December 27, 2004

A Scientific Examination

Here's the question: Which is worse: a Stephen King movie or a Saturday Night Live movie? Obviously, neither brand is a ringing endorsement of quality, but which one is a clearer sign that you're in for some bad, bad cinema?

In order to answer this question, I had to define my terms. My first rule was that sequels wouldn't count. Thus, no Wayne's World 2 or Blues Brothers 2000 on the SNL side. And for Mr. King, we're cutting off the Children of the Corn after the first one. Also, I'm only counting theatrical releases, which gets the Stephen King movies down to a manageable number. Finally, when determining what counts as a Saturday Night Live movie, my rule was that it had to be based on a regular skit: I realize that Office Space, Zoolander, and even Bob Roberts were technically based on one-shot sketches that appeared on SNL years before the movie, but I regard them as anomalies. They are not properly "Saturday Night Live Movies" in the way that, say, A Night at the Roxbury is.

So, here's what I think is a decent canonical list of Saturday Night Live Movies:

The Blues Brothers
Coneheads
It's Pat
The Ladies Man
Mr. Saturday Night
A Night at the Roxbury
Superstar
Stuart Saves His Family
Wayne's World

That's nine movies, of which I enjoy three: Blues Brothers, Coneheads, and Wayne's World. Maybe you don't like Coneheads so much, but I've heard people say they like Stuart Saves His Family. So I'm declaring that basically, if you're sitting down to see a Saturday Night Live movie, you've got a one-in-three chance of seeing an enjoyable movie.

Now, Stephen King. I'm counting any theatrical movie based on a book or story written by him, regardless of whether it was published as "Stephen King" or "Richard Bachman". Also, if he wrote the screenplay directly. Note that The Lawnmower Man isn't included, because even though it used to be titled "Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man", it didn't have anything to do with him and he even sued to get his name taken off it. So there are 29 right now:

Carrie
The Shining
Creepshow
Cujo
The Dead Zone
Christine
Children of the Corn
Firestarter
Cat's Eye
Silver Bullet
Maximum Overdrive
Stand By Me
The Running Man
Pet Sematary
Graveyard Shift
Misery
Sleepwalkers
The Dark Half
Needful Things
The Shawshank Redemption
The Mangler
Dolores Claiborne
Thinner
Night Flier
Apt Pupil
The Green Mile
Hearts in Atlantis
Dreamcatcher
Secret Window

There's also apparently something called "Riding the Bullet" which was in a couple of theatres in October, but I choose not to count it. Because it's my page and I make the rules. Anyway, I rate nine of these thirty movies as either "good" or "I liked it": Carrie, The Shining, Christine, Stand By Me, The Running Man, Pet Sematary, Misery, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Green Mile. I'm kind of iffy on Pet Sematary, but I'm giving it extra credit for the theme song. And anyway, I'm also iffy on Creepshow, so between the two movies, they probably equal one check mark.

So going only on my opinions, you have 33.3% of SNL movies being good, as opposed to 31% of Stephen King movies. But I already prefer lame comedies to lame horror flicks. My roommate, who is on the other side of the equation, also approved of three of the nine SNL movies but gave thumbs-up to a full fifteen of the thirty King movies, including his first six (and it would have been seven if Salem's Lot had counted as a movie).

My conclusion is that, well, it depends. Both Saturday Night Live and Stephen King have been responisble for an awful lot of terrible movies. But I'd have a hard time definitively ruling that either one was clearly worse than the other.

You don't think King should get a few bonus points for sheer volume and the fact that he is only one man, whereas SNL is a franchise spanning years and multiple popular actor/comedians? This mini corporation has only managed a third the number of movies King has! That's a lot of bad movies for one single man to be even indirectly responsible.

Posted by: at December 27, 2004 05:24 AM

To use baseball lingo, I think a rate stat is the way to go. A lot of King's movies didn't have anything to do with him except for licensing one of his books (although some of the very worst, like Sleepwalkers, were his fault from start to finish), so I didn't want to to get into the question of volume. If you look at it the other way, SNL could deserve credit for having all these comedians and writers and carefully choosing to pump out, say, "It's Pat" or "The Ladies Man".

Posted by: Monty at December 27, 2004 05:27 AM

The other thing to consider is peak value. Have any SNL movies been as good as the best King movies? Or, to put it another way, if we were to rank all the SNL and King movies on the same list, how far down would we have to go on the list before we found the first SNL movie?

Also, Cat's Eye was a reasonably decent movie.

Posted by: Matthew E at December 27, 2004 08:15 AM

You didn't include miniseries in the list. I liked "The Stand" and some of "It" and "Golden Years." The re-make of "The Shining" was supposed to be OK. But "Langoliers" "It" and "Rose Madder?" Those would probably drop it back down to the 31 percent.

You didn't like "Apt Pupil?"

Posted by: Omar G. at December 27, 2004 03:08 PM

Yeah, miniseries, I felt, would be out of the scope of the exercise, because then I'd have to figure out if any SNL TV stuff counted. And I don't think I've seen Apt Pupil.

Posted by: Monty at December 27, 2004 03:52 PM



	« Vampire-killin' in a Blackout \| Main \| 2004 Movies » December 27, 2004 A Scientific Examination Here's the question: Which is worse: a Stephen King movie or a Saturday Night Live movie? Obviously, neither brand is a ringing endorsement of quality, but which one is a clearer sign that you're in for some bad, bad cinema? In order to answer this question, I had to define my terms. My first rule was that sequels wouldn't count. Thus, no Wayne's World 2 or Blues Brothers 2000 on the SNL side. And for Mr. King, we're cutting off the Children of the Corn after the first one. Also, I'm only counting theatrical releases, which gets the Stephen King movies down to a manageable number. Finally, when determining what counts as a Saturday Night Live movie, my rule was that it had to be based on a regular skit: I realize that Office Space, Zoolander, and even Bob Roberts were technically based on one-shot sketches that appeared on SNL years before the movie, but I regard them as anomalies. They are not properly "Saturday Night Live Movies" in the way that, say, A Night at the Roxbury is. So, here's what I think is a decent canonical list of Saturday Night Live Movies: The Blues Brothers Coneheads It's Pat The Ladies Man Mr. Saturday Night A Night at the Roxbury Superstar Stuart Saves His Family Wayne's World That's nine movies, of which I enjoy three: Blues Brothers, Coneheads, and Wayne's World. Maybe you don't like Coneheads so much, but I've heard people say they like Stuart Saves His Family. So I'm declaring that basically, if you're sitting down to see a Saturday Night Live movie, you've got a one-in-three chance of seeing an enjoyable movie. Now, Stephen King. I'm counting any theatrical movie based on a book or story written by him, regardless of whether it was published as "Stephen King" or "Richard Bachman". Also, if he wrote the screenplay directly. Note that The Lawnmower Man isn't included, because even though it used to be titled "Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man", it didn't have anything to do with him and he even sued to get his name taken off it. So there are 29 right now: Carrie The Shining Creepshow Cujo The Dead Zone Christine Children of the Corn Firestarter Cat's Eye Silver Bullet Maximum Overdrive Stand By Me The Running Man Pet Sematary Graveyard Shift Misery Sleepwalkers The Dark Half Needful Things The Shawshank Redemption The Mangler Dolores Claiborne Thinner Night Flier Apt Pupil The Green Mile Hearts in Atlantis Dreamcatcher Secret Window There's also apparently something called "Riding the Bullet" which was in a couple of theatres in October, but I choose not to count it. Because it's my page and I make the rules. Anyway, I rate nine of these thirty movies as either "good" or "I liked it": Carrie, The Shining, Christine, Stand By Me, The Running Man, Pet Sematary, Misery, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Green Mile. I'm kind of iffy on Pet Sematary, but I'm giving it extra credit for the theme song. And anyway, I'm also iffy on Creepshow, so between the two movies, they probably equal one check mark. So going only on my opinions, you have 33.3% of SNL movies being good, as opposed to 31% of Stephen King movies. But I already prefer lame comedies to lame horror flicks. My roommate, who is on the other side of the equation, also approved of three of the nine SNL movies but gave thumbs-up to a full fifteen of the thirty King movies, including his first six (and it would have been seven if Salem's Lot had counted as a movie). My conclusion is that, well, it depends. Both Saturday Night Live and Stephen King have been responisble for an awful lot of terrible movies. But I'd have a hard time definitively ruling that either one was clearly worse than the other.
	« Vampire-killin' in a Blackout \| Main \| 2004 Movies »
	Comments You don't think King should get a few bonus points for sheer volume and the fact that he is only one man, whereas SNL is a franchise spanning years and multiple popular actor/comedians? This mini corporation has only managed a third the number of movies King has! That's a lot of bad movies for one single man to be even indirectly responsible. Posted by: at December 27, 2004 05:24 AM To use baseball lingo, I think a rate stat is the way to go. A lot of King's movies didn't have anything to do with him except for licensing one of his books (although some of the very worst, like Sleepwalkers, were his fault from start to finish), so I didn't want to to get into the question of volume. If you look at it the other way, SNL could deserve credit for having all these comedians and writers and carefully choosing to pump out, say, "It's Pat" or "The Ladies Man". Posted by: Monty at December 27, 2004 05:27 AM The other thing to consider is peak value. Have any SNL movies been as good as the best King movies? Or, to put it another way, if we were to rank all the SNL and King movies on the same list, how far down would we have to go on the list before we found the first SNL movie? Also, Cat's Eye was a reasonably decent movie. Posted by: Matthew E at December 27, 2004 08:15 AM Oooh Matthew's question is a good one. (Though, for me, it would be a few SNLs before you'd reach a SK.) Posted by: Meg at December 27, 2004 01:52 PM You didn't include miniseries in the list. I liked "The Stand" and some of "It" and "Golden Years." The re-make of "The Shining" was supposed to be OK. But "Langoliers" "It" and "Rose Madder?" Those would probably drop it back down to the 31 percent. You didn't like "Apt Pupil?" Posted by: Omar G. at December 27, 2004 03:08 PM Yeah, miniseries, I felt, would be out of the scope of the exercise, because then I'd have to figure out if any SNL TV stuff counted. And I don't think I've seen Apt Pupil. Posted by: Monty at December 27, 2004 03:52 PM Syndicate this site (XML)

A Scientific Examination

Comments