It Ain’t Spoof, So What Is It?
Posted by Craig Mazin on 19 Feb 2007 at 10:59 pm | Tagged as: The Craft & Trade
A number of people have written asking me what I think of Date Movie and Epic Movie…both of which, I must again point out, I had nothing to do with.
The films’ marketing campaigns make fair use of the fact that Date and Epic Movie were created by two of the six writers of the first Scary Movie. You know, the one from seven years ago.
Anyway, I’ve now seen both Date Movie and Epic Movie. I’ll refrain from discussing whether or not I liked the films, because I think they present something far more interesting to unravel.
What the hell are they?
I’m not being facetious. In many ways, Friedberg & Seltzer, the guys behind Date and Epic Movie, have created a new comic genre.
First off, I have to say…these are not spoof films. To understand what a spoof film is, consider the spoof par excellence: Airplane!
Airplane! is, in fact, a comedic version of an overly serious film called “Zero Hour!” And that’s really all spoof is. It’s a comedic version of an overly serious film. Spoofs are not satires (a fact over which Jim Abrahams and I first bonded). Airplane! has no larger point, no insight to offer, no criticism to make. It merely offers us a familiar drama, but stocks the drama with characters who are curiously moronic (so moronic, they can barely tell that each other is a moron). Spoofs use parody, absurdity, wordplay and broad physical comedy to repackage something that was pompous and purposeful into something that is aggressively pointless.
Over the years, the spoof evolved somewhat. The Naked Gun spoofed a genre of television show, rather than a specific movie. Hot Shots! started the trend of spoofing multiple films that are linked by genre, and the Scary Movies are obviously children of that film, although they’ve been pushing the boundaries of spoof. Superhero!, the film I’m working on right now, is, well…I’m not allowed to say anything about that, but I can say its spoof style will be less Scary Movie and more…well, I can’t say.
What I can say is that Date Movie and Epic Movie are not at all spoofs. They feature some spoofesque humor, but they break a few cardinal rules of spoofing.
They do comic takes on comic films. They go after not just one or two or even five movies, but upwards of ten or twenty. And ultimately, they’re not so much movies as collections of sketches in which the lead actors change costumes constantly, become different characters as they need be, and work within the ever-changing dictates of whatever the next sketch is.
Also, they don’t spoof genres, despite their titles. What they seem to spoof is pretty much every notable film that came out in the year or two prior to their release.
Finally, and most importantly, much of what they do is reference a film without actually parodying the film. For example, in Date Movie, Allison Hannigan’s character has a nightmare in which she discovers she’s about to marry Napoleon Dynamite. The Friedberg & Seltzer version of Napoleon Dynamite says the exact same things that the actual Napoleon Dynamite character said, and nothing more. Similarly, at the end of Epic Movie, a Borat look-alike shows up to say, “Is nice!”, but that’s it.
In musical terms, their genre is more like a mashup, whereas spoof is more like a cover or a new song with samples from another song.
So they’re not pure sketch movies like Kentucky Fried Movie, but they’re not spoofs of a film (Airplane!) or a genre (Scary Movie).
They’re actually a genre unto their own. That’s pretty wild. It’s like finding a new species of dog or something.
So what do we call this stuff (easy now…)?
My buddy Scott Tomlinson, who knows a bit about sketch comedy, has the best name for the genre so far: comic film re-enactment.
Got a better name?
Granted, you may need more than two films before you can really christen something a “genre,” and I don’t know how many more of these Friedberg & Seltzer are going to do. All I can say is, as a devotee and disciple and ordained Jedi knight of the ZAZ religion…
…it’s definitely something else entirely.
Thanks for a really good analysis, and an excellent definition of a spoof. Sadly, too many people fail to recognize comedy as a legitimate art form (here’s hoping Little Miss Sunshine earns our genre some respect…) so it’s nice to see the definitions examined.
I haven’t seen either Epic Movie or Date Movie. And I will not see them. Normally I try to maintain a philosophy that watching all movies, including and perhaps especially bad ones, is a useful exercise for a writer. However, the trailers for these movies lead me to expect little more than the humor of recognition. Oh look! The characters on the screen are like ones from that other movie I saw! It’s a legitimate way to get extra laughs, but it should be used as a spice, not as the stock. If a movie is built of nothing other than references to other movies, you have the intellectual equivalent of sitting on the back porch with your friends, repeatedly saying, “You remember that one time…”
One of my favorite lines from “Airplane!”: “The survival of everyone on board depends on just one thing: finding someone on board who can not only fly this plane, but who didn’t have fish for dinner.”
That line is almost a direct lift from Zero Hour! It’s even delivered with a straight face by Leslie Nielson.
I think what made “Airplane!” so successful – apart from the enormous volume of jokes – was the fact that, underneath the zaniness, was a proper story with real character and drama. Alright, so nobody really cares that much about Ted Stryker’s predicament; it still gives the film a spine.
Excellent analysis Craig. Epic Movie and Date Movie rely purely on the ‘recognition laugh’. There is no development, no wit, no nothing, just a reference to a previous audience memory and if we’re ‘lucky’, maybe with a silly voice.
This ‘recognition laugh’ comedy is so thin, so filmsy, so easy and ultimately so instantly forgettable.
I’ve seen Epic Movie – it’s terrible, very very bad, I hate virtually everything about it.
Saw the trailers for these and found myself laughing very thinly (good word, Ralph) indeed. Felt more like a wheeze.
Maybe the term should blend “recognition” and “comedy” into –
SHAZAAM
RECOMEDY (TM)
Whaddya reckon?
Saw the trailers for these and found myself laughing very thinly (good word, Ralph) indeed. Felt more like a wheeze.
Maybe the term should blend “recognition” and “comedy” into –
SHAZAAM
RECOMEDY (TM)
Whaddya reckon?
Apologies for the double-post. Bit mouse-happy today…
Craig,
How would you define what Monty Python does in movies . . . those are sketch movies, right (THE MEANING OF LIFE, LIFE OF BRIAN) but they seem to be a bit more than that . . . even though they play mutiple characters . . .
I felt the same way when I saw Simon Cowell, 8 Mile and The Matrix parodied in Scary Movie 3.
If a comedian says funny things and a comic says things funny, wouldn’t Airplane! be a comedy movie and Date Movie would be a comic movie?
I also find it interesting that if you described both the above movies to someone, Airplane!/Hot Shots would seem rather pedestrian (note I did not say plain) and Date Movie/Epic Movie would sound funny (possibly how they got made).
Finally, we all know people that tell very funny stories, or even that are funny when retelling a joke they didn’t originate. Unfortunately, we also all know people who think endlessly parroting catchphrases classifies as funny. I’d suggest Date Movie/Epic Movie are examples of the latter.
When did LIFE OF BRIAN become a sketch movie?
Just because the same actors played multiple characters in various SCENES, does not mean it was a random collection of unconnected sketches.
Joshua – worth discussing what “Pythonesque” means in film in this context.
I’d say they are stories that have some kind of loose central unity (Brian’s life, the Holy Grail etc) but then (as you say) are sketch-based, literate, absurd, and usually have moments that deliberately break the fourth wall/rules of the dramatic universe.
SPOILER ALERT Thinking here about: the police arresting King Arthur and the aliens abducting Brian (and anything else Gilliam could come up with…)
Has anyone else tried (let alone succeeded) to do the same thing? I reckon “Python” is the best classification.
I loved “Airplane!” In retrospect, it seems to me that there’s something old about Airplane — but old in a very pleasant way. Some of the dialog (but not “And Leon’s getting larrrrger!”) reminds me of borscht belt lines or variety shows from the 60′s, with their direct lineage to Vaudeville.
One Sunday afternoon I just couldn’t get out of bed and I watched movies all day. I sat through about one hour of Date Movie.
That’s all I needed to see.
Those movies are really, really bad. And they’re definitely spoofs. They’re just really, really bad spoofs.
Date Movie spoofed some popular movies like When Harry Met Sally (badly) but for some reason it would spoof others movies like Kill Bill (badly…very badly).
But…
and I swear this isn’t an attack because you know how much I like you (as a friend, sorry I have a girlfriend), Scary Movie is kind of guilty of the same thing. The last scary movie spoofed scenes from Brokeback Mountain to Tom Cruise on Oprah. Not exactly spoofs on scary movies.
While I wholeheartedly agree that Date Movie and Epic Movie are collosally bad, they’re still spoofs.
Really bad spoofs.
Life of Brian is more of a satire. It has a point of view about religion that it makes using comedy as it’s vehicle.
It’s not spoofing a genre, or any specific reference sfrom a pre-existing entertainment product, it’s satirising rigid belief systems using the most universal story of all time.
I forced myself to sit through Date Movie as a character-building exercise. I think it undid about 3 years of writing experience in 80 minutes.
I just kept thinking “doing a genre spoof is fine, but you have to at least TRY to be funny!”
Or not, if you can find a really easy test audience, I suppose.
I agree with the people who have suggested there’s something non-spoofy about Scary Movie 3 and 4 (rather than saying there IS something spoofy about Epic and Date).
David Zucker and I were pretty aware when we signed on to those that we were inheriting someone else’s franchise, and the studio put a lot of pressure on the idea that the movie had to be more of what we call “spoofmobile” (where you ping around from movie to movie) than we wanted.
For instance, going back to SM1, Anna Faris turns into a Matrix fighter in the 3rd Act.
As such, I did write in the main post that SM3 and SM4 push the boundaries of what a spoof is, although I still maintain that they are spoofs.
Most notably, the Tom Cruise bit came at the very end of SM4, where it could do no character or story damage to a subsequent scene, whereas in a bit like that could go anywhere in an Epic or Date type movie.
I can say though that if you like your spoof more traditional, I think you’ll enjoy Superhero! It’s something we get to create from the bottom up, and we are actively resisting spoofmobile-ism, pop culture lampooning, etc.
I wouldn’t call either of those sketch movies. The only Python movies that I’d call sketch movies are the ones that just anthologize sketches from the show.
Even Meaning of Life has a common thread tying the sequences together, and they are really too long to be called sketches.
“Absurdist satire” is probably the term you’re looking for.
I’d say Meaning of Life is an anthology film, in which short and discrete segments are all about the same theme.
Less so with Holy Grail or Life of Brian, which do have primary plots and persistent characters. Those films are more like hybrids of traditional comedy and anthology.
But they’re certainly not spoofs.
Ah, I see Aaron beat me to the word “anthology.”
Um, sure. Sure, I did.
Bruno–
The “re-” portion is dead on, but any description of these two movies that includes the word “comedy” is, demonstrably, an incorrect one.
How about “regurgi-tainment”?
No, wait, same problem there….
“Most notably, the Tom Cruise bit came at the very end of SM4, where it could do no character or story damage to a subsequent scene, whereas in a bit like that could go anywhere in an Epic or Date type movie.”
So the difference between a legitimate spoof and “regurgi-tainment” (nice one, E.e.) is not in nature of comedy, but in the structure?
Comic Reenactment And Parody. C.R.A.P. for short.
Johnny:
Partly, yes. Note that I haven’t commented on the quality of Date and Epic Movie. I’m just talking about tone and structure.
Structure, of course, affects tone. If you go super-broad at the beginning of a comedy, you’re essentially signalling the audience that anything can and will happen for the entirety of the movie. If you wait until the end to explode your character and go insane, well, it’s not going to contaminate everything that came prior.
The best example I can think of right now is the very funny musical number at the end of 40 Year-Old Virgin. If put that number in the middle of that movie, I think it screws the rest of the movie up because now no one knows what reality the film is living in. But at the end? A terrific send-off, at no cost to your characters or dramatic integrity.
This only applies, of course, if you enjoy broad silly comedy in the first place.
Craig,
And I do – enjoy silly comedies. From a writer’s pov I totally see your point! From an audience pov, it feels a little nit-picky. I guess this whole sub-sub-genre concept doesn’t gel with me.
See, I used to work in a video store and frankly, I’d put EPIC MOVIE on the same shelf as SCARY MOVIE on the same shelf as DATE MOVIE.
Ultimately it’s all comedy. I can acknowledge spoof-comedy. However, “reference-but-not-parody” as a genre in and of itself seems taking it a tad too far.
How about good spoofs and bad spoofs?
Which brings us back to the quality discussion…
I kind of wonder if Epic Movie is even legal. Not that anyone will ever push the issue, but I would assume that a parody should make some changes to the source material in a way that’s obviously intended to be humorous. Just doing straight impressions or celebrity impersonations is more like profiting off of somebody else’s creation rather than poking fun at it. To extend Craig’s mashup comparison, it’s more like straight-up sampling (illegal without permission) rather than doing a cover of a song (legal to do without permission though royalties must be paid).
It seems to me that Date Movie (and possibly Epic Movie, though I haven’t seen it) are actually more “pastiche” than “spoof.” I think perhaps they either don’t recognize the difference, or they tried and failed to make a spoof.
(I had a professor who referred to “humor of recognition” as “blank parody,” but I think that’s a term he made up.)
For those who say Epic and Date aren’t comedy, I think that’s incorrect. Just because a movie isn’t scary doesn’t mean it’s not a horror movie. It’s just a poorly done horror movie. Thus, a comedy that’s not funny is just a bad comedy. It seems everyone here agrees Epic and Date qualify as that.
I have a question for Craig. Under the photo from Epic Movie, you wrote, “You can’t spoof a comedy…” Maybe my definition of spoof is wrong. I always thought a spoof was a comedy exaggeration of the tropes and cliches of a particular film or genre. Comedy has just as many of these overused, trite scenes and situations as disaster movies, horror movies, or action movies have. For an example of a good parody of comedy, check out the Simpsons’ episode “HOMR“.
Matt:
You can parody a comedy, but you can’t (or shouldn’t) spoof one. Spoof is intended to re-present the dramatic and weighty as silly and absurd.
Spoofing a comedy is about as sensible as making fun of a clown. The clown is trying to be an idiot, so why bother?
Anonymous:
Comic pastiche. Not bad!
I’m still not clear on what’s the difference between spoof and parody.
But even using your definition of spoof above, couldn’t you spoof the serious aspects of a comedy? After all, date movies are rarely comedies through-and-through, unlike Airplane! or the Monty Python films. (Not that Date Movie did this particularly well, but still…)
Also, is it not possible to spoof bad comedy? After all, that Julia Roberts spoof in “HOMR” makes fun of the jokes that aren’t actually funny. OR is that parody, rather than spoof? Which brings me back to my original question.
To me, at least, parody is a comic technique, whereas spoof is a genre of comedy.
One can use parody in the service of spoof.
The Simpsons often get into something called “metahumor” where the point of the joke is to either make fun of a bad joke or make fun of the way in which people expect things to be funny.
For instance, The Simpsons did a joke where someone claimed to be a lawyer with the firm of Dewey, Cheatham, Howe & Goldstein.
There’s another kind of humor based on what we in the ZAZ school call “film criticism.” The Critic obviously did a good amount of this. That stuff isn’t spoof as much as jokes satirizing failed attempts at humor.
We don’t do film criticism in our spoofs.
mutt comedy?
Spewff.
I think you’re over analyzing the genre issue. It’s a kitsch comedy. Kitsch requires absolutely no thought on the part of the audience, only a basic knowledge of the symbolism used in its production. For example, Cutesy pictures of babies and kittens are kitsch because we have a preconceived reaction to them. It is cute and we are supposed to react accordingly. There is no interpretation by the audience and it is safe and non-threatening. These movies are the same. They are ‘safe’ for the target audience, teenagers who don’t want to think about a movie or a joke. Remember, a lot of people are actively hostile to the idea of a movie that threatens their world view even in the slightest.
“I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
Your definition of kitsch is too limited. It’s not just the sentimental Rockwell painting.
Look at Thomas Kulka for a more precise definition
To distinguish kitsch from art, Kulka proposes that kitsch depicts instantly identifiable, emotionally charged objects or themes, but that it does not substantially enrich our associations relating to the depicted objects or themes.
Thomas Kulka has described kitsch as ‘transparent symbols’. The kitschmensch (Broch’s term), when shown a painting of a child with large, crying eyes, for example, does not look at the painting; instead he feels the effect of sympathy and sadness directly. The ‘… effect [of kitsch] is not secured by the specific qualities of the symbols themselves, but rather by what the symbols stand for. Typical consumers of kitsch usually look through the symbol, so to speak, to what the symbol refers to. They may believe that they appreciate the works for their aesthetic properties, while what they are really affected by is the emotional charge of the depicted object, to which they are positively predisposed. In contrast to real art, with kitsch the What overshadows the How.’
Okay, well, to be honest, I’ve tried to avoid conversations like this since college, only because I think they’re silly.
No offense.
The general understanding of the word kitsch applies to campy, tacky or gaudy works that may or may not be appreciated ironically.
The pink flamingo, for instance.
You can use the word however you’d like, of course.
Rap.
To me, kitsch is just a word to describe things that have no depth, no real meaning. That’s why I’m using it to describe Epic/Date Movie. It’s almost like they’re aiming for a Pavlovian response. Instead of “I will show you a piece of meat. Drool.” It’s “Here’s Borat. Laugh. Here’s Napoleon Dynamite. Laugh.” Unlike Airplane, which requires some work on the part of the audience to understand.
Ever watch a comedy with someone who just doesn’t get it? The person who doesn’t laugh at Monty Python arguing over a dead parrot or Leslie Nelson telling someone to stop calling him Shirley, that’s the audience for these movies. There’s no way for a person to not ‘get’ the jokes in Date/Epic movie because they hammer you with major comedy symbols.
Another reason they reference so many major movies is simple parasitism. Throw a Pirates or Superman joke in the trailer and you’ll draw more interest. It’s the same reason why mockbusters are made.
Craig, what are the BASIC legal grounds on which these films can rip on popular movie icons? I mean, they go to great lengths to recreate the look, costumes, sets, etc. of famous films. Is none of that protected by copyright law? You must have some insights from your work on the SCARY MOVIES on what can and can’t be done.
Parody and Satire are fair use parts of free speech. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=parody_satire
Of course, that’s just the abstract legal freedom. The reality of actually targeting major studio franchises is probably different.
Ross is correct. There is strong legal precedence in favor of the parodyist.
Of course, one would like to avoid a lawsuit if possible…unless the lawsuit brings the movie lots of publicity.
I remember reading that Michael Jackson was preparing to sue Dimension over our portrayal of him in SM3. Bob Weinstein’s response was “That’s the best news I’ve heard all day.”
I know that Apple Computer was very angry at us for portraying the tripods as iPods in SM4, to the point where they refused to host our trailer on their website. On the other hand, they did not sue…and they’re not exactly known for restraint when it comes to litigation.
Interesting stuff as always, Craig. But at the same time, are you sure this isn’t… well, just a little bit personal? A not so subtle dig at your chief competition, Friedberg & Seltzer? Maybe not, but to those in the know, it sure as hell reads like it.
Legal precedence does indeed favor the parodist. However, my spoof of The Charlie Rose Show was recently pulled from YouTube because Rose (or more likely his “people”) claimed it made improper use of “copyrighted material.” This despite the fact that my sketch was completely original and used no clips or music from the actual show. I can contest their decision to pull it, and probably should, but it’s a bit of a pain-in-the-butt process. Clearly YouTube does no investigation when such claims are made — they just err on the side of caution and pull the clip rather than risk alienating the supposed “copyright owner.”
That’s due to the DMCA (digital millennium copyright act), specifically the safe harbor provision. Basically, ISPs and companies like Youtube have to quickly comply with any request to pull down copyrighted material in order to protect themselves from liability. This prevents investigations to determine the authenticity of the claim. Of course, corporations with money for lawyers can fight this, but for the average person, a single takedown notice will shut you down.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/
Wow. My first post and I’m at odds with the majority – with respect to the entertainment value of these movies. I liked Date Movie! Hopefully I won’t receive too bad a beat down (I’ve lurked in the forums long enough to know better!).
Before I comment on the basis of the article, please indulge me with a little exposition. I like to believe that synchronicity exists with in our lives. I originally found this web site http://artfulwriter.com/archives/2006/12/reprintthezaz.html in my search for information on parodies and spoofs. I came across a fantastic article by our esteemed host Craig Mazin. Yesterday I officially became a registered member of the Artful Writer. And today this article appears. Even scarier is I found this website after visiting exactly 23 websites (sorry I watched Jim Carrey on Letterman and couldn’t resist).
The Zaz Comedy Glossary was amazing and invaluable. Now that may sound like butt kissing – but if your chosen genre is spoof, this is like finding water in the Mohave Desert on day 3 of your plane crash.
I am writing a spoof – or I should say – I am learning to how to write a screenplay and the genre is spoof. So I find the article’s subject matter extremely timely and interesting. Based on what I’ve learned here, in other research on the subject, and based on my own Sisyphus like efforts to produce a spoof, I would agree that Date Movie is a hybrid.
Along the lines of SNL meets Scary Movie.. A Skit-a-Spoof. However I think it runs on a plot line as opposed to a skit, which is one-dimensional. Is this contradictory? Ok, perhaps it is more like the Borg – assembling bits and pieces to become a unified whole?
A spoof, I believe, is built around familiar characters and the memorable events those characters play in our mind. The new skit-a-spoof, is based only on the characters, with a passing nod to the events we found memorable.
Ok, I’ve said enough, the more I say the more vulnerable I am to putting my foot in mouth.. further.
Thank you for the website, the forum, and the great articles. I will now put on my riot gear in anticipation of the mob beating.
Thanks Ross, and Craig, for clarifying. Pretty amazing, you can rip off any film as long as some motard in the scene bangs his head… Seriously, I’ sure tehre’s more to it. But there’s a risk that lazy writers cut’n paste the most memorable scenes from the most successful movies, connect them with a loose thread of a storyline, add some pie-in-the-face humor et voila… SPOOFY MOVIE IX ready to make money.
I guess that’s the critical nature of Craig’s initial post, am I wrong?
Johnny:
Well, not quite. You have to meet the legal test of parody, which is a bit stricter than “you can rip people off.”
Daniel:
No need to apologize for taste in here. Different strokes and all that.
I call them “Cliffs Notes.”
(when I feel like being polite.)
This is an interesting consideration, and suggests that, as a genre in infancy, it has much growing to do. And I don’t think it’s just those two movies- I would also put the Shrek movies in that category, ultimately (particularly the second, which is almost nothing more than a collection of moments from other films). In fact, I wonder if this ‘new’ genre isn’t an inevitable outgrowth of the proliferation/ubiquity of sequels- and of 30 years of home-video, which has enabled a kind of rolling, visual lexicon of specific sequences of popular films.
Moreover, I would say that it is often enough now, for many audiences, that a movie merely suggest sentiments from other, more loved films. Contemporary romantic comedies, for one, are almost entirely crimped from, and resting upon the laurels of, their predecessors.
One trend I’ve noticed in everyday life is using catchphrases from movies and TV instead of actually telling a joke in order to get a laugh. I think sooner or later we’ll be able to have entire conversations in catchphrases. I think date/epic movie is connected to this trend.
Thanks Craig, but I was really looking forward to that beating ; )
At the risk of being a knee-jerk contrarian, I don’t think these movies in any way represent the appearance of a new genre. They’re just the latest manifestation of an old, old tendency.
The classic hallmark of the unskilled attempting to imitate the successes of the skilled is that they inevitably end up copying the wrong things. Lacking any deeper understanding of what made the original such a good example of its particular art or craft in the first place, they just lift the most obvious surface elements, make a few minute adjustments thereto, and produce what they (probably quite sincerely) believe to be “another one of those.”
Think of the thousand “terrorists take over a [boat / train / airport / giant panda insemination facility] until a lone hero kills them off one by one” movies that came oozing out of the woodwork after Die Hard made its gazillions. The vast majority of those films showed not a whit of comprehension that Die Hard had worked primarily because it featured some sharp writing, some half-decent acting (granted, Alan Rickman singlehandedly bumped up the cast-wide average by about a dozen points, but still), and above all, some damn-near flawless direction. Instead, they just aped the most visible parts of the premise (Terrorists! In a place!!) and figured they’d done just as well.
Likewise, the makers of Date and Epic (would it be simpler just to refer to these henceforth as Shitty Movie and Shitty Movie 2?), who were born without even a rudimentary understanding of what makes a joke a joke, clearly figured that the key to the success of Scary Movie and all its offspring was…people dress up like characters from other movies! Scenes reference scenes from other movies! Therefore, the key to creating this “funny” we’ve heard so many good things about is to do exactly that, over and over again, in our movie! The more movies we have seen, the more funny we can make! And good news–we have seen many movies! Let us show you how many, for a very long time!
I realize I’m now as guilty of the over-analysis as anyone, but come on. These guys are the pioneers of nothing except–maybe–a slightly more finely-calibrated measure of just how little a movie can accomplish and still manage one decent weekend at the box office before word leaks out. (Hint to the target audience of these films–namely everyone who has yet to decipher even the basic principles of the Secret Code of Movie Advertising: If they can’t find one funny moment to put in the trailer, then the movie does not contain a funny moment. There, I just saved you ten bucks on these jerkoffs’ next bootleg opus.)
New genres and sub-genres are created, by and large, by people with clues. These people aren’t those people. Trust me.
it’s not a new genere. unless you consider plagiarizing a genre.
If you start putting movies like Scary Movie and Date Movie in different sub genres, you’ll have to start putting movies like Little Miss Sunshine and Anchorman in different sub genres.
Easy. Little Miss Sunshine is in the Emo genre. Overly sentimental “indie” films that push all of the right emotional buttons while apeing bits and pieces of Wes Anderson’s style. See Napoleon Dynamite, You Me & Everyone we Know, Garden State, Eternal Sunshine, Huckabees, etc.
Anchorman is in some sort of post-SNL comedy mafia genre which includes almost every film that Ben Stiller, Will Ferrel and the Wilson brothers appear in.
Ross, thanks for the info about the DMCA and the safe harbor provision.
You’re welcome. It is possible to stick your material online and defend yourself against a DMCA takedown but you need to find a hosting service that will stick up for you. The blog boingboing was served with a takedown a while back and their hosting service stood up for them. Of course, it was some hippy ISP out of San Francisco.
It should be noted that many of the takedowns are generated by computer programs. The RIAA, MPAA et all have web spider programs that search for copyrighted terms and send out automated notices. Yours was probably one of them. If you put it up on another service, you might go unnoticed.
Potential insight, on this subject, from an interview with the makers of Date Movie. Found at http://www.the213.net/php/article.php?id=164
AS [Aaron Seltzer]: No, Keenen did a great job for Scary Movie, but this movie is so different because we are really sort of walking the line between really broad slapstick humor and still in the end, try to tell a really genuine love story. We fool people into thinking it will only be a satire, but then actually caring about this couple and them getting together. It just fit Jason and my sensibilities. So definitely us.
“Therefore, the key to creating this “funny” we’ve heard so many good things about is to do exactly that, over and over again, in our movie! The more movies we have seen, the more funny we can make! And good news—we have seen many movies! Let us show you how many, for a very long time!”
I agree. Can I throw HOT FUZZ into the mix?
This from the team who brought us SHAUN OF THE DEAD and the TV series SPACED, which managed to blend homage and parody and –
Have a plot. And be funny.
So what are this team up to – comic homage?
We’re quickly running into a matter of taste, even though we reach a point where we’d like to think “No one could like this.” Despite my comment a couple of remarks up, I also don’t believe these movies merit their own genre.
Any college course would go into post-modernism right about now and burn some money on the fact that everything’s becoming referential. But they’re right. Because of this, we’re running into an issue of tact, and any opinion of that is ultimately a matter of taste.
In my opinion, Shaun of the Dead, Spaced, and even Shrek 2 carry a certain amount of tact in how they present their jokes through a storyline. I have not seen Date Movie or Epic Movie because I don’t expect them to achieve this.
Stories make jokes, jokes don’t make stories.
As for what E.e. said: “they just lift the most obvious surface elements, make a few minute adjustments thereto, and produce what they (probably quite sincerely) believe to be ‘another one of those.’”
My first reaction was to the American Office. I remember hurling for the remote about 4 minutes into it, actually offended at their attempt to recreate the UK version. But once I was finally shown some episodes from Season Two, I saw they were making their own jokes, their own storylines, and genuinely laughed.
So maybe these people do have a creative ounce in them, but feel required to walk in the snow prints instead of getting their socks wet. Atleast until successful.
“So maybe these people do have a creative ounce in them, but feel required to walk in the snow prints instead of getting their socks wet.”
-
On an unrelated positive note, it just struck me very forcefully what a pleasure it is to be in a forum where the inhabitants can write.
Thanks, Craig(s)…..
…wait, but, walking in snow prints will still get your socks wet, won’t it? Presuming you’re not wearing any shoes. Or are you saying these people walk in the snow prints as to not get the rim of their socks wet? Must be pretty deep snow. In which case walking in somebody else’s tracks could still get the rim of your socks wet. Unless the boots or pants cover them… I guess. But then… anyway, I’m confused.
“We fool people into thinking it will only be a satire, but then actually caring about this couple and them getting together.” This sounds like a writer telling himself something he needs to believe in order to face the page every day. In a “genre” so reliant upon scattershot references to other films, it’s almost impossible to create characters the audience truly cares about, because the joke (or reference passing for a joke) trumps everything. That’s not necessarily a hindrance — if the laughs are coming, I don’t need to root for Alyson Hannigan to get her man. Ideally though, you get both a strong narrative spine and hilarious comedy, which is why Airplane is still the gold standard for this form and its offshoots.
I think this means Date Movie and Epic Movie aren’t some sort of a new genre, but rather failed attempts at writing a genuinespoof movies, considering what Mr. Seltzer said there is in direct conflict with what the movies turned out to be.
But what I fail to understand is why some people still find those movies funny (cinsidering their absence of jokes). It could have something to do with the “You had to be there!” factor: when one goes through, lessay, pictures of one’s holiday vacation, one laughs at a – by itself – unfunny picture of one standing in front of a large rock. The reason one laughs because one remembers the great time one had with that large rocks, and possibly because one experienced something funny back there.
The similar thing is with those movies: when one sees a scene copied from another movie one had seen earlier, one remembers the great time one had watching the original movie, and therefore one laughs. Then one misinterprets one’s laugh of remembrance as a laugh at the actual joke, and it all goes to hell.
(If I have to say “one” one more time, I will choke myself with my own hands.)
But… you know what really makes me sad when I see (or lately, avoid seeing) those movies? Missed opportunity. Romantic comedies and epics have so many conventions and cliches of their own, mayhap even more than horror movies and cop movies, and one (arrgh…) would think it would be pretty easy to create a spoof which would be not only funny but also an actual movie, in the vein of Airplane! and Naked Gun… but alas.
Comedy cameos, like when Martin and Lewis would suddenly pop up in one of the “Road” pictures. Only with imitation Napoleons and Borats. Not quite humor, but the rumor of humor.
I don’t think it’s a new genre, just a really inbred version of the original…although AIRPLANE! did open the door. It didn’t just spoof the one movie, it opened to the doors to others (the “Saturday Night Fever” scene leaps to mind)
Sorry, Johnny, I forgot this was Analysis Hour!
In my experience, when tredging through untouched snow in a good pair of boots, each step down allows a certain amount of snow to creep in through the pant leg. Then, stepping up, a portion of that snow gets pulled back down through the top of my boot. Little by little, my socks get wet. Walking on footprints, on the other hand, allows my feet to stay dry thanks to the many people that have already done it before, as I no longer need to break through large portions of snow to reach the dirt.
Groundbreaking, I know.
You mean the upper rim of your socks gets wet… unless you’re walking for like hundreds of miles. But then you’d probably get proper snow gear.
Fan fiction?
I mean, in real life I have snow dogs. But within this hypothetical, I must insist that the upper rim of my socks are part enough of the whole to be considered within the term “sock.” For mincing’s sake.
Fair enough, it’s just that… your analogy implied a discomfort resulting from walking in wet socks. Walking with the upper rim of your socks mildly crusted with snowflakes doesn’t seem so bad… Is all.
As I said, a matter of taste.
And thanks, E.e., words like those mean a lot from a place like this.
WAG, by fan fiction, are you referring to…
- the 213 article with the makers of Date Movie, or,
- the theory of walking in a snow print, without the upper rim (affectionately known as a Welt Top in the sock industry) getting wet… while retaining its connection with the greater whole of the sock?
After reading the adventures of Craig and Ryan in the MySpace Intruder story, [Craig's article - So Annoying] I suppose anything is possible. In regard to the sock, I can’t help but think that rim sag is a big factor.
Rim sag is only the tip of the iceberg.
The brutal catch-22 facing the wintertime sock wearer is that those materials which keep feet warmest under optimum conditions also exhibit the most powerful wicking action when dampened, making them exceptionally vulnerable to the kinds of boot-top snow incursions presently under discussion.
The big sock companies are not only aware of this problem; they actively encourage it. Ask yourself: Every time someone changes from a wet pair of socks into a dry pair in the middle of the day, who profits?
Modern science could solve this problem today, if only the collective will existed to face it head-on. But so long as the footwear-industrial complex retains its stranglehold on innovation, it’s the little guy in the snow who will continue to suffer.
And the feet squelched on, my friend. And the feet squelched on.
I wonder if the fact that there are more laughs in this thread than in the movies being discussed qualifies as some sort of meta-commentary.
Aaron, in addition to the meta-commentary occurring on the subject, I see another unconscious, and perhaps unwitting transformation occurring. Is it possible that the group, in a desperate attempt to find hope and humor in the movies being discussed are developing a meta-script?
Epic Date Socks the Movie
Synopsis: To win the affections of the lovely Elizabeth Swann, Captain Jack Sparrow is on a quest to find the mythical, waterproof, and rim sag resistant winter socks. Aided by the always-funny X-Man brainiac Xavier (who absolutely hates wearing socks) the journey begins at the Casino Royale where socks are required attire! (Oh dear!). What appears to be an exercise in futility quickly becomes a hilarious romp through a bewitched museum where all of the statues fart uncontrollably. And just when you thought your guts would rip wide open if you laughed any harder, the entire landing party from Iwo Jima arrive to steal Borat’s wet saggy socks. Special cameo appearances by Carmen Electra and Paris Hilton.
That’s a great start, McD, but we should really be concentrating on the sequel before we put this much thought into the first one. Use Paris now, while she’s still alive, and save Carmen for next year. That way, when Alice Cooper calls and demands more money for his cameo, we can explain that the residuals of EDSM 1 will quadruplify once EDSM 2 comes out!
Then simply add EDSM 1 plus EDSM 2 and we’ll have EDSM 3. Maybe a “2 and a half” for DVD bonus footage, tag on a half-dozen unrateds, and finally release the box set, fully equipped with 1:2 replica wet-rimmed socks.
I smell an MTV Movie Award!
I like it. I like it. Hollywood will be in a bidding war, over the sequel, long before the original EDSM is ever released. It’s all about the packaging. Good call on the Paris/Carmen casting. And Carmen, in EDSM 2, automatically insulates us from any questions about the quality or worthiness of a sequel. (Plus she will look HOT in wet saggy socks) The replica wet-rimmed socks and box set are genius.
I hope Friedberg & Seltzer aren’t reading this thread, or that idea’s gone for sure.
aaron, you’re presuming they would know an idea when they saw one.
i believe these movies fall into the
Ripping-Off-Other-People’s-Mediocre-Ideas
genre.
…is that how you spell mediocre? probably not.
I think the Genre could be called Teet Suckers…these films attempt to suck of the teet of other notable films and bask in their reflective glory…While I haven’t seen these films…doesn’t one of them spoof Tom Cruise’s Oprah couch dance? Ten years from now that dance will likely be forgotten and that joke would fall flat…meaning that much of the humor in the film doesn’t stand alont and isn’t timeless ala Naked Gun and Airplane.
Yeah, that would be my movie.
Thanks. It’s about as timeless as the joke in Airplane! where the plane destroys the broadcast antenna of the terrible DISCO MUSIC STATION. Or the cameo by Prop. 13 proponent Howard Jarvis.
Or Zsa Zsa Gabor slapping a cop in Naked Gun 2.
Sorry, I’m just bein’ a jerk.
Oops. Sorry about that. Crawling back into my hole
Actually I remember Zsa Zsa Gabor (can you believe she just turned 90) slapping the cop and probably always will. Despite my best efforts to forget Tom Cruise’s couch dance that might be stuck in the noggin as well.
I have a couple questions:
1) Family Guy has a bit where the kids sing a piece from THE SOUND OF MUSIC. It is straight forward. There are no gags in it. It is simply the kids doing the “So Long, Farewell” and exiting up the stairs.
They could have added gags and it would have been funny as well. But they didn’t. And I think it’s funnier because of that.
To me, it seems to be in the “meta-humor” vein. The fact, that it is straight forward is what makes it funny.
What would you call it? Parody? Spoof? Niether? Both?
2) Is there anything that isn’t protected by parody?
And I’m talking in practice. I know the law tries to limit usage, but I really don’t think it has the ability to define what can and can’t be used effectively.
I know I am getting pretty broad here but…
If simply recreating a scenario with your own characters, in the context of a comedy, falls under fair use protection, what isn’t?
3) In Denver, I heard a local radio commercial ‘parodying’ Arnold Swarchznegger. It was basically a guy doing Arnold’s voice saying “Come down and buy my cars.”
No jokes. Completely flat. Unfunny.
Again, I know the law isn’t supposed to allow this, but when push comes to shove the guy who put up the ad will just claim it as ‘parody’ and the humor failed.
And truth be told, some idiots may have found it funny.
It seems like the parody loophole can bore through aall sorts of laws set up to protect individuals rights.
Do you think there is anything that can be done to tighten things up? Or will it stay like this? Or get worse?
Lippy, it’s cool. Can’t be everything to everyone.
James:
Probably just call that “metahumor.”
Yes, parody is part of “fair use” and fair use has been litigated a number of times in the courts. Lots of stuff fails the test. For instance, if you fail to show any parody value, the courts might decide that you’re simply reproducing someone else’s intellectual property, and that’s theft. The amount of use also factors in. For instance, you can’t parody the movie SIGNS by reproducing three pages of dialogue followed by a single joke. It’s all sort of a gray area, but by and large, parody does give the parodist a pretty decent range in which to work.
Using celebrity impersonators can get one into trouble in other ways, particularly for radio. Usually businesses will include “voice by celebrity impersonator” at the end, because you can run aground of fraud laws when using celebralikes to sell stuff. Arnold has a case that his voice has sales value, and the car guy is ripping him off by fraudulently misrepresenting to the public that Arnold endorses his product. In parody films, because the parody is a work of art in and of itself and not an advertisement to sell another product, there are no fraudulent endorsement concerns.
I don’t think things will get any worse or better. They will stay about where they are.
The Epic/Date movie style has been around for a long time. See The Hot Shots movies or Loaded Weapon movies both used one movie as it’s main plot then made fun of other movies/popular figures as the movie progresses. Those movies are exactly the same as Date/Epic movie. Also I would say that all of these movies are spoofing comedy as a genre instead of one film. Each year a new movie comes out spoofing the last years comedies, famous stories, popular figures.
No, that’s just not true. I’ve never spoofed a comedy. Nor has Jim Abrahams with the Hot Shots! films. Hot Shots! is nothing like Date or Epic Movie.
Isn’t Rambo III a comedy ?
“Colonel Trautman: What do we do? Rambo: Well, surrounding them’s out of the question… “
“Hamid: What’s that? Rambo: It’s blue light. Hamid: What does it do? Rambo: It turns blue.”
” – Where are the missiles ? - In your ass !”
Anyway, I think these guys really do spoofs, but bad spoofs, that’s all. I just hope they are actually cynical towards their audience and don’t think they make good films. Really.
About “Airplane!”, the ZAZ spoofed “Zero Hour!” and didn’t create a story to spoof the genre, we know that. But a lot of people think that it is a spoof of the genre because the story of “Zero Hour!” is really an archetype (nearly a parody in a way) of the airplane disaster genre. That’s why it works even in you haven’t seen the movie. That’s not the case of recent spoofs but it doesn’t mean they are automatically bad : One of my favourite spoof is “Wrongfully Accused” that is not very popular first, and then, has the most shambolic screenplay I’ve ever seen… but it works for me.
Some years ago, I’ve heard of a project between David Zucker and Steven Seagal. Too bad it has never been done. Seagal would have been great in a spoof (see the Mountain Dew commercial).
Re: “Hot Shots! started the trend of spoofing multiple films that are linked by genre.”
Shouldn’t that credit be given to the ’70s genre spoofs of Mel Brooks and Neil Simon (Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, Silent Movie, High Anxiety, The Cheap Detective, Murder By Death)?
And anyone remember “The Big Bus”? (1976)
The question is whether anyone doesn’t remember The Big Bus.
Why we don’t have nuclear-powered super-buses yet is anyone’s guess. . .
Listen, I’m not here to comment, I’m here because I need to talk with a producer, because I finished writing a movie called “Spoof Movie” and I want the movie to go to the cinema, and for that, I need to delivery it to a producer, then they got to make the movie, well, here’s my contact: joaoiria2@hotmail.com when you add me, we will later talk about the movie, and I will send you, please add me!
I read a recent interview where Simon Pegg said he never wanted the term “spoof” applied to anything he’d done, as he was having his cake and eating it too by making both a zombie movie and a action film that just happened to be comedies. (He also dismissed the “Scary Movie” franchises on being based purely on “re-enacting scenes,” for what that’s worth.)
I very much enjoyed “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” because I liked the characters so much. That was the trait which appealed to me about the seminal Mel Brooks’ spoofs “Blazing Saddles” and “Young Frankenstein.” I always felt something for the people on screen, despite the insane milieu. After the wonderful “Puttin’ On The Ritz” number, Brooks’ ability to turn on a dime and create pathos for Peter Boyle’s monster is one of the reasons the film got an Oscar nomination for its writing. The ZAZ approach has deciedly always been a gag machine and nothing more, but Pegg, Frost and Wright are reaching for something more.
That being said, I wonder if “Grindhouse,” like “Hot Fuzz,” signals the next evolution of film parody in which it’s also taking itself seriously enough to be a legitimate entry into the genre that it’s supposedly sending up?
On the small screen, the recent show “Andy Barker P.I.” was deemed a spoof by the adoring press, but I found the series to tepid. The reviewers seemed to be taken by the fact that tere was a sweetness of tone, but neither “Get Smart!” or “Sledge Hammer!” were warm and fuzzy and I’ll take those any day over “Barker.”
I know what Pegg means, and I think he’s right. What he’s doing isn’t spoof. Shaun of the Dead was really more like comedy verite in a broad situation, where the humor is derived from the juxtaposition of mundane reactions to insane circumstances.
In that regard, Shaun of the Dead has much more in common with The Specials than with anything ZAZ ever did.
He’s wrong when he says that the Scary Movies “purely re-enact” scenes. I mean to say, he’s factually wrong. We start with a re-enactment, and then we ask, “Where can this go?” Always. That’s exactly what ZAZ did with Airplane!, for instance.
One can dismiss Airplane!, but, you know…then I have no use for you.
I will say that guys who do stuff like Shaun tend to be snobbier about their comedy. It’s certainly “smarter,” although I find good stupid comedy to be, intellectually speaking, the hardest thing to write. I can’t say it’s the best thing to write or the most pleasing, but it’s very hard.
I read that same interview and what Pegg actually said was that he didn’t want to be lumped into the same category as “Date Movie” and “Epic Movie.”
When he did make one reference to the “Scary Movie” series, he said he felt those required some knowledge of the actual movies being spoofed in order to fully appreciate the parody, wherein he felt that both “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” didn’t require specific viewing of George Romero zombie movies or Michael Bay action flicks in order to enjoy them… although he conceded that having awareness would make aspects of both “Shaun” and “Fuzz” much funnier. Once again, these were his opinions as stated in the interview.
I’ll never forget attending a revival screening of “The Bride of Frankenstein” and when the classic blindman scene came up the audience started laughing hysterically. Mel Brooks had permanently subverted the original… so turnabout is fair play.
As far as Craig expressing the “snobbier” attitudes that some auteurs have regarding comedy that they themselves consider more sophisticated than other styles, I’ve never met an elitist that I’ve laughed with… only at.
Forgive me for sounding like a plebian, but I enjoyed “Animal House” and “Airplane!” much more than any of Shakespeare’s comedies.
Alan:
Ah, that’s good to know, and I agree wholeheartedly with Pegg: if you haven’t seen the movies reffed in SM, you’re at a disadvantage.
That’s not going to be the case with my next movie, however. Very happy about that.
As far as what the person who posted said about “Get Smart!” and “Sledge Hammer!” not having warmth, let me counter that Maxwell Smart loved Agent 99 very much and Sledge Hammer loved his gun, which was usually warm right after a shooting, so both shows did indeed have heart.