1. I enjoy the marathon ones quite a lot, but I would count them as one. The prequels are my "go-to" for some quick jokes and fun discussion about movies I know very well and don't need to watch while listening (I am a big fan of being able to do house work and listen to WAYDM). Avengers is fun because it is a fun movie and the panel enjoys it, points out some logical inconsistencies but they have fun in spite of themselves. Finally, I like Spiderman 3 because Teague's rage against that movie just makes me chuckle.

As a honorable mention, I enjoyed "Wrath of Khan" because it had a good balance of fans for Star Trek. It represents the panelists in fine form for a work they are a fan of rather than hatred for the movie.

2. If I am to introduce WAYDM to another person then I would recommend the following:

a. Prequels-usually good way for people to get introduced to movies that are fairly well know (and generally accepted as "not good.").
b. Wrath of Khan-again, a known movie for quality and this showcases the more film-making and fanboy-ness of the group, but more positive.
c. Anything with Trey's knowledge or stories: Abyss, Starship Troopers, GI JOE (best Trey rant, IMO).
d. Intermission: Battleship, Terra Prime, Recommendations and "What are you reading." Showing more facets to the show, especially if people like more topics than movies.
e. Monster Inc and Galaxy Quest to show why movies work

I really need to watch more movies so I can keep up on the commentaries!

That makes much more sense, but it still looks unusual, as Rob pointed out.

I'm too used to having to precisely format my text for school papers that anything unusual to my eye, for formatting, makes the brain do a double take.

However, it is unique and eye catching. No one can argue with that

See, the best part with "Tokes and Stokes" is the almost Fight Club-esque twist that they are really the same guy, just a split mind.

Amazing work guys!

Lots of props to all of you guys putting this together (and to Trey for putting up with all of you). I'm pretty amazed the cops were not somehow involved in this production and that Dorkman was brave enough to venture in to a dumpster.

Good job all around!

I would like an explanation of this rating because I seem to recall it being pretty bad. Bearing in mind that I know nothing of the books or anything of the franchise (can it be called that?) but it just felt rote to be my the end. I usually do not use the term "hate" for a film but this one almost nets an "I hate this film!" from me.

*warning* Possibly offensive statements ahead *warning*

I honestly liked this one a little bit more than the first in some places (ducks the thrown items). One of the reasons that I can see BDA and I disagreeing is I actually like Will Smith being Will Smith. There is a bit of the straight man style from Tommy Lee Jones coming through with his whole dealing with the giant worm at the beginning, to his dealing with the villains at the end. Some of the humor fell a little flat and the fact that they brought Jones back at all was kind of irritating (not surprising-just irritating) but the performances were good and it is a lot of fun.

Overall, it depends on my mood which one of the three I will watch. MIB 2 is one of the few sequels that I enjoy as much as the original.

I am curious as to what you think should have taken BP instead of The King's Speech?

See what I mean?

Well put. Though I am not a fan of anime in general, that is a trend I have noticed when I try to get in to a particular series. I am often left baffled or confused, and usually can't finish it due to frustration of unanswered questions.

I often get criticized for liking Star Trek Into Darkness, but knowing more outside material about Star Trek (in general and Into Darkness specifically)  can help with understanding the movie. But, if left on your own, with no knowledge of the material (or limited) the movie is found wanting (and yes, I know, it is still wanting even if you do know that. ).

SF Debris puts it quite well that he will do research to review a film but won't do research to just watch it. I am more inclined to do research prior to seeing a film and am willing to fill in gaps (bring in the concrete) but that doesn't mean it is a good movie. I can just be more forgiving than others.

That's what I was doing wrong in high school

I don't really buy that argument but I understand your point.

Also, I want to reemphasize pavilich's point that the movie isn't a video game. The movie is judge based upon its own merits not upon source material. If the movie is bad, then the movie is bad and no amount of outside material will fix that point.

Um, then why is there the term "band geek?"

I'm sorry, I get that this was a movie based upon a cartoon and toy line from my era, but I grew up with the 60s, Trey toys, so I am with Trey on this one. His rant is probably one of my favorite ones from WAYDM simply because I identified with it, understood it and wanted to applaud by the end.

In all honesty, the movie should have just been called "Snake Eyes" and called it good. That was the only part of the movie that caught my interest. It also wasted Dennis Quaid: major strike right there (much like Battleship, which wasted Liam Neeson).

This is just my opinion, but it strikes me that Will Smith is grooming his soon to be in that spot but that he hasn't completely given up the throne yet, so to speak. I think he will, at some point, make it all official, because I see passings of the torch becoming more familial in Hollywood, due to the money and ability to train at the moment.

Also, Star Trek, in my opinion, did ok, but it could have been better. The Kirk and Picard moment was a brief moment centered in a poor movie, so it really lacks a certain luster or passing on that could have been done so much more. Star Trek 2009 did a better job with the Spocks than Generations handled Kirk and Spock. Even DS9 had an episode where Sisko met Kirk and that seemed to work better.

I know this is a TV example so it doesn't quite meet the criteria you laid out but I will throw it out there: Stargate franchise has done very well in having "pass the torch" moments from lead to lead. Richard Dean Anderson has done well to be apart of Ben Browder's taking over as the lead, as well as Beau Bridges becoming the CO of the Stargate Command. Much more respect there given to both RDA's past performance and the potential for the new cast.

Star Wars could go either way. It all depends on what story and what role the old cast play.