Wed
Apr 23 2014 12:30pm

Why Do We Want More MST3K?

Yesterday Wired published an exhaustive oral history of the Greatest Show of All Time, Mystery Science Theater 3000, and in the last two paragraphs dropped the bombshell that Joel Hodgson is planning to resurrect the show. Already plenty of pop culture sites have weighed in, and obviously the consensus has been YES WE WANT THIS NOW. And there is already a gleeful reddit debate about who could host. And while I am one of those jumping up and down in Muppet-like enthusiasm, the reaction has also made me ask: why? Why are we still debating Joel vs. Mike after all these years? Why is this show the one that continues to speak to us, even to people who were infants when the show started?

Why, in 2014, with so many options, do we keep returning to the Satellite of Love?

Of all the shows of the time, it seems on its surface the least likely to succeed: a two-hour long show, filled with references that are brainy and obscure, and host segments that not only recall the long-gone, usually creepy subgenre of kiddie puppet shows, but also maintain a certain aesthetic that’s only barley better than basic cable. The cast changed constantly, with the show even pulling a Darrin/Becky maneuver—twice—in the casting of Tom Servo and Crow.

Of course there are also plenty of reasons for both its popularity and enduring longevity: there’s no real plot, so it’s easy to jump on. The humor is multi-layered, so many ages can enjoy it, but not so topical that it’s confusing, in the way that some 90s satire is.

Much has also been made of the fact that MST3K was able to capitalize on the birth of the internet, but I would argue something a bit different—I would say that MST3K was more responsible for the creation of the modern internet than is immediately apparent. The early Joel vs. Mike debates perfectly encapsulate this—they both snark on the chestnut of Kirk vs. Picard, and serve the same function of those debates, by telling you a lot about the person you’re dealing with. (I duck this question by calling myself a TV’s Frank, by the way.) As the Wired piece says, the argument defined the early MST3K newsgroups, but also spilled over into other areas of the web as it grew, which in turn increased MST3K’s cult status.

Best Brains’ early encouragement to “keep circulating the tapes” also tapped into a culture of filesharing and condoned piracy that immediately endeared them to the AV geeks who were still the biggest proponents of the information superhighway. What other artists have done this? Radiohead, in their insistence that people post their concerts on YouTube, and invitations to remix and create videos for their work? Bjork, with her Bibliophilia project? MST3K was actively promoting fan art, fan fiction, remixes, the MST3K wiki, the MST3K digitization project, etc. When the show was cancelled (again) and VHS copies were few and far between, the MSTies just traded and shared until the DVD releases caught up with their fervor. And hell, jumping up to the present: what is Rifftrax if not a highly specialized comedy podcast, created just before that medium exploded?

The other obvious reason for the show’s continued relevance is that the kids who grew up on MSTie (and actually received it as the kids puppet show it pretended to be) have hit an age where they can form their own local troupes, while older fans, like Wil Wheaton, Chris Hardwick, Joel McHale, Paul Feig, Patton Oswalt, and Neil Patrick Harris, can work with the MSTies by turning in cameos on Rifftrax and arguing with them on Twitter.

But. That still doesn’t quite get to it for me. Why this one? Why not Kids in the Hall? Why not The State? Twin Peaks has a huge following, but doesn’t inspire the outpouring off love that I’ve seen for MST3K. Nothing Sacred? Brimstone? Wonderfalls? Why does this show, of all shows, have such an enduring legacy?

I previously wrote a piece about how MST3K helped me understand my parents. Aspects of their lives as pre-Boomers became a lot clearer to me when I watched the way Joel and Mike interacted with the conservatism of the 50s and 60s hygiene shorts, in particular. Writing that piece, and talking about it with my parents, made a few other thoughts percolate into a theory that I don’t have much support for other than reddit forums, but here goes: the show was this generation’s 1960s revolution. It was a show that both managed to lash out at the received culture of mediocre films, white hegemony, patriarchal authority, and rote religious practice, while being still harboring affection for that culture.

So the show does what no other comedy did at that time—it wasn’t just a catchphrase factory (SNL) a surrealism jamboree (KITH) or a crash course in a pure nihilism that would make Rust Cohle wince (Seinfeld). It mirrored a huge shift in culture over the 90s by showing us two different types of hero. For this, we must return to the Joel vs. Mike debate. The mistake a lot of people make is in framing the debate by asking whose jokes were funnier, or only considering the host in relation to the robots and the Mads. But if we look at the host’s relationship to his predicament, things get more interesting.

Joel is an existential hero. He was good at his job, he loves cleaning and holds himself to a certain standard (as evidenced in his encomium to service stations in Eegah) he was kidnapped and sent to space against his will. Rather than succumbing to despair as the scientists expect, he builds friends and talks back to the screen, transforming his torture into something fun. He also, particularly in the early seasons of the show, seems to be using his confinements in a Dostoyevsky-ish way, to contemplate his role in the universe and the meaning of his life. At the end of his time on the show he even mimes his own burial, seemingly in an attempt to come to terms with his mortality. Classic existential hero. Maybe it is just a void out there! Joel will still create and strive for some sort of meaning, even in the face of the abyss.

On the other hand, Mike is a temp. Every bit of backstory we get on him is that he drifted from pointless job to pointless job, more interested in music and a deep love of weed than in figuring out any sort of purpose. His reaction to being kidnapped, first, is to fight against the physical nature of his entrapment—where Joel accepted his time in space as a way to achieve spiritual freedom, Mike is constantly trying to find ways back to earth. His mental response, so different from Joel’s, can be critiqued through Northrop Frye’s classic study of ironic versus epic heroes:

“Criticism of society without change: Sources of values and conventions are ridiculed usually by a successful rogue who challenges the society’s generalizations, theories, and dogmas by showing their ineffectiveness in the face of reality; the rogue does not, however, offer a positive solution or create a new society.”

Mike doesn’t engage in any deep spiritual wrestling or moral quandaries, he just throws jokes out and hangs out with the ‘bots. He is the ironic hero, and he is the reflection of a cultural shift. Joel came too late to be an epic hero, certainly, but as a child of the 60s he can cling to certain ideals. Mike is the kid who came of age in the 80s, whose every response is snark, and Mike is the internet, and Mike is us. After he escapes and comes home in Danger: Diabolique (the SyFy finale), the final scene shows him and the bots watching TV in his crappy apartment, snarking on The Crawling Eye—the first Comedy Central episode. He has come full circle; the eternal has recurred. This even after the other finale, when the Comedy Central era ended with Mike, Crow, Tom, and Gypsy all transcending their current forms and becoming pure love, energy, etc. and playing at the edge of the universe.

I think this is the key to why Mystery Science Theatre 3000 has lasted the way it has. We can see a hero we aspire to be: idealistic, hopeful, creating meaning in the face of despair. But we can also bask in what the culture has actually become: a nation of riffers, reacting to everything on Twitter with perfectly crafted one-liners. The debate of Joel vs. Mike is really a different one entirely: sincerity vs. irony. The answer the show gives us is deceptively simple. We need both. It is in the conversation between irony and sincerity that real progress can be made.

So are you a Joel or a Mike, or something new?


Leah Schnelbach would like to point out that MST3K popularized the “stinger.” She's meta. She's also on Twitter!

13 comments
TBGH
1. TBGH
Thanks for this from a Joel!

(Although I enjoyed watching Mike more . . . )
Margot Virzana
2. LuvURphleb
I prefer Mike but an firmly a Crow (the 2nd)
Adam S.
3. MDNY
Loyal to Joel, but yes, Mike was funnier.
TBGH
4. Doc Madsen
I like both, Guess its just me. One has more edge and a bit of meaness, which some movies richly deserve, the other poking fun while also going along on the ride. Different style but both very good. We do need both. I always liked how they interacted with the movie a lot and the invention exchanges were brilliant, regardless of host. Joel for bringing this thing to life, and mike for keeping it relevant in a time of cynasism.
TBGH
5. Ginger Fitts
Wow, fantastic article! Thank you for a very deep, but informative read.
I came into the show during the Sci Fi Mike era and never saw Joel until Netflix. I really didn't like his work until recently when I got a Kindle, a micro USB cable and YouTube. I watched Joel and suddenly I saw the genie come out of the bottle! His genius is so understated it's art. I like Mike and Joel equally now because I see what each brings and the fact that they made this show work. It's easy to forget the hours of banging away on the keyboard Mike did a head writer and the contributions of the whole cast and crew. It's what ensemble acting should be. It was TV today wishes it could be.
Felicity Shoulders
6. Felicity
I have never been too passionate about the debate (mild Joel) but...oh my goodness, you mentioned Brimstone! Someone watched it besides me and my dad!?
Leah Schnelbach
7. Cloudyvision
@6 I watched the hell out of Brimstone! John Glover is one of the top Devils of all time.
Stefan Raets
8. Stefan
@6,7 - Agreed. I miss that show. And yes, John Glover was perfect as the Devil!
TBGH
9. 2nihon
Mostly a Joel fan here. I don't mind Mike, it just takes me a while to get used to him when I watch his eps. I also like the old theme song and 'movie sign!' transition better...but I promise to all of you that I'll keep going into the Mike era when I get to that place in my watchthrough. :)
TBGH
10. agonist
Joel all the way! Mike is a very funny guy, but when Joel left, and then when Frank left, and then when Trace left, it wasn't MST3K anymore.
Shelly wb
11. shellywb
They kind of had this already, with Cinematic Titanic. All the originals were there (led by Joel) and they'd do live shows riffing on movies. You can get them on DVD at their website, and most are hysterically funny.
TBGH
12. AlanMorlock
I actually can't stand this show and its ilk. There's not a single person on the planet who is a tenth as funny as they think they are while riffing. I'll pass.
TBGH
13. Tv's Roblem
Why? We have loads of it right? Hundreds of original Mst3k episodes plus all the more recent Film Crew, Cinematic Titanic, and Rifftrax episodes. (And if you don’t know, there is a TON of new stuff)
What’s missing from the new stuff are the Satellite of love and the Bots. A lot of people dismiss the “Host segments” or “The puppets” as being unnecessary or childish. However this is what made the original series accessible (especially to kids) and tied the show together week to week. The invention exchange prop comedy, trapped in space Vs. the various incarnations of “The Mads”, this made MST3K more than just another spoofed movie show.
Love Mike and Joel both. But get it together guys and bring us back the bots.

Subscribe to this thread

Receive notification by email when a new comment is added. You must be a registered user to subscribe to threads.
Post a comment