriously.  Every now and then you just have to laugh at it.  I don't think any "art" is scared and personally, I think it's great that my favorites can be enjoyed in a new way.  It's not like Mike rips things to shred in a spiteful, horrible, bloodfest.  To me, his "riffing" is more playful.  Like he's teasing the movie.  I don't consider that to be demeaning to the art of the film.  I really think mst3k has always been flattering (maybe in an sneaky way) to B movies and rifftrax is picking that for modern films.  I've never gotten the sense that any of the crew hated the movie.  I really get the sense that they love movies, bad or good.

Just my $0.02