I'm getting a little tired of all these recent movies.

[Doc Steve]

The only problem with Star Wars is whether to use the original theatrical or special edition to riff on. Of course, there's a lot more to riff on with the SE.

It would have to be the SE.  The Jabba scene alone deserves a Rifftrax. 

Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace:  Jabba is sedentary and doesn't appear able to move much.

Star Wars IV: A New Hope SE:  Jabba is capable of running around a docking bay.

Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi:  Jabba is almost completely immobile.

Apparently, Jabba does more fad dieting than Oprah. 

Yeah, I've said a few times that it will have to be the SE because they are the versions that everyone who owns the DVDs has.  It's not really a question, since anyone who bought the DVDs when they first came out only has the SE. 

When I bought the original theatrical releases on DVD, they were advertised as limited edition/limited availability.  Not sure if this is true, but there you are. 

[Edward J Grug III]

The problem is that Hollywood keeps releasing too many cheesy movies for them to have a chance to dip back into previous decades. The only movie I think they've done this year that didn't have it coming was Iron Man. But when they don't do an obvious choice, like Superman Returns, they hear complaints about it. So it's best to cover the bases. I think the reason they did The Sixth Sense was so they could prepare for The Happening. They'll probably do Signs at some point, and maybe The Village, and then Unbreakable if it's not too boring. They probably did Memento so they could do The Prestige and Batman Begins, all cheesy movies to some extent. And they do a lot of shorts, not to mention Rifftrax Presents, and guest choices like Jurassic Park and Ocean's Eleven. I doubt they ever had time to sit down and say, "Star Wars? Out of the question!!" They're probably a little burned out on all the Star Wars from last year. And there's still the horrible Clone Wars movie to do. If ever God graces us with a lull in cheesy movies released by Hollywood, we'll definately see them do some older "classics." But until then, some movies just have it coming!

Here is my specific problem with this approach.  Please hear me out...

MST3K did genuinely bad movies.  With the exception of Marooned (Space Travelers), you would have been hard-pressed to find anyone to defend those films.   Eventually, they ended up doing most of the universally derided films of the '50s and '60s.  (See the books by the Brothers Medved like Golden Turkeys, etc.)   Some of this was deliberate; some of this was because these types of films tend to lapse into the public domain. 

Rifftrax does bad movies.  Other than the original Alien, they really haven't done a good movie.  (Raiders of the Lost Ark would probably qualify also; I haven't seen Iron Man.)  Some of them have been genuinely awful blokbusters that were roundly panned by the critics, like The Day After Tomorrow and Star Trek V.  The Happening, Spider-Man 3, and Cloverfield are all bad movies, in my honest opinion.  The difference between Cloverfield and Manos isn't just a difference of magnitude (i.e. "how bad").  The bad summer blockbusters still make money. by and large.  They have their defenders. 

Why?  I think it is because of what made the movies bad.  A bad big-budget popcorn movie like Pirates of the Caribbean was still competently filmed, lit, art-directed, etc.  All of its faults aside, you can see the money on the screen.  What makes these movies bad is that so much money is tied up in their production, that they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Every decision is made by committee.  Endings are altered to suit test audiences or focus groups.  Entire scenes exist only for product placement.  These types of movies are starting to seem identical to me.  For example, I have a very difficult time remembering which Pirates of the Caribbean flick is which. 

In constrast a MST3K-type movie is usually the product of a single creative [sic] mind.  For example, Ed Wood had an artistic vision.  It was a deeply neurotic, icky vision, but an artistic vision nonetheless.  McMovie does not have this trait; McMovie is content to be the cinematic equivalent of white bread enriched with SFX.  Another way to put it would be that the problems with movies like Spider-Man 3 are primarily problems of execution.  That is, it needed a better script, better actors, etc.  The problems with MST3K-type movies are more profound.  Nothing is a given; even competent filmmaking is the exception.   Most MST3K movies are deeply flawed in concept, and they went downhill from there. 

In my mind, it isn't how bad the movie is per se, but what the movie gives you to riff.  The cookie-cutter summer blockbusters are almost all bad, but they aren't all necessarily good riff fodder, either.  

Just my $0.02.  I thought some people might appreciate an insight into why some of us get so passionate on this issue.  

But the passion doesn't change the fact that there isn't much of an alternative.

In that they need to sell units to keep the company going.

It's a pretty moot argument, that's really being run into the ground. Some people want a different kind of movie. Rifftrax knows that.

I will say this. I agree with you. I would 100% prefer to see 80s movies being riffed to the latest dvd. But I've bought every Rifftrax and RTP release, no matter who was on the track, no matter how old/obscure the movie was, but most people didn't.

I still enjoy the current ones (usually) so I keep buying. I get extremely happy when an older/stranger movie comes our way.

[Doc Steve]

The problem is that Hollywood keeps releasing too many cheesy movies for them to have a chance to dip back into previous decades. The only movie I think they've done this year that didn't have it coming was Iron Man. But when they don't do an obvious choice, like Superman Returns, they hear complaints about it. So it's best to cover the bases. I think the reason they did The Sixth Sense was so they could prepare for The Happening. They'll probably do Signs at some point, and maybe The Village, and then Unbreakable if it's not too boring. They probably did Memento so they could do The Prestige and Batman Begins, all cheesy movies to some extent. And they do a lot of shorts, not to mention Rifftrax Presents, and guest choices like Jurassic Park and Ocean's Eleven. I doubt they ever had time to sit down and say, "Star Wars? Out of the question!!" They're probably a little burned out on all the Star Wars from last year. And there's still the horrible Clone Wars movie to do. If ever God graces us with a lull in cheesy movies released by Hollywood, we'll definately see them do some older "classics." But until then, some movies just have it coming!

Here is my specific problem with this approach.  Please hear me out...

MST3K did genuinely bad movies.  With the exception of Marooned (Space Travelers), you would have been hard-pressed to find anyone to defend those films.   Eventually, they ended up doing most of the universally derided films of the '50s and '60s.  (See the books by the Brothers Medved like Golden Turkeys, etc.)   Some of this was deliberate; some of this was because these types of films tend to lapse into the public domain. 

Rifftrax does bad movies.  Other than the original Alien, they really haven't done a good movie.  (Raiders of the Lost Ark would probably qualify also; I haven't seen Iron Man.)  Some of them have been genuinely awful blokbusters that were roundly panned by the critics, like The Day After Tomorrow and Star Trek V.  The Happening, Spider-Man 3, and Cloverfield are all bad movies, in my honest opinion.  The difference between Cloverfield and Manos isn't just a difference of magnitude (i.e. "how bad").  The bad summer blockbusters still make money. by and large.  They have their defenders. 

Why?  I think it is because of what made the movies bad.  A bad big-budget popcorn movie like Pirates of the Caribbean was still competently filmed, lit, art-directed, etc.  All of its faults aside, you can see the money on the screen.  What makes these movies bad is that so much money is tied up in their production, that they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Every decision is made by committee.  Endings are altered to suit test audiences or focus groups.  Entire scenes exist only for product placement.  These types of movies are starting to seem identical to me.  For example, I have a very difficult time remembering which Pirates of the Caribbean flick is which. 

In constrast a MST3K-type movie is usually the product of a single creative [sic] mind.  For example, Ed Wood had an artistic vision.  It was a deeply neurotic, icky vision, but an artistic vision nonetheless.  McMovie does not have this trait; McMovie is content to be the cinematic equivalent of white bread enriched with SFX.  Another way to put it would be that the problems with movies like Spider-Man 3 are primarily problems of execution.  That is, it needed a better script, better actors, etc.  The problems with MST3K-type movies are more profound.  Nothing is a given; even competent filmmaking is the exception.   Most MST3K movies are deeply flawed in concept, and they went downhill from there. 

In my mind, it isn't how bad the movie is per se, but what the movie gives you to riff.  The cookie-cutter summer blockbusters are almost all bad, but they aren't all necessarily good riff fodder, either.  

Just my $0.02.  I thought some people might appreciate an insight into why some of us get so passionate on this issue.  

But the passion doesn't change the fact that there isn't much of an alternative.

In that they need to sell units to keep the company going.

It's a pretty moot argument, that's really being run into the ground. Some people want a different kind of movie. Rifftrax knows that.

I will say this. I agree with you. I would 100% prefer to see 80s movies being riffed to the latest dvd. But I've bought every Rifftrax and RTP release, no matter who was on the track, no matter how old/obscure the movie was, but most people didn't.

I still enjoy the current ones (usually) so I keep buying. I get extremely happy when an older/stranger movie comes our way.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to pick at scabs.  I just thought that I never got to make the point I had in mind.  I'm sure some folks agree, and some don't. 

[bratpop]

I can see your point that all the blockbusters are the same, thus the riffing tends to be the same. There is sadly not room for boom mike jokes or wobbly set observations, or even jabs at really REALLY bad acting. Usually there's a horrible line or two in a movie, "Around the survivors, a perimeter create." But I don't think it would be worth it to riff some straight to video Steven Seagal/Steve Guttenburg team-up movie.

[mrbasehart]

Although I believe that if somehow Rifftrax could put out some "complete" releases, with the audio and video mixed, then they would find a wider audience.

[Courtney]

Although I believe that if somehow Rifftrax could put out some "complete" releases, with the audio and video mixed, then they would find a wider audience.

Which is how I've long believed The Crush should be riffed and released.   

And it will be.  If I just clap my hands and believe in faeries Cary Elwes.

[bratpop]

I'm not sure how to calculate it having a "wider" audience. Technically (at least I assume) it would be more expensive, so could actually have a smaller audience. If they had their riffs on the official DVDs like I know they want, then the audience wouldn't really matter because they'd get paid by the studio and there would be no way to know who actually listened to the track.

[Edward J Grug III]

Although I believe that if somehow Rifftrax could put out some "complete" releases, with the audio and video mixed, then they would find a wider audience.

But they have done that, right? And surely if that was the case, we'd get more of them.

[mrbasehart]

Well, yes, but only with Mike and not for a little while.  Didn't the Film Crew DVDs sell well? And if Cinematic Titanic and ICWXP can make enough money to produce them, then surely Rifftrax can.  Especially as Legend can licence titles for them.

[Edward J Grug III]

The three riffer version of Plan 9 is available, isn't it?

Also Missile to the Moon?

[mrbasehart]

Plan 9 had been done by Mike before and Missile to the Moon doesn't feature the Rifftrax on it.

[Edward J Grug III]

http://www.rifftrax.com/ondemand/missile-moon-vod

[mrbasehart]

Sure, that's the way I watched it.  But I'm sure there would've been more people interested to buy a DVD integrated with the Rifftrax.  Some just don't like to watch movies on their computer.

[Edward J Grug III]

Ah, I though you were talking about VODs.

Well, I think it'd be great if the crew did a new complete DVD, perhaps this shorts dvd is a test of the waters?

[dalem]

Rifftrax does bad movies. 

I couldn't disagree more.  Rifftrax does movies that can be mocked.

Raiders, Lord of the Rings, Sixth Sense, Memento - these are good movies that can be mocked, and have been.

Maybe that's part of your frustration level - mis-set customer expectation?

-dale