I hate American Pie and Seth Macfarlane.
The difference between comedy in the 30's and the 90's is that the 30's had a lack of wit, and a lack of jokes. It has nothing to do with subject matter, it's all in the setups and the punchlines.
They Don't Make Comedies Like They Use To
- Thread starter RBHarvard
- Start date
I hate American Pie and Seth Macfarlane.
The difference between comedy in the 30's and the 90's is that the 30's had a lack of wit, and a lack of jokes. It has nothing to do with subject matter, it's all in the setups and the punchlines.
in england carry on films are regarded as a piece of comedic class history, im curious if any americans/aussies liked the humour?
It's funny, I use Adam Sandler as a sociological experiment. I had a friend who absolutely hated him, and when I would tell him some really funny jokes in some of his movies he hadn't seen, he wouldn't laugh. So when I told him some jokes from his movies (without saying they were Sandler films) He laughed his ass off. I did the same experiment with the same guy, only with the comedian Russel Brand. This time, I told him jokes he had heard before that he didn't laugh and forgotten about, and (saying they were another comedian's jokes) what do ya know? Lots a "lulz."
I've used Adam Sandler in particular on several people because it seems like South Park has turned his former fans against him with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdD3hSW1UpM
Your intended implication here is what, that someone who disagrees with your point of view is a moron? For me the implication is that you need to grow up and meet a broader spectrum of people! I don't like most Adam Sandler films and I don't like Jackass either! Although I do like the comedy genre, what does that make me, half a moron?
I completely agree with the original statement that most recent comedies are juvenile. I would say that feeling personally insulted by my or other people's right to express an opinion is the only thing in this thread which could justifiably be described as moronic!!
"Life of Brian" was a clever and controversial film with an almost perfect mix of slapstick, intelligent comedy and thought provoking social commentary. It is a film which 20+ years after it was released 157,000 people found funny and entertaining enough (but obviously not you) to look up and vote to 8.2 on IMDb. As filmmakers, your opinion (or my opinion) of what constitutes good comedy is irrelevant, it's ONLY what the target audience considers funny which is relevant.
As I'm no longer even close to being a juvenile, it certainly appears that I'm no longer part of the target audience for the vast majority of modern comedies. This fact doesn't necessarily make them bad comedy films, just bad films for me personally.
G
Last edited:
Now that's comedy!
You're right, it's set-up and punch-line. As to the subject matter, this is where you run into trouble. Comedy all hangs on CONTEXT. The 30's was the era of a very strict morality code in film, and a very large percentage of the people were seriously hurting during the great depression. You need to understand the context of the subject matter to understand the comedy of the era.
Here's probably one of the greatest comedy routines ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M
Last edited:
Maybe that's true of most people, but I guess I'm not most people. If something's funny I will bust out whether alone in front of the TV or in a crowded theater, even if I'm the only one laughing.
And you're right, Django is the funniest QT movie since Jackie Brown (which I own and still crack up at without fail).
"AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherf*cker in the room, accept no substitute."
You really oughta read a post before you comment on it. I said the only people i know in real life who hate adam sandler are complete and total morons, which is stereotypical of pretentious people who think these are the only people who like adam sandler.
And the social commentary in Life of Brian isn't an exclusive. All comedy tends to be social commentary, some people are just too shortsighted to see it.
I'd like to point out that these same implications you give toward modern comedy about it being "juvenile" were the exact things that were said about Monty Python back in the day (Particularly, the movie Life of Brian.)
Example cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_Night,_Saturday_Morning#Monty_Python.27s_Life_of_Brian
then there are countless examples of so-called "juvenile humor" in monty python.
Speaking for myself, you are misrepresenting what has been said. There is NOTHING WRONG with juvenile humor! I have many juvenile-oriented comedies in my DVD collection: Animal House, Caddyshack, Ghostbusters, Gremlins, Men In Black, and All of the Monty Python films spring immediately to mind. Personally, I love juvenile comedy if it's done well.
The problem is simply that it's becoming increasingly difficult to find anything else these days, particularly in the mainstream. There is some great independent comedy being produced that targets a more sophisticated palette, but unless you're looking for Woody Allen or the Coens, it can be difficult to find. Once upon a time the studios were interested in it, but no more. Not enough financial return.
P.S. - I should add Spinal Tap to the above list.
The problem is simply that it's becoming increasingly difficult to find anything else these days, particularly in the mainstream. There is some great independent comedy being produced that targets a more sophisticated palette, but unless you're looking for Woody Allen or the Coens, it can be difficult to find. Once upon a time the studios were interested in it, but no more. Not enough financial return.
P.S. - I should add Spinal Tap to the above list.
Last edited:
Speaking for myself, you are misrepresenting what has been said. There is NOTHING WRONG with juvenile humor!
P.S. - I should add Spinal Tap to the above list.
Your quote from earlier in the thread: "Most adults I know rarely see films in the theater anymore, so why on earth would the studios produce films for adult audiences"
Insinuating that comedy movies today aren't for adults is an insult.
Yep, I stand by that quote. It doesn't mean that these are necessarily bad films or that adults won't enjoy them, just that the studios are making product that is designed to appeal to a younger demographic because the older demographic doesn't attend as many movies as we once did.
Once upon a time, the studios made comedies like M*A*S*H, The Graduate, Dr. Strangelove. You rarely see that sort of movie anymore coming from a studio.
Once upon a time, the studios made comedies like M*A*S*H, The Graduate, Dr. Strangelove. You rarely see that sort of movie anymore coming from a studio.
moonrise kingdom came out in 2012, i'd say it falls into that comedy-drama genre. Lost In Translation came out a mere ten years ago, though it seems older than it is. Stranger Than Fiction is a 10/10, and that was 2006.
If you're looking for a good mixture of comedy and drama watch Click
Moonrise Kingdom and Lost In Translation were both independently produced. Stranger Than Fiction was a good, adult comedy film that actually came out of a studio. An exception, but one that only got made within the studio system on the strength of Will Ferrell's name. There are many exceptions that fall into that category. The Devil Wears Prada is another that springs to mind. If a big enough name gets behind it, the studios will make just about anything.
Yep. This is very true. I read, recently, that older audiences are starting to come back to theaters. Even so, their numbers are still far outweighed by young adults and teens. I should know -- I'm at the theater over sixty times a year, and I'm usually one of the oldest people there.
Also, 2001 -- I guess I shouldn't have made such a sweeping generalization, regarding one's enjoyment level, whether a movie is viewed at home or in a crowded theater. Like you, I have no difficulty enjoying an awesome movie, regardless of whether I'm at home, in a crowded theater, or in an empty theater.
That being said, it's my belief (and there's really no way for me to prove this) that particularly for comedy, the group mentality kicks in. When people laugh, you laugh with them. Maybe you would've laughed anyway, if you were by yourself, but I think you might laugh harder and longer when surrounded by other people laughing. And then that has a compound effect, wherein you're put in a heightened mood, setting you up to laugh more easily. This is why late-night shows like Leno and Conan always have a stand-up comedian prime the audience before the show starts. Get them in a laughing mood.
That's just sort-of my gut theory, anyway, and I definitely can't say anyone is wrong if they disagree.
mussonman -- that South Park clip is taken out of context. If you've seen the entire episode (which I'm guessing you have), then you know that they aren't saying Adam Sandler movies are crap. They're making fun of people who've become so cynical that they can't enjoy anything. Unless they get drunk, then Adam Sandler is hilarious.
Cracker, I was prepared to point that out to anyone who would've said that the trailer pretty much sums it up. I was merely pointing out that a lot of people seem to think they're saying the movie will be shit. They've done a joke like this before and explained that its just a disdain for all movie trailers (cuz i'll admit, every movie trailer tends to make a movie look bad... specifically for comedy, where they seem obligated to only show the physical humor)
You need to take your own advice and read not only a post but what you quote from it! I'll underline and make bold the relevant word, just so you don't miss it for a third time: "you need to grow up and meet a broader spectrum of people!"
And obviously some people are just too shortsighted to appreciate the depth and intelligence of the humorous social commentary in Life of Brian.
Life of Brain was heavily attacked and insulted by many fanatical Christians on it's release and even banned in many places because of the depth of it's social commentary. To achieve this level of criticism without relying on excessive swearing, graphical violence, sex or inept filmmaking is one of the things which made Life of Brian so clever and intelligent! In line with what 2001 Productions said, Life of Brian did contain juvenile humour but it contained much other clever and intelligent humour and the juvenile humour it did contain was exceptionally well executed. I stand by my previous response of target audience and generally bad contemporary comedy films for me personally.
G
Life of Brian is effing BRILLIANT! Definitely included among my top 10 all-time favorite movie comedies!
I can prove it for you, man. I've been acting and directing for the stage for more than 20 years. Worked on dozens of comedies. One might expect that some individual audience members would laugh out loud at some lines, and some would laugh at others, ultimately averaging out the responses from night to night, right?
But that ain't the way it works AT ALL. I'm sure that anyone else on here who works in the theatre will back me up on this.
Each collective audience behaves like a unique organism. It's the most astonishing phenomenon. One night, the whole audience will roar at every line, and the next night you can hear a pin drop. Same exact show; same exact performances.
I can't explain this phenomenon, other than to say that, clearly, humans unconsciously respond with a group mentality to the subtlest cues from those around us. After performances on quiet nights I've asked audience members what they thought of the show, and typically got the same positive responses as on the loud audience nights. For whatever reason, they just didn't express their appreciation audibly.
I also know a few people who always laugh out loud when they're at a show, regardless of what the rest of the audience is doing. Invariably, they have the rest of the crowd going by the end of the first act. As actors, we ADORE these folks!
I can prove it for you, man. I've been acting and directing for the stage for more than 20 years. Worked on dozens of comedies. One might expect that some individual audience members would laugh out loud at some lines, and some would laugh at others, ultimately averaging out the responses from night to night, right?
But that ain't the way it works AT ALL. I'm sure that anyone else on here who works in the theatre will back me up on this.
Each collective audience behaves like a unique organism. It's the most astonishing phenomenon. One night, the whole audience will roar at every line, and the next night you can hear a pin drop. Same exact show; same exact performances.
I can't explain this phenomenon, other than to say that, clearly, humans unconsciously respond with a group mentality to the subtlest cues from those around us. After performances on quiet nights I've asked audience members what they thought of the show, and typically got the same positive responses as on the loud audience nights. For whatever reason, they just didn't express their appreciation audibly.
I also know a few people who always laugh out loud when they're at a show, regardless of what the rest of the audience is doing. Invariably, they have the rest of the crowd going by the end of the first act. As actors, we ADORE these folks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ