Gildan Bladeborn said:
xDarc said:
Gildan Bladeborn said:
...you've created the cinematic equivalent of all the idiots who were running around saying "I'm Rick James, *****!" when they are A) Not Chappelle and B) Not funny, because they are not bloody Chappelle [http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=chappelle].
I already said as much. It's regurgitation. People have been doing it for years. Mel Brooks has done it. The Zuckermans have done it. Tons of people are constantly repackaging and retelling jokes they saw or heard somewhere else. People still do it, because it's still funny, cheap as it may be. Get over it.
I can't, because the difference between a Mel Brooks repackaging of a joke and the Epic Movie variety is quite staggering really - it's the difference between watching a skilled comedian re-use a joke from another comedian and watching a parrot imitate a joke it overheard a comedian tell. The first is a competent new spin on something familiar, the second is unfeeling repetition because the parrot
does not understand the concept of humor and is simply repeating what somebody laughed at before, but quite badly because
it's a bloody parrot - they don't have a sense of humor, let alone the knack for proper comedic timing!.
This reminds me of the students I tutor in physics. They read their textbooks and take their lectures and memorize their formulas, and when it comes time to do the problems, they have no idea what they're doing. Sometimes it's truly laughable to see the errors they make (I also grade tests, so I see all the mistakes). All the pieces are there, but the coherent picture is missing, as though they were putting together a jigsaw puzzle blind. I use all the same formulas that they do to solve the problem, but I use them in a completely different manner. Furthermore, I genuinely want to solve the fundamental problem - to get what's going on - while most of my students only hope to get the right number to put into the online grading form (I dislike online grading methods). To use another analogy, it's the difference between me practicing my white-belt kata and my instructor doing a martial arts demonstration - the actions, while similar, stem from different motives, use different skills, and cannot help but produce fundamentally different results, and it's clear to one and all who would win in a fight.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
Laughing with your friends when they stupidly repeat pop-culture catch phrases is, despite Maddox's overblown rhetoric, not really a big deal. Making feature films where the actors do nothing but clumsily repeat pop-culture catch phrases? Please don't ever do this - some things just aren't worth doing no matter how much money you could make from it.
This. Quoted for Truth and Justice. Having fun with your friends is something that can and does happen naturally, and you're allowed to be dumb when it happens. Making a film is both business and art, and so requires a lot of discipline and smarts to produce anything of value.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
Nobody in their right minds should be defending these films - they are objectively terrible in every way. Telling us that they made a lot of money only proves that a sizeable portion of the population will pay money to watch terrible things - popularity is not an indicator of quality! If the internet hasn't taught you that there is a market for just about anything, no matter how horrible, disgusting, incomprehensible, or stupid it might be, then you have not been paying attention.
Sturgeon's Law, Rule 34, Fox News, etc. An overarching lesson of all of history is that 6 billion people can be very wrong.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
We're not film snobs assaulting the notion of stupid parody comedies because they violate our artistic principles, we're (rightly) complaining about the recent trend of terrible parody movies because they are terrible, not because they are parody movies - I challenge anyone to watch Scary Movie 3 and then tell me that say... 2001: A Space Travesty [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157262/] is equally funny (or funny at all really). Both films are parodies, both use many of the same comedic devices, and they both have Leslie Nielson in them, but the second one is staggeringly awful and almost completely devoid of genuine humor.
See above. Leslie Nielson doesn't seem to be trying very hard these days.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
If you can watch A Space Travesty and be laughing throughout, then I submit you will pretty much laugh at anything because everyone with a functional sense of humor will be wondering why the hell they are watching that terrible terrible film before 10 minutes are up. The same holds true for Epic/Disaster/Etc Movie films (the only funny ones were (some) of the Scary Movie ones). Those films are unfunny abominations, the places where humor goes to die. If you think they are hilarious, then your sense of humor is broken and you're part of the reason Hollywood keeps inflicting those... things on a world that has done nothing to deserve them, for which you should really be ashamed.
Many people love the stuff that's aimed at the lowest common denominator. We've all met such people. There's a time and a place for such stuff (I'd like to think that I, too, can enjoy the occasional does of stupid), but many people enjoy
only the lowest common denominator, and they actively seek it out at all times. I don't think we have such people among us now (they tend to be obvious trolls or hopeless permanent n00bs), but they do exist, and they have money to spend.