SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.avclub.com/article/joel-hodgson-bringing-back-mystery-science-theater-228190
We've got movie sign, MSTies: Joel Hodgson, a.k.a. "Joel," has officially launched a Kickstarter campaign to bring back Mystery Science Theater 3000 after 16 years. (It was canceled in 1999.) The campaign quietly appeared on the MST3K official website earlier this morning, confirming suspicions raised by vague promises of "big news coming soon" on the Rifftrax and MST3K social-media channels. The campaign has the rather lofty goal of $2 million, which Hodgson says will enable him to make three full-length episodes of MST3K to shop around to TV networks and streaming platforms. With three additional episodes per $1.1 million raised over the original goal, that's $5.5 million for a full 12-episode season. But if Zach Braff can do it, so can Joel and the bots.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by CaTfiSh on Thursday November 12 2015, @12:13PM
The appeal of the show is best described by, "You had to be there". Like a lot of cult classics, they were innovative for their time, but that doesn't necessarily make them timeless. Pop culture and tastes change, but the nostalgia remains.
For me, the show died when Mike replaced Joel. I saw a few later episodes and the downgrade was embarrassing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by termigator on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:54PM
Agree about the show declining when Mike replaced Joel.
After Joel left, it seemed the humor became more generic. One of the nice thing about the show was the obscure pop culture references. You may not always get it, but when you did, it was funny. They had references that spanned at least a couple of generations. When Mike was trapped on the SOL, it seemed the pop culture humor was less in favor of more generic humor, maybe in an attempt to broaden the audience.
This could have been a reason the show became less appealing. The more obscure humor was what attracted certain viewers in the beginning. The more generic humor was not good enough to attract a wider audience and it lost the audience they already had.
(Score: 1) by CaTfiSh on Friday November 13 2015, @01:39AM
Actually, you've nailed it dead-on. The obscure references that nobody always got were a huge part of the attraction to the show. There's a funky kind of mental *click* where, for a split second, you almost simultaneously go, "huh?" and "oh yeah!. Additionally, there's a sort of intimacy like sharing a private joke.
Joel and I are of the same generation, I wonder if he can still pull from that bag of obscure references and not alienate millennials? If he can manage that balance, then he may find relevance and an audience today.
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Friday November 13 2015, @02:03AM
Hmm, maybe that's it. I watched a later episode ("Future War" was the movie) because I'd seen a review on RedLetterMedia and it looked entertaining. Any particularly good ones with the old host you'd recommend I check out?
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]