MST3K: Anti-cinema?

The opposite choice doesn't sacrifice anything since nothing else was supposed to be there in the first place. This is like saying not eating popcorn while watching a film is sacrificing a lot. Or not watching a film with a commentary track by a film historian is sacrificing a lot. Or not watching porn on another screen at the same time is sacrificing a lot. None of these things were supposed to be there. They're all infringing on the original experience, if ever so slightly. True neutrality in this matter is impossible, but you should strive to at least not distract yourself with anything that isn't a part of the original work.

This "not watching it with the MST3K commentary also sacrifices things" is wanton consumerism, for lack of a better word. You're no longer interested in experiencing the original work. You're interested in finding ways to make it "digestible", "funnier", or "more interesting". You're using MST3K as an excuse to watch a film you wouldn't watch otherwise. You're partaking in a parasocial act of co-watching a film, at the film's expense. You might be getting more out of it this way, but I think you're violating the integrity of the film and your experience. I know you don't mind. But I believe a cinephile would.

As it is, these films are now known for their badness AKA "worst films ever made" and should be enjoyed by fans of such films, in unchanged form. If this means they will fall back into oblivion and will only be experienced by a select few, so be it. This isn't any different than AI-augmented & colored old silents put on YouTube. DON'T SHOW THEM TO THE NORMIES IN THIS WAY. IT'S BETTER THE NORMIES NEVER SEE THEM THAN LEARN TO ENJOY THEM IN THE WRONG WAY. They're not watching the original film anyway. Not even a sane attempt to preserve / restore it.

Keeping your film-watching pure and unadulterated is paramount for a cinephile. The same goes for dubbing in case it was added by somebody else later and not by the filmmakers.

Watching the MST3K version AFTER watching the original film is OK, just like watching the film with a commentary track AFTER watching it without one is OK. The problem is most people only watch the MST3K version to mock the film, to enjoy the act of ridicule. They bypass both the original film and the "worst film ever made" premise for you alone to enjoy and jump on the bandwagon of taking part in something they shouldn't be taking part in unless they already watched the film before.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

What is wrong with just letting people enjoy the things that they find fun, assuming of course it's not something illegal, and worry about finding stuff that's fun for you?

It sounds like you know you can't change people's habits, so you just choose to be very judgey about it.

Part of all artistic processes involve adding, changing things that were. Just ask yourself how many European painters took the same content, especially religious content, from the past, and put their stamp on it. You can't and should not even try to stifle this process. My local art museum has about 10 paintings of St Jerome, all different.

Fortunately, with movies and contemporary technology, we DO have the option to preserve not just originals, but all in-between versions too. This doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

Like the example of the documentary footage of WW I, with sound and color added, if it's done right it really adds to the experience and makes it downright emotionally engaging. If it is not done right, nothing is lost. The original is still there.

That's the great thing about digital technology. You can have your cake and eat it too. You can also clone it and add chocolate frosting or jimmies without losing the one with the vanilla icing. There's absolutely no downside to this as long as it's all done transparently. The movie I mentioned (They Shall Not Grow Old), made a point of starting out with jerky, monochrome, scratchy film and doing a transition to the colorized, sound added, patched up version. When I saw it in the theater with big screen and big sound, the audience audibly gasped.

It would make a lot of sense if someone has something to say about it.

Stop assuming thought is something to be suspicious about.

I watched They Shall Not Grow Old in prep for the war countdown, it was nothing short of amazing. People and places that in the original faded silent film stock looked like a million miles away, became real people again with heart breaking stories. It was like the soldiers of the forgotten war could speak to us again. I see that as a positive.

I've often thought it would be cool if they HD restored a classic silent film, had lip readers decipher what was being said...then using the same technique they did on They Shall Not Grow Old, colorize it and dub in the sound and a score. And like you said that doesn't destroy the original, indeed it ends up preserving the film stock in it's original restored state.

"Lip readers" LMAO

Check it out. You can stream it or see the first few moments for free to get the idea.

What makes you think I haven't seen the movie?

Thought is just fine. It tells you to save erudite commentary for a movie that is better than The Crawling Eye.

If you had, you'd be the third person I've met who has.

I got to see it, in the theater, and in 3D, too.

No one is asking for anything erudite. **** erudite. But smart and worthwhile things can be said about any movie that has ever been made. Everything. Yes, even The Crawling Eye.


And just so you know, we don't need to save saying smart things for special occasions. The great thing about saying smart things is when you think one, you can say it immediately. You don't have to hold on to it for the perfect movie.

You can use the same attitude and ask what's wrong with just letting people half-watch a film while surfing the internet. But the answer lies in the act itself. You're not giving yourself 100% to the film and intentionally introducing something that distracts you from the original experience. The atmosphere and feel of the original work are infringed upon. You cannot say you really watched the film with your best intentions and all the fairness you could give it.

The fact people do something wrong means I can't comment on it?

That's not what we're talking about here. I'm not arguing whether or not MST3K is art. I'm arguing that one shouldn't watch the MST3K version if the original is available. A more analogous situation would be people choosing to see an "improved" copy of a painting instead of the original, and then giving an opinion about the original based on their experience with the copy.

The question is, are we watching and assessing that original footage or not? Try coloring Death Mills (1945) and making it the most-watched version of this documentary. A lot of the original intent, aesthetic, and integrity is changed by that. The original is back into oblivion but people are watching the 'enhanced' version, thus experiencing something different from the original work of art. Nobody's experiencing the original, just like nobody would if nobody colored it and made it the most-watched version. The idea that they're watching the original is a lie. You cannot make films more engaging for normies for them to kindly watch them. You have to try to make normies watch the original, teach them to watch old movies in their original form.

This film is a work of art (regardless of the quality of that art) in and of itself. It's a film. It uses this footage, but it also uses modern live-action footage. It combines these two for the effect of a fluid transition between them. This isn't analogous to what we're talking about here. We're talking about something tantamount to presenting the film as it was, but changing some aspect of its visuals (e.g., coloring, AI enhancements) or sound (e.g., commentary track).

You have the freedom to enjoy films any which way you like, and so do other people! What could be more fair that that? It's a free country!

Sounds like you're admitting that you are, indeed, very judgey indeed about things that are totally out of your control.

Nobody's trying to make it illegal to watch MST3K. But the way we consume art matters. I believe watching films in the MST3K version only is detrimental to one's respect for the integrity and quality (or lack thereof) of the original work and art in general.

Sure, I'm judgy. So what? My position isn't that I'm not judgy.

So, instead of just enjoying films the way you like, you prefer to spend your time fussing over the way other people enjoy films/entertainment. The way I see it, it's their loss if they don't know any better - I'm just happy I'm not like that.

No, your position seems to be that all of your pearl-clutching is going to somehow make a difference, or that you deserve some kind of recognition for all of your pearl-clutching.

I simply feel that all of the pearl-clutching in the world isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference in terms of how people enjoy their filmed content.

People are most likely going to continue enjoying the MST3K versions of films long after you and I are both dead and buried. So I don't spend any time worrying about it.

You're acting as if these were mutually exclusive. The "keep it all to yourself and never talk about other people's ways of enjoying films" attitude is a head-scratching one, as it effectively zeroes any discussion about ways people enjoy art. And I believe it's a worthwhile topic to discuss.

Yes, it's their loss, but I might just as well do something to at least try to change their opinion. Or to at least have a discussion. The culture of leaving everybody to themselves lest we appear as bothering or 'fussy' is a counterproductive culture of silence and conformism.

No, I don't think it'll make much of a difference, but if it makes just one person watch the original film, that's already more than I ever bargained for. It seems especially weird to suggest a person is looking for recognition by positing an opinion nobody else on this site agrees with.

Maybe it won't. But this isn't a reason not to keep trying. Godard once said, "even if nothing turns out as we had hoped, it would change nothing of our hope".

You can literally say the same thing about virtually anything else. Does it mean we shouldn't worry about / discuss anything?

Discuss? Maybe, but for you, and I say this with no disrespect, it seems much more of an obsession. It seems like the only thing you want to talk about 80% of the time.

I don't think anyone's opinion is being changed, "by positing an opinion nobody else on this site agrees with".

If you can't get anyone to agree with you here, then it certainly doesn't seem like this is ever going to amount to anything more than, for example, shouting at the clouds.

If it's not recognition, then you're basically saying that your happiness and sense of well-being hinges on other people's actions - specifically, the way they consume filmed entertainment.

I'm okay with the questioning, with the discussion, etc. But that is occasionally hard to square with the over-the-top nature of the inciting comments. I believe the term "lowlives" was used.

I have to run so I can't go back and find quotes right now but I will reply/expound a bit later.