The Comic Galaxy of Mystery Science Theater 3000: Twelve Classic Episodes and the Movies They Lampoon

It's Chris Morgan's contention that MST3K (1988 - 1999) is "not a show where people make fun of bad movies." That'll come as a surprise to most of its fans, but Morgan argues that there's a difference between a snarky takedown of a lousy movie and a barrage of jokes about lousy filmmaking in general, served up with a heaping side order of pop culture references. While the show couldn't have existed without movies to riff on, the movies themselves (with the possible exception of MANOS) are important only to the extent to which they can generate jokes; yet the movies chosen for the show say something about the show, in a sort of feedback loop. Why these movies? What made them so suitable for the show's unique vibe?Morgan charts MST3K's evolution from seasons zero through ten in brief essays on the KTMA-era GAMERA, THE CRAWLING EYE, CATALINA CAPER, POD PEOPLE, MANOS, MITCHELL, KITTEN WITH A WHIP, LASERBLAST, MST3K: THE MOVIE, SPACE MUTINY, HOBGOBLINS, SOULTAKER, and DANGER: DIABOLIK, each of which was instructive as a success (in terms of the show), a qualified success, or an outright failure. (CATALINA CAPER and the MST feature film fail for interesting reasons.) This isn't an academic film studies text, and though Morgan declares his book a work of film criticism, it reads more as an intellectually ambitious piece of fan writing, one that raises good points ("Maybe what [the Best Brains saw in CATALINA CAPER] was basically a comedy about the characters from THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY") while completely overlooking others.There's Morgan's remarkable statement that "there are only really three kinds of films that fall into what we think of as B movies": exploitation films, monster movies, and the "teen angst" drama. He's somehow forgotten about genre movies: whole oceans of B movies built on standard issue plots about spies, detectives, soldiers, gangsters, and cowboys. Elsewhere, he falls into the my-taste-in-mass-culture-is-better-than-yours trap, dismissing SHARKNADO and its ilk as "cheap, cynical attempts to capture the zeitgeist...I would like to think that the folks behind MST3K, given the chance, would not even give these SyFy films the honor of being riffed. Save that for the noble failures." He writes this in all sincerity, as if watching THE CASTLE OF FU MANCHU was somehow a more ennobling experience than watching SHARKNADO.This isn't a bad book, especially if you're willing to push back against some of Morgan's more overreaching statements. MST3K is a funny show that deserves a book of serious criticism. This isn't it, but it's a start.

This is a tiny book consisting of a few essays on some of the mst3k movies . Not much context , not much history, no photos , no interviews , few observations, really disappointing. IAnd way overpriced for the flimsy collection . It would work better as a few blog entries

Loved reading it, even about eps I haven't seen. Needs a bit of copy editing, but obviously written by a dedicated fan. Good read!

Great companion to the other two books (In The Peanut Gallery and Reading MST3K)

A good study of one episode per season of the great TV show.

Don't waste your money. Nothing new for a real MST3k fan - nothing of interest if you're not a fan.

must have

Good.

A myriad of bad movies have been made. From the incomprehensible to the inexplicably bizarre some have had the privilege to be lampooned by a man and two robots on another kind of show--Mystery Science Theater 3000. Otherwise titles like 'Plan 9 From Outer Space,' 'Manos: the Hands of Fate,' and 'Pod People' (the title 'Egg People' would have been silly) might have been lost to obscurity.The Comic Galaxy of Mystery Science Theater 3000 gives insight into the program from its obscure days as a low budget cable show to the cult phenomenon it's become. Mystery Science Theater 3000 upheld some of its longevity by remaining recognizable even when 'upgrades' were required. This was a show made by those who had affection and passion for it. Unlike many types of humor there was little vindictiveness, in spite of the show's theme.After all, if you're mad scientists with a wild theory--that forcing someone to watch the worst films ever made will (somehow) allow you to conquer the world--you'd better test your hypothesis. Many times in fact, so that you'll have proven it beyond all doubt. Oh, the diabolical nature of scientific theory.The book is far from dull. If you survive the laugh fest of the first few chapters there is, as the author likes to say, meat on the bone. The very things that made a film bad often made for great lampooning. Learn about a movie, for example, that has more fog than movies that actually have the word fog in the title. Take note, film students: if you can only afford one prop a fog machine might not be your best choice. Continuity issues, such as many more rooms than can fit in the house, no problem; they'll fix that in post. Ha!Props and special effects have come a long way. Some of the ones mentioned here were terrible, as if filmmakers weren't even trying. Sometimes it was all they had a budget for. Sometimes it was an issue of churning out more films at a time when quantity outweighed quality.Anyone wanting to fully understand film, film history and film comedy (even when it's accidental; okay, especially when it's accidental) should invest in this book.