What happens when two young men let their love of movies, comic books, and all things “geek” take over their lives? They run away from their families, bringing only the most essential DVDs and comics to their secret, highly fortified underground bunker in sunny Southern California, where they start recording podcasts that will change the world.
Are they heroes?
No.
Are they geniuses?
Far from it.
Are they the future of this planet?
I sure hope not.
Simply put… Matt Cohen and Jesse Rivers are “Bagged and Boarded”.
BAGGED & BOARDED #23: Uncivil War – In which Matt and Jesse attempt to discuss 80’s movie franchises but get derailed by what is without a doubt the biggest argument in B and B history. Place your bets…
[CONTENT WARNING]: This podcast may contain some foul language and horribly off-color jokes. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.
DOWNLOAD: (right click to save)
Episode #23 (MP3 format)
[audio:http://traffic.libsyn.com/baggedboarded/bagged_boarded-23.mp3]
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to this Podcast via iTunes
Got something to say? E-mail Matt & Jesse at the B & B mailbag.
CLICK HERE FOR THE BAGGED & BOARDED ARCHIVES
##
Comments: 41 Comments
41 Responses to “Bagged & Boarded 23: Uncivil War”Leave a Reply |
April 28th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
im going to bet on jesse before i even hear it……
April 28th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Without knowing what the bet is, my money’s on Matt Cohen. Everybody knows that Matt Cohen is the Iron Man of Podcasts.
April 28th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I apologize to everyone but Jesse.
April 28th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“Raging Bull is a boxing movie”- Matt
“No, it’s a movie about a boxer”- Jesse
When Jesse said that I cracked up.
April 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
i watched anchorman again yesterday. Loved it, esp. the gane fight scene.
i don’t feel insulted
that being said, i stand corrected
I agree with matt more than jesse. though i won’t call jesse a monster because i can see where he’s coming from:
strange wilderness + The sasquatch gang = totally interchangable
April 28th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Sorry, but he lost his argument when he said that not all movies have a purpose.
Yeah, Anchorman is probably one of the greatest comedies of this decade, and it rocks.
I have yet to watch death to smoochy, though Matt’s championing of it makes me want to.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
“Sorry, but he lost his argument when he said that not all movies have a purpose.”
You’re exactly right because Dance Movie is going to be fantastic…
April 28th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I agree with Jesse in the sense that there are some movies that don’t seem to have a purpose beyond making money and that the basic plot of most movies could take place anywhere and make just as much sense but I’d put some of the movies that he said only make sense in their own setting in the interchangable category.
Also, the second BrendoMan Minute was great.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:09 am
I’m sorry, but Matt likes Transformers right? I can never take his side in anything movie related because of that. I haven’t listened to the podcast, but my vote is already for Jesse.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:27 am
I like Transformers?
It’s one of the worst movies ive ever seen.
I dont even like the cartoon its based on.
How dare YOU Switters! 😉
April 29th, 2009 at 1:29 am
JesseRivers Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
“Sorry, but he lost his argument when he said that not all movies have a purpose.â€
You’re exactly right because Dance Movie is going to be fantastic…
—–
fuck me Jesse,
THE PURPOSE OF DANCE MOVIE IS TO MAKE PEOPLE FUCKING LAUGH… IT MAY NOT BE FUNNY TO YOU OR I, BUT IT IS THEIR INTENTION. AND YES, TO MAKE MONEY AS WELL, THROUGH MAKING PEOPLE FUCKING LAUGH.
and maybe dance.
You are the only one associating “quality” with “purpose”. Noone said Dance Movie will be good, or even worth watching but it still exists for the purpose of being a MOTHERFUCKIGN COMEDY.
which…. is a purpose.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Damn this was a good argument.
I really can’t tell who’s right. I was leaning towards Jesse, but now I’m split.
About the Mallrats thing, I agree with Jesse in that if you set Mallrats in something like an amusement park, it would still kinda work. Cause the mall wasn’t the main focus of the movie, the movie was about two guys with relationship issues. It could work even if it wasn’t in a mall. The same couldn’t be said for Clerks though, seeing as how the QuickStop was an essential part of the movie.
Also Matt, just to commonet on something you said, Stiffler can work in another movie. Pretty much every teen comedy of that irk have a Stiffler type character. That’s like a law or something.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:33 am
“You are the only one associating “quality†with “purposeâ€. Noone said Dance Movie will be good, or even worth watching but it still exists for the purpose of being a MOTHERFUCKIGN COMEDY.
which…. is a purpose.”
Then would you classify Meet the Spartans and Epic Movie as having a purpose other than making movie. There was no thought put into those, I don’t see those as having any other purpose beyond, “lets make more money using the same damn jokes we made in the other movie”.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:52 am
Guarantee Selztberg and whatever their names are LOVE their shit. THink they are the funniest people in Hollywood.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:03 am
I disagree, I think their whores. I don’t even think they think their funny. I think it’s all about money to them.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:05 am
I just can’t see ANYONE writing an entire comedy script and not at least trying to make it funny for THEMSELVES. I think they are just extremely unfunny, and unfortunately their box-offices dont show it, so they keep perpetuating the thought that they are “funny”.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:13 am
I think the first time around they tried to do funny. Then they saw it was a hit at the box office, now it’s just money to them, because they keep doing the same movie over and over.
Even if they thought that was funny, they had to have reached a point where they stopped and said, “okay, too much”. To quote Kevin Smith quoting a line from Conan, Gold loses it’s fucking luster dude.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:04 am
“Die Hard With a Vengeance” was a film retooled from another action film called “Simon Says” to fit as a “Die Hard” film.
I love the fact that Jesse brought up the “Die Hard” argument. “Speed” is thought of as “Die Hard” in a bus.
Matt’s idea of the 80s sucking is freaking hilarious. It’s as silly as saying that the 80s were awesome. There a lot of great things that came from the 80s and there are a lot of crappy things from the 80s.
Matt, your bias is apparent throughout the whole discussion and it makes it so that you can’t see other people’s point of view. You brought up the “X2”. The inherent message behind the X-Men is of racism. I’m pretty sure that that subject is featured in the film as well the idea of government oppression, so you can’t use that film as an example of message-less films.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:03 am
” ‘Sorry, but he lost his argument when he said that not all movies have a purpose.’
You’re exactly right because Dance Movie is going to be fantastic…”
You’ll have to tell me if you go see it, I have no intention.
But Dance Movie is going to have a purpose. Ovay, let’s say that some one went like “Dude, those guys who made Date Movie made a lot of money, let’s have them make another one.”
OK, yes there are a couple of movie execs who want to make the movie in order to make money, but they guys who are writing it aren’t doing it just for money, they honestly want to make people laugh.
You have this higher ground where a movie needs to be good to have a purpose, but what makes a movie good comes down all to opinion.
I think Hancock was a horrible fucking film, but it entertained some people.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Fucking cool podcast!, I came for the somd, but stayed because of the bagged!
April 29th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I think what Jesse was getting at only works during the conception stage of a script. An example being pitching a hockey movie as Rocky on ice, or some such shit. The character archetype of Rocky and theme of the movie can be interchangeable and used in any genre, but its not the same movie, and the new Rocky like character in the hockey movie ceases to be Rocky and is entirely new entity. Another example of interchangeability would be pitching a Will Ferrell vehicle. Will Ferrell as a basketball player, figure skater, nascar driver, etc… They are all sports themed comedy movies and at the pitching stage are very interchangable, they could be almost any sport and still be the same basic story. Even if you think these types of movies are only made for money, like matt say’s it still isn’t any less of a movie than Goodfellas. Just as much thought went into it. Every movie takes on a life of it’s own during the screenwritting process. The character’s can’t help but evolve differently in different settings and situations. If you keep every element of movie exactly the same then all you have is a sequel or a remake.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
cajun dave,
we are leeeeeegion.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
You know what? If I am understanding his argument correctly, Jesse is right. It comes down to what they call “initial purpose” and “secondary purpose”. What Jesse seems to be saying is that a movie is a means through which creators, actors, and crew attempt to communicate some aspect of human experience. This communication of experience manifests itself in the form of the “secondary purpose”. Movies like Dumb and Dumber may be hilarious (personal opinion, it was ok…) but they are not communicating some aspect of human experience. Dumb and Dumber’s purpose was simply “to make people laugh.” And there is nothing wrong with that. That doesn’t mean, however, that there isn’t something valuable and quality and noteworthy about a film that “makes people laugh”, while at the same time it conveys an understanding of some aspect of life, love, hate, jealousy, etc. A perfect quickstop-centric example would be Mallrats versus Chasing Amy. Mallrats, as I’m sure even Kevin Smith might agree, was intended to be funny- not much more. Chasing Amy, on the other hand, was intended to be funny, and to convey some understanding of life. Mallrats succeeded at being funny, Amy succeeded at being funny and being emotionally and intellectually engaging. I agree with Matt when he says that a writer or director intends to “make people laugh”, or “create a kick ass action flick”, but this isn’t the same type of purpose that Jesse is refering to. Matt seems to be caught up on the idea that Jesse means that movies without purpose have no value. That’s not the point at all. Movies that have no secondary meaning, or “purpose”, can still be valuable, entertaining, well made, quality films. It’s just that movies that achieve their initial purpose(escapist, making people laugh, psychological thriller), while at the same time achieving a secondary purpose (communicating a meaning, allegory, emotional resonance, intellectual engagement) are deserving of being praised and respected on a different level.
I’ve been listening regularly for the past couple of months, and I’ve really enjoyed what you guys are doing lately.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Mars is cool.
I thought I was naive, but anyone who believes that there isn’t writers, directors and actors out there that take on certain jobs primarily for the money is absolutely insane. In fact, back in the studio contracted days, almost everyone did just that. They don’t continue the Saw series for any other reason than to make money and I believe the people that write it only have to concern themselves with creative death scenes and a twist ending. There’s no emotional connection. There’s no message to convey. There’s nothing new about it. But they will continue churning them out until the box office slides.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
jesse,,,
MOVIE BUSINESS!!!!
BUSINESS!!!!
What movie is ever made to lose money? That’s batshit insane. Yes, sometimes people have some emotional connection to said story, but at the end of the day, the primary way for that story to reach as many people as possible, is to do well in sales, IE, MAKE MONEY.
Fans of the saw series like the saw series. Why cant you concede to that. They feel an emotional connection to that,. Be it fright, joy, laughter WHICH ARE ALL EMOTIONS.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Matthew…
I understand and agree with everything you just said. I’m not talking about fans. I’m talking about the reasons for a movie to be made. If I recall correctly, this entire conversation bean when I mentioned something about there being no reason for certain movies other than money and I used Transformers as an example. I understand that people like them, but I also understand that some films are made for no other reason than cash. That’s all I’ve been trying to say. I’m not saying that anyone would want to make a movie that loses money, but sometimes that is the ONLY reason…
April 30th, 2009 at 1:15 am
The guys behind the “Movie” flics are, by the definition posited by Kevin Smith, hacks. They do films that are completely interchangeable and because they are devoid of difference, they are made for the sole purpose of making money.
The independent film scene is the perfect example for films that aren’t intended to make money. Sure, some do, but for the most part, it doesn’t matter if indie films make money, just as long as they’re made.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:09 am
Sitting here thinking what to write cause what you just discussed is a mindfuck!
Thank you very much for that.
Oh an Matt have you seen Heathers that’s so 80′ and so cool.
By the way I’m with Jesse on this one.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I’m with Jesse. You have to stop taking it so personally, and look at the big picture.
I think the perfect evidence is all the dreamworks anthropomorphic animal flicks. All interchangable, all for the same purpose – to give parents something to take their kids to, and to sell merchandise $$$.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Jesse is wrong. He is biased against comedies that are just made to entertain, which is not a bad thing.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
“Jesse is wrong. He is biased against comedies that are just made to entertain, which is not a bad thing.”
Why does everyone keep saying this? I said I was not a fan of Anchorman. I love Mallrats and Dumb and Dumber. Dr. Strangelove is a comedy. Raising Arizona is one of the best films ever made. I’m just not a fan of Anchorman.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Jesse, you are insightful. I get where you’re coming from.
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
How can you not like Anchorman? I think that’s a sign of a person with bad taste in comedy. I’m ignoring your love for Raising Arizona.
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Born in 1983. I rented the movies or watched it on WPIX, or USA up all night.
I still watch movies I have not seen from 70s, 80s and 90s.
Damn Matt, you’re not a true movie fan.
Your opinion really just became meaningless after this episode. Damn damn damn, this podcast episode is painful bro…
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 am
Now I hate Jesse. This has been an interesting listen so far, I hope it ends well.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:43 am
“Damn Matt, you’re not a true movie fan.”
Bullshit. He loves the movies he loves, making him a true movie fan.
If an older film doesn’t look particularly interesting there’s no movie fan code that says you must watch it.
Similarly, it pisses me off how some people claim they only like the ‘greats’ because it just seems they’re saying what they’re supposed to say.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Wow, didn’t think it could go downhill from “we’re 8 minutes into the podcast” but you boys surprise me. I like the podcast, but this episode was entertaining till Jesse started with the “all movies are interchangable” and Matt rebutted with “Rocky is a sports movie”.
Keep up the funnies, some debates fall into that category (funny), sadly this one wasn’t. Didn’t help that all you two did was say your points over and over. Remember people, to define recursion one must first define recursion.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Damn, this shit just got heated all of a sudden. Jessie wins this round by virtue of the fact that he didn’t spend the majority of the argument interrupting and shouting over Matt. That aside, there are quite a few films out there that are highly interchangeable. The Die Hard series is a great example because really all they did in each movie was make the place he’s moving around in larger and the amount the thieves were stealing greater. Otherwise it’s the same exact movie. I’d argue that you could take the John McClane character place him in any movie were it’s him against an army of foes and you’ll have another Die Hard. Someone else brought up the “Movies†films: another perfect example. Although in this case the piece that is switched around is “theme†instead of “characterâ€. I think where this argument fell apart is when Matt took Jessie’s statements as a personal attack, as if the fact that some movies are interchangeable with others invalidates his career choice as a writer. Matt if you don’t want to make interchangeable films then write scripts that tell original stories. Formulaic plots are the bane of the movie industry. Matt was right though about characters being their details, from a writer’s standpoint the construction of a good character is truly from the ground up, and everything they do in a story is predicated on those details. This is not to say though that those character details can’t exist in a different setting with a similar plotline.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I’m split on this.
I agree with Jesse that some movies like Mall Rats can be put in any location and the soul of the movie will be there as long as the characters are the same. I also agree that the soul purpose of almost every film is to make money, just look at Date Movie and all that other crap.
But I’m with Matt when he says “I don’t know what the fuck the means?”
June 24th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Sigh. This is an incredible train-wreck of a debate. I can’t believe this argument goes as far as it does. It’s almost painful to listen to.
Matt, I can hardly believe that you’re not just willfully misunderstanding Jesse to instigate this whole argument. It’s amusing, but at the same time, you come off as an immense jackass, sir. You overly specify what a character is & what a movie is, which causes this whole thing.
Actually, listening closer, it may be a result of being really fucking high during the podcast…
July 29th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Had to chime in on this one, there most certainly are interchangable comedies for example tommyboy and black sheep, those are two completely seperate films with different plots but if you tuned in half way through the film you would have no idea which you were watching nor would most people care yet you’d get the exact same entertainment result. Also most Adam sandler movies such as mr deeds Billy madison happy gillmore. You have very interchangeable movies there with different story characters playing the same roles and same retarded guy with/without money senario. Also none of these movies have a reason the movies themselves were not imagined to be funny they were created as vehicles for chris farley and Adam sandler to do what they do best , if Adam sandler chris farley ect didn’t perform those roles the movie loses purpose and context on the spot…..you can also add lol Nicky the waterboy and big daddy to that list, all 3 of those are intrchangable with the parent issue plot and same character archetypes