And oh, yes, if you've been voting for Cuckoo On A Choo-Choo, please stop. We get it that you're an iconoclast and see angles and depths and merit even in the worst of these things, and that you are in agreement with the premise that a movie can be so bad it's good. This premise has been around for a long time, even maybe a hundred years or so, let's say, in the comedy genre, at least since Mack Sennett. But in order for a film to be " so bad it's good ", by definition it has to be bad. Choo Choo is bad. Really bad. It seems to me that almost all of the defenders of Cuckoo defend it on the grounds of 1.) it's experimental and 2.) It's so bad it's good. Even the defenders admit it's bad. They're right: it's bad. It's really bad. It blows chunks. The Ghost Talks is no masterpiece, but it's good stooges compared to Cuckoo On A Choo Choo, and now Choo Choo has defeated Ghost Talks. Choo Choo is bad, friends, it has no right to be in the running, even in the early-elimination rounds, for consideration as the best stooge short, which, unless I'm mistaken, is what we're doing here. We've just been through an election where the worst man won, let's not go through this again.
And everybody please go back and take a peek at how many contributors we had a couple of years ago, at the height of the weekly episode discussions, at say 1940 Curly. Go back and look at all the familiar names and opinions that vanished just about the times that the bad Shemps and the Bessers and the Derita features came along. They're just not interested in discussing the dreck, and they disappeared rather than try to find anything legit in junk like Cuckoo. There's only about ten of us left contributing regularly, and it may be because we're being asked to give serious consideration to garbage like Cuckoo on a Choo Choo.
