Is Spoof Dead?
Posted by Craig Mazin on 24 May 2009 at 11:19 pm | Tagged as: The Craft & Trade
No, but it’s not doing well.
Of course, it’s not the first time. Like most other genres, it comes and goes in cycles. Horror boomed with the advent of video, then went dormant for a while, only to be awoken with a vengeance by Scream.
Curiously, spoof had also gone dormant for a while, only to be awoken with a vengeance by a spoof of Scream, so honestly, there are a whole lot of people (myself included) who owe Kevin Williamson a great debt.
Let me say first that the point of this article is not to bash spoof. Quite the opposite. I love the genre. I grew up on it, I was privileged enough to learn it from the masters, and I believe it will be back.
But right now…what’s going on? After the box office high points of Scary Movie 1, 3 and 4, things have fallen off. Superhero Movie struggled to 25 million (although a healthy 45 million overseas helped its bottom line for sure), and it looks like Dance Flick is in for a similar fate in the U.S., with about $11 million in its opening weekend (not counting tomorrow’s holiday draw).
I’m going to try and define the genre first, because in many ways, that’s where the problems are…
Spoof movies are not satires. They do not use comedy or mockery to comment on social problems, politics or any other serious issues of the day. South Park (and the excellent South Park films) is a satire that often uses parody (a humorous reimagining of something serious) to make a point.
Spoof movies, however, have no point. They do not have any perspective on anything important at all. They are, in a word, silly. They employ parody to make you laugh. There is no other goal.
The greatest spoof movie ever is, of course, Airplane! Airplane (I’ll skip the exclamation point for clarity from here on out) is not satirical. It’s an entirely silly retelling of an earnest little thriller called Zero Hour. The goal in the making of Airplane was to hold up movie characters, situations and dialogue that we all know we’re supposed to take seriously, and then undermine them with ridiculous jokes. There’s no trenchant insight into anything when Leslie Nielsen says “And don’t call me Shirley.” It’s just silly.
Silly, pointless, satireless, and really really funny.
I think some people don’t get this. Like Roger Ebert, who wrote of Scary Movie 3:
“Scary Movie 3” understands the concept of a spoof but not the concept of a satire. It clicks off several popular movies (“Signs,” “The Sixth Sense,” “The Matrix,” “8 Mile,” “The Ring“) and recycles scenes from them through a spoofalator, but it’s feeding off these movies, not skewering them. The average issue of Mad magazine contains significantly smarter movie satire, because Mad goes for the vulnerable elements and “Scary Movie 3” just wants to quote and kid.Well…yeah (except for the part about Mad being funny, which it isn’t anymore)! Continuing, Ebert wrote:
Consider the material about “8 Mile.” Eminem is talented and I liked his movie, but he provides a target that “Scary Movie 3” misses by a mile. His Eminem clone is played by Simon Rex, whose material essentially consists of repeating what Eminem did in the original movie, at a lower level. He throws up in the john (on somebody else, ho, ho), he duels onstage with a black rapper, he preempts criticism by attacking himself as white, he pulls up the hood on his sweatshirt and it’s shaped like a Ku Klux Klan hood, and so on. This is parody, not satire, and no points against Eminem are scored.Ummm, correct. It’s parody, not satire. But honestly, Ebert, was David Zucker the one who didn’t know what spoof was, or were you? Never mind that the sequence he cites never failed to elicit huge laughs from the audience…
But hey, you thought you were here to read about why spoof is dying, and instead, Mazin’s fighting a six year-old grudge match against Ebert! What gives?
Well, I want to defend what we had with Scary Movie 3, because I think the dilution of that is what’s causing the problem.
But let’s wind back the clock.
After the huge success of Airplane (and the lesser result with its non-ZAZ sequel), there was one other excellent spoof: Jim Abraham’s Hot Shots.
What then followed were a bunch of knockoffs (Repossessed, Fatal Instinct, Loaded Weapon, etc.) that garnered diminishing returns, and then those were followed by the originators failing with their own spoofs (High School High, Mafia).
The spoof era died, washed away by the tidal wave of the new comedy genre–the grossout comedy.
And it stayed dead until The Wayans Brothers brought it right back with Scary Movie.
What happened? Why did it die?
Two reasons.
The knockoffs weren’t very good, and they disappointed audiences while glutting the market, and
The knockoffs broke the rules, altering audience expectations for what the genre was supposed to be.
The first reason is easy to understand. It’s precisely what happened to the so-called grossout comedy genre. There’s Something About Mary is a great film, but by the time you got to the twelfth bad comedy with semen jokes, no one wanted to go near any of them any more.
The second reason is the one that sort of took me by surprise as a filmmaker. I’ll get into that one in a moment…but it’s the really damaging one. The one I’m not sure we can recover from.
When the Wayans brought spoof back with Scary Movie, it was a great day for those of us who love the genre. They deserve credit for a number of accomplishments, but the most important was that they did spoof right. They followed the rules.
You know, the rules, along with all the wisdom in the glossary. Furthermore, the Wayans didn’t construct what we call a “spoofmobile” (a spoof made up of as many different movie parodies as possible), but rather spoofed Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer in a very disciplined way.
They did it the Airplane! way, and it worked.
I’d like to think that we achieved that as well with Scary Movie 3 and 4. While one could argue that the success of those films was about being part of a franchise, Scary Movie 3 actually revived the series (Scary Movie 2 didn’t particularly sing at the box office). Not everyone likes them, but I think we did a good job, and I’m proud of those movies.
And so, from Scary Movie to Scary Movie 4, things were going quite well.
Until.
Yeah.
The Four Horsemen of the Spoofpocalypse.
Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet The Spartans and Disaster Movie.
I’m not going to rant about why I don’t like those movies. It’s irrelevant. I’ll just say this: they did not do spoof right.
They broke The Rules, they made spoofmobiles, they attempted to parody comedies, they engaged less in the act of spoofing than they did in what we eventually called “comic film reenactment,” they shoved armfuls of random and lame pop culture references into their films, and most importantly, they routinely disappointed audiences.
If your movie drops off 60% from its first weekend to its second (as did Meet The Spartans), it means something’s gone terribly wrong.
Ugh, and I said I wasn’t gonna rant…
The Friedberg & Seltzer films did three things.
They glutted the marketplace with a movie a year for four years.
They created marketplace confusion, whereby the casual moviegoer had no idea if Blank Movie was from the Wayans, from David and me, or from them.
And most critically, they altered the audience’s expectations for the genre.
So now let’s deal with that.
Over the years, from David and Jerry and Jim’s initial films, all the way through ’til now, it seems one thing has remained constant. When producers and executives talk about spoof, they truly believe that the best way to approach the genre is to go after as many current movies as possible in one film. They believe this despite the fact that the funniest and most successful spoof films haven’t done that at all…and indeed, have done the opposite.
When we made Superhero, David’s and my intention was to return to the good old-fashioned right way of spoofing something. Take one movie, maybe toss in one other for variety’s sake, and spoof it.
Was it importantly to be “fresh” and “current” with the spoof? No! Scary Movie came four years after Scream, and Airplane came a full 23 years after Zero Hour (which no one had seen anyway).
Was it important to go crazy with pop culture jokes and references? No! Aside from a couple of random swipes in Airplane, most of the pop culture jokes were aggressively un-hip, like the cameo from Ethel Merman. Scary Movie? Same deal. A few random references here and there, but few and far between.
So we made the movie we wanted to make. And we were proud of it. Sure the ending wasn’t great (we scrapped our initial planned ending and rewrote a new one a week before shooting in order to make our budget), but we could address that with some reshoots. It woudn’t be the first time…there are always last minute rescues in spoof…
But the first test audience had some other problems with the film. They wanted to know why we were spoofing a movie that hadn’t come out last year, or even the year before. And they wanted to know why we were only spoofing one or two movies. And they wanted to know where all the crazy pop culture stuff was.
In short, they wanted it to be more like the spoof movies that, according to the dollar-votes that box office receipts represent, they did not actually like.
And that’s when I knew I was screwed. I was in the same zone that David and Jim had found themselves in with High School High and Mafia. I was a dinosaur. The knockoffs had changed the game. They hadn’t succeeded while doing it, but they had done it anyway.
The audience, largely kids, had been primed with expectations of a “last year’s movies in review, plus whatever celebrity has been acting like a jackass!” and they didn’t get it.
The studio directed us to try and give it to them. What ensued was a frantic attempt to re-engineer the film to be more like the very spoofs that David and were trying to avoid. We shoved more movie references in, we dumped a boatload of pop culture references, and the studio (and this one really hurt) changed the title from Superhero! to Superhero Movie.
Now, to be clear, I’m not blaming the audience or the studio for Superhero’s less-than-stellar box office. The studio had to try something, because the movie wasn’t clicking as it was, and the audience, well…the day you start blaming the audience is the day you need to throw out your laptop and go into another line of work.
But by the time the film came out, if you couldn’t tell whether or not it was from us or Friedberg & Seltzer or some institutional spoof-making robot, well…that could hardly be considered your fault.
It’s a bittersweet thing for me. The stuff in Superhero (I still call it that, I don’t care) that I loved even before we ever shot a frame, I still love having shot it. The stuff that I didn’t, I don’t. Valiant efforts were made, but I think the venture was doomed from the start, because the genre had clearly outgrown its welcome.
How can the audience miss you if you don’t go away?
Dance Flick seems to have succumbed to the same disease. I haven’t seen the film, and maybe it succeeded in shunning the pop-culture overload and spoofmobile-ism that we failed to avoid, but the waters have been poisoned. No spoof of the Blank Movie style can survive. There is a stink of shame on the genre.
For now.
Its death has been, in many ways, a boon for me. I’ve been able to return to the kind of writing I was heading toward before the spoof stuff happened, and that’s been very satisfying. Still, spoof was berry berry good to me, and as a moviegoer, I look forward to the day it returns.
And it will return.
A few years from now, when it’s been forgotten, when a whole generation of high school kids haven’t seen a spoof in a theater, someone will come back and do it again.
I hope they do it the right way.


Was thinking the same thing about spoof. Thank you for posting about this so now I can save my finger energy and just link to your page…
Interesting to read that about Superhero – I had always assumed that’s kinda what happened there.
If I didn’t follow the blog and hit the message board, I would have thought that “Superhero Movie” was one of the bad spoofs, and wouldn’t have seen it. But it was pretty funny. And people who know me are always surprised that I like the Scary Movies. I always end up watching them on Comedy Central, commercials and all.
(I’m not just sucking up to you, I swear.)
I’ve had more than one conversation at the bar explaining that there were two different types of “Movie” movies. There are the ones that are just totally disposable and recycle pop culture for 15-year-olds, and then there are the ones that have these things called… what’s the word… oh, yeah… jokes. Imagine that, a comedy with jokes! The ones with jokes are pretty funny and age well. The ones without them won’t even make sense to viewers in five years.
It might be time to get all meta and just do “Spoof Movie” before Friedberg & Seltzer do.
There is hope. Have you seen the trailer for ‘Black Dynamite’?
I’ve never been a fan of the ‘Scary Movies’ or any of the ones that followed (I’m sorry) since I was raised on ‘Naked Gun’ and ‘Hot Shots’ and I’m part of the demographic that wants these movies. We do exist! The spoof can be restored!
I know ‘Shaun of the Dead’ and ‘Hot Fuzz’ are more satirical, but they did pretty well in the States. Do you think that could help bring it back?
Craig,
Like you said, it’ll be cyclical. Part of it is also finding the material that’s just asking to be spoofed. Scream itself was, in many ways, satirical, but all of its knockoffs were so silly yet took themselves so seriously; same with the disaster genre (The Poseidon Adventure was heavily Academy Award nominated and The Towering Inferno was nominated for Best Picture!).
With this glut of spoof films, where you can’t tell which are the ones from the filmmakers I’ve liked before, it’s also hard to do a quality check. I actually like Date Movie a lot (unlike the other “bad” spoofs, the main character has an actual goal and it doesn’t feel like a series of skits, so I get drawn in; and it’s funny), but I don’t know whether each Blank Movie is related to that, Scary Movie, etc.
I’d also throw in I’m Gonna Git You Sucka and Don’t Be A Menace… as two important spoof films, as I think their presence on video positively affected Scary Movie. Almost nobody saw Scary Movie because it was from the Wayans Bros., but because they had made enjoyable films before, I think some of the audience was primed (it made too much for the entire audience to have seen those films, however).
Here is my list of Spoof Films That I Think Are Good
Young Frankenstein Airplane! Top Secret! I’m Gonna Git You Sucka Don’t Be A Menace…. Hot Shots! Scary Movie Scary Movie 3 Scary Movie 4 Portions of Superhero
I’m not a fan of the other ones, but YMMV, question of taste, etc.
I like Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, but they’re definitely satires, so I don’t include them in the spoof category.
I have. It definitely seems promising.
Why is nobody mentioning The Naked Gun?
Kate mentioned it at #4.
Naked Gun is in the spoof style, but it’s not a spoof of a particular movie, the way Airplane! or Hot Shots! or Scary Movie were.
It’s loosely based on an old television show called M Squad, actually.
Airplane! is more of a spoof of the Airport movies of the ’70′s than it is of Zero Hour!. Airplane! uses the same plot of Zero Hour!, but the movie wouldn’t have happened, and wouldn’t have been popular and successful had it not been for the Airport movies. And, as you said, no one had seen Zero Hour!. You don’t spoof a movie no one has seen.
If Airplane! were more of a spoof of Zero Hour!, the filmmakers would have referenced it in the title. Just because the filmmakers were aware of Zero Hour, and borrowed the plot, doesn’t mean that’s the movie they were spoofing.
Naked Gun is a spoof of Dragnet more than any other show.
Craig,
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on Walk Hard. I thought it did an excellent job of lampooning the tropes of the musty-as-hell, self-important, musical biopic genre.
Of course, WH tanked at the box office — in my opinion, due to a combination of the lack of a bankable lead, bizarre (Christmas?!) release date, and the fact that despite having Apatow’s name attached, the general public likely assumed that Friedberg & Seltzer had something to do with it; or, at the very least, thought WH bore similarities to the kind of humorless, hacky spoofmobiles those guys churn out.
But box-office bombing notwithstanding: Did Walk Hard work for you? And if not, why not?
First, QUESTION: Is Not Another Teen Movie a satire or a parody. I think its very funny and well done, which ever it is.
Second, I have to admit that I’m absolutely guilty of being someone who thinks spoofs should be timely. In the case of Dance Flick, my first reaction was, “When did Save the Last Dance come out again?” Turns out the film came out in 2001, and it just feels ancient to me.
But I think there’s also a bigger problem, in that Save the Last Dance is low hanging fruit. This is my biggest problem with the YouTube era of comedy — it’s not really funny if the think you’re making fun of is already a joke (intentional or not). Save the Last Dance was mocked before it ever came out, and has been parodied repeatedly since then. It’s easy.
It’s funny you quote Ebert on the “hood” scene from Scary Movie 3, because I think it’s really smart joke. Eminem ran around 8 Mile in a hoody the whole time, for effect, and it never occurred to me that you could make a joke out of that. I think that was a non-obvious joke. My biggest problem with the Friedberg & Seltzer is that ALL their jokes are obvious. It doesn’t take a comedic genius to make a gay joke out of 300.
Anyway, I haven’t seen Dance Flick, but based on the commercials it looks like it’s a real on-the-nose parody. I probably won’t see it.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. I know the filmmakers personally. I assure you that you’re wrong.
Wrong.
It didn’t work for me, although I thought it was ambitious and had its heart in the right place. To me, it played like a hybrid between a ZAZ style spoof and a broad character-driven comedy like Talladega Nights. Sort of got caught in the middle of genres.
Definitely a spoof. No satire detected. If anything approaches satire (like the acknowledgement that the black character is a token), it’s only because that’s a hallmark of the films being spoofed.
This, by the way, brings up one of our subrules, which is “film criticism isn’t really funny.” It’s clever to point out how other movies can be trite or illogical, but no one’s ever gonna laugh out loud because you do.
Yeah, well, I’m waitin’ on the world to change…
Ebert just didn’t understand. It was if we worked hard to bake a cake, put it in front of him, and he said “The problem with this cake is that it’s not a salad.”
Maybe this is a bad metaphor for Ebert…
Anyway, I couldn’t agree more that surprise is sort of the key to any of these spoof jokes. When we did Superhero, I was happiest when doing stuff like, say, a lovelorn Drake Bell walking down the street and seeing two floppy sales balloons making love. Or when Leslie Nielsen rips off Drake’s beard. Or when Marion Ross stuffs the kitten into the turkey. No one ever saw those coming, and it was fun watching those bits with audiences.
I was most depressed when fulfilling an external demand to parody the moment where Mary Jane kisses an upside-down Spidey. It’s boring, because everything you do with that is sort of obvious and, well, lame. So much wasted energy…
The F&S films are pretty much only jokes like that.
Au contraire Nima, there’s a dance movie every other year it seems, not the exact same story obviously, but pretty close, with lots to ’spoof’ from I guess. If you follow dance flicks you’ll know what I mean. If not, here’s a quick run through:
Straight to DVD also has a huge following specifically in that demographic. Rize, How She Move, Honey, You Got Served, Take The Lead, Step Up, Step Up 2 the Streets, Stomp the yard, Love n dancing, Center Stage, Save the Last Dance,
Dance Flick trailer features a Julia Stiles type and story line, but most of these movies have that similar theme.
(sorry if it’s posted twice, it read it as spam)
Just too many over too short a period is the biggest problem. Spoof was never a genre that could support high volumes. This is a self-correcting problem, however.
“Spoof movies, however, have no point.” I’ve seen you write this before, but I disagree. In fact, I think you do, too:
“The goal in the making of Airplane was to hold up movie characters, situations and dialogue that we all know we’re supposed to take seriously, and then undermine them with ridiculous jokes. There’s no trenchant insight into anything when Leslie Nielsen says ‘And don’t call me Shirley.’ It’s just silly.”
Isn’t revealing and criticizing tired tropes a goal? Stephen King says that horror styles follow the same cycle– Original, Sequel(s), Cross-overs, Parodies.
Parody is a way for the creative community to say, “Okay, we’re done with this tripe. We’ll try something new, now.”
If the parody is popular, it’s a sign the audience likely agrees.
Anon PA:
Maybe it’s my sloppy choice of language, but you’re confounding “point” with “purpose.” Of course spoof movies have a purpose. Their purpose is to make you laugh by holding up movie characters, situations…etc.
What they don’t have is a message or insight or lesson or observation of society or any intellectual takeaway.
Dr. Strangelove is one of the funniest movies ever made, and a brilliant satire. It also, of course, comes with a point. A message. An intellectual payload about men, politics, war and human nature.
Airplane! does not.
IMO, the #1 problem with bad spoofs is that they simply make references without bothering to turn them into funny jokes. It’s lazy. Craig’s “comic film reenactment” crack sums it up very nicely.
For what it’s worth, I really loved Not Another Teen Movie. Bonus points for managing to successfully mix two different generations of targets, too. I still laughed at the parts that spoofed ’90s movies that I hadn’t seen — that’s key. It’s proof that a spoof doesn’t have to be timely to be good. It just has to be *funny*. Not that timeliness doesn’t help — I’m sure that the popularity of serious disaster flicks in the ’70s had a hand in the original success of Airplane, even if it wasn’t directly spoofing them. But it’s still beloved 30 years later because it’s so funny.
Then again, I liked High School High, so what do I know? (The bit at the end with the school statue was genius.)
You live in a world of delusion.
This is like Janie Lane of Warrant blaming Kip Winger for the death of hair metal.
Craig:
Just curious whether last year’s remake of GET SMART constitutes as a spoof since the original series was.
FWIW, virtually this exact same scenario has played out in the high-stakes, cuthroat world of… print parody.
Over in the UK, Orion re-released “Bored of the Rings” shortly before the first LOTR movies hit, and discovered they had a monster hit on their hands.
In short order, they bought “Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody” and saw it sit on best seller lists for six months.
It was a classic golden goose — Orion had a distinctive cover style and their books were just the right size for placement by the register. For the next two years, they released another parody every 6 months, all of them successful.
And then… someone got greedy. Every 6 months wasn’t enough. They farmed out assignments to anyone they could find. Now a new title was coming out every 3 months, and the quality was dropping like a stone.
The readers lost faith in the Orion brand, and stopped buying parodies completely.
If you visit the “Barry Trotter” website, you’ll discover that the author actually self-published his Dickens parody, “A Christmas Peril,” because he couldn’t find a UK publisher.
WTF?
So Craig, you have my sympathies, and my heartfelt hope that things turn around in both mediums.
me wishes sum ones woodz scribble a THE JERK or the WITHNAIL AND I and stop bathtub bubble farting around debating a genre.
No time like the present, Ryan. Get cracking!
Alan asked:
I don’t think it was a spoof. The feature version of Get Smart was more like a comedy spy movie, closer in tone to Spies Like Us than to the original television series.
I, of course, was thinking of Not Another Teen Movie, not Date Movie (thanks Nima!), when I was talking about the “bad” spoof film I enjoyed for being funny and having an actual plot and main character with a goal. I told you they make it hard to tell these things apart!
Allow me to point out the white elephant in the room, yes, the one getting gangbanged by a horde of camels… You blame the other spoof movies for ruining the genre and yet, as I see it, your spoof movies were the first to bend the sacred rules… The original Scary Movie spoofed Scream and other teen horror flicks. Funny stuff. Fast forward to Scary Movie 3… an amalgamation of Signs (more sci-fi than horror, but fine) and 8 Mile?!?!?! Now, to some seeing Eminem in a lead role may be a scary idea, but it sure as heck isn’t a scary movie. Then there are the pop culture references… American idol and Cruise on Oprah. Or was that SM4? Who cares. Point made. Or did the other spoofs spoof your spoofs? Seriously, it appears the roots of the downfall of an entire genre are sprouting in Scary Movie 3.
No?
No.
Mini-spoofs inside a movie are a staple of the genre. We call them “drive-bys”. If you’d actually seen more than a few films in the genre, you’d know this.
Young Frankenstein spoofed Puttin’ On The Ritz, Airplane spoofed Saturday Night Fever (via extended flashback), Hot Shots spoofed 9 1/2 Weeks…
Last I checked, Puttin’ On The Ritz wasn’t horror, SNF wasn’t an airplane drama, and 9 1/2 weeks had nothing to do with jet planes.
There was absolutely nothing new or genre-bending about us doing a drive-by on 8 Mile, particularly because it was (as in the other cases I cite) isolated from the main narrative. It was a contained sequence.
Scary Movie 3 is an amalgam of Signs and The Ring, just as Scary Movie was an amalgam of Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer.
I agree about the pop culture references. I’m not a big fan of them, but the studio was, and…to be honest…the audience loved them. I wrote almost none of them into Superhero, but after the previews, the studio asked that we put them in.
“It was a contained sequence”
Full disclosure… I only saw the movie once (on an airplane? or hotel? can’t recall). But I do recall that vanilla ice character having an arc about wanting to become a rapper that flowed through and impacted several scenes.
“I agree about the pop culture references. I’m not a big fan of them, but the studio was, and…to be honest…the audience loved them.”
So why don’t they still love them? Oversaturation?
The character of George expressed a desire to be a rap star, which was followed by the 8 Mile sequence. At the conclusion of that sequence, that character aspect went away. No more rapping or Eminem clothes or even reference to it. Once the joke was over, it was over.
As for pop culture references, I think the audience likes the idea of them, and they tend serve as exciting clips in TV spots and trailers. But they start to do damage to the movie around them.
They’re like spoof MSG. Makes things seem funnier…but when the movie’s over, you’re kind of headachey from it all.
I don’t know. It’s your genre – certainly not mine. But I feel the way to engage an audience, no matter what genre, is through characters we care for and root for. Characters, not caricatures.
Therein lies the lack of appeal in spoof films that are a mere series of reenactments of well known movies with a few fart and knock your head jokes thrown in – not to sound disparaging.
Point being, I don’t see why a movie that has a likable character and a real narrative should not succeed, even if it spoofs across genres and is peppered with pop culture references et cetera et cetera.
If we care, we don’t care. If you know what I mean.
I agree. I’m not sure that the people who pay for spoof movies get this as clearly as you do, but so it goes.
Johnny just reminded me that I DID see SM4, I was so excited to see it, and then I fell asleep. I’m not trying to be funny here, and I think I’m sort of agreeing with you Craig (I said sort of) when you mention: “And that’s when I knew I was screwed. I was in the same zone that David and Jim had found themselves in with High School High and Mafia. I was a dinosaur….The audience….and they didn’t get it”.
I felt David was (is?) out of touch, yes, I know his place in cinematic history, and I too know him–low man on the totem pole as I used to work FOR him–but when I walked by those meetings, and David would yell because his lunch was late, I used to think; wow these guys probably used to hang out with regular ‘folk’ at some point, and they’ve sort of lost that edge because they’re so removed now, so out of touch because they mostly just talk to their peers and laugh at their own jokes. Leslie Nielsen again? (yes, I know his place too, I have mad respect for him) but really? It’s like comedic masturbation–unless it’s David’s lucky charm, which would explain it. Airplane! is funny as a mother, and solid in that genre, and timeless. Did anyone care if they stuck to the genre or if it was current or not? Nope. You couldn’t even put your finger on it, but they certainly had that finger on the pulse man. It’s almost cosmic that these things happen too, with all the notes, and the test and target audience and the blah, blah, blah.
I didn’t see Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet The Spartans, or Disaster Movie, if my gut (or my best friend) told me they were good, I probably would have gone, most likely won’t see the DVDs either, I will check out Superhero tho, I’m curious. I do agree with you that it’s not about “fresh” or “current” material, and I agree with Johnny that the audience has to be engaged, period–where you don’t come out all “headachey” or in my case groggy. As with Airplane, the “kids” will innately get it. “It” doesn’t have to be explained and/or analyzed to be enjoyed either, but I guess that’s what successful people end up doing, dissecting e v e r y t h i n g.
Thanks for clearing up the difference between spoof, satire, etc…I love me a learning class.
The Puttin’ on the Ritz sequence of YF and the sleigh/dog sequence of the original animated Grinch Who Stole Christmas are the only two things in this world guaranteed to make me laugh myself into tears EVERY time I see them. Make of this what you will.
Well, cinematically anyway. Several vignettes in David Niven’s books are guaranteed money shots with me as well, EVERY time.
my two cents:
Oh man, I know that yell…
Look, you had the worst job in showbiz. It’s impossible being David’s assistant. Impossible. The only solace I can offer is that according to those who were there from the start, he has always been that way.
So it’s not a new development.
I love the guy, but yeah…he’s tough on assistants.
The worst, and the best, it’s an honor–for Hollywood, anyway, not in the real world. I don’t know about ‘always’ certainly way, way back. It’s silly, some have worst childhoods, and they’re not complaining. My point was that you’re out of touch when you’re not out on the streets anymore, as cheesy as that sounds.
Pretty good article. Craig, allow me to disagree with one thing though. I think the best spoof ever is BLAZING SADDLES. Not unlike Airplane!, it’s a spoof of a genre, rather than of a movie.
Airplane! is not a spoof of a genre. It’s a direct spoof of a movie. A movie called Zero Hour. I hinted at this in the article when I wrote:
Argh.
Any chance of a Superhero director’s cut…?
Nope. I was denied that. I was able to restore some of the cut the way I preferred for the DVD version, but not entirely. I would certainly recommend the DVD unrated version over the theatrical version. But no.
No director’s cut. Not mine.
Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. I read about ZERO HOUR, but since it’s a very obscure film, AIRPLANE just FEELS like a genre’s spoof. I see it that way.
“Young Frankenstein spoofed Puttin’ On The Ritz, Airplane spoofed Saturday Night Fever (via extended flashback), Hot Shots spoofed 9 1/2 Weeks
Last I checked, Puttin’ On The Ritz wasn’t horror, SNF wasn’t an airplane drama, and 9 1/2 weeks had nothing to do with jet planes.”
The “Puttin’ On The Ritz” sequence was actually spoofing “King Kong” which is, of course, a genre film… trotting out the monster for public consumption and he breaks loose. The Mel Brooks spoofs have great verisimilitude and exist on their own terms, even turning serious on occasion. People are still surprised that MB produced “The Elephant Man,” but if they pay attention to the lyricism of “Young Frankenstein,” it’s not that far a reach.
Jim always likened “Airplane!” to Mad magazine’s “Scenes We Always Wanted To See” which seemed apropos. I’d tend to agree that Mel Brooks in 1974 created the spoof business and set a bar that’s never been matched, at least as far as legitimacy and respect. I can’t think of any other parodies to garner Oscar nominations for writing and acting. The genre barely qualifies for Razzies now.
I’ve heard some people call “Galaxy Quest” a spoof… but since that film featured acting, a coherent plot and emotion, people argue that designation.
Also, when talking about the ZAZ troika and the solo efforts like “Hot Shots!”… why is it Pat Proft never gets mentioned?
Good call on on King Kong. You’re right about that one, Alan.
I still think Airplane! is the greatest spoof film of all time, but Young Frankenstein is absolutely up there. A classic indeed.
Not a fan of his later spoofs, though. Spaceballs, Robin Hood, Dracula…didn’t like ‘em.
Galaxy Quest is certainly not a spoof. It’s an action-comedy about television show actors.
Pat deserves a ton of credit for the genre, of course, and it was an honor to write with him. Take a look at the run he had…
Police Academy Bachelor Party Real Genius The Naked Gun Hot Shots
That’s ungodly.
“Not a fan of his later spoofs, though. Spaceballs, Robin Hood, Dracula…didn’t like ‘em.”
Yeah, but High Anxiety ain’t too shabby. Even Hitchcock loved it. And History of the World: Part One has elevated in status over time.
In my mind, “Blazing Saddles” in ’74 paved the away for “Airplane!” What’s interesting was to hear how ZAZ had to traverse the “stink” of another failed spoof of disaster movies to get their own going: “The Big Bus,” also a Paramount film.
Glad to hear you give Proft his props.
I disagree with your position and analysis. I’ll leave it at that.
“As wonderful as Airplane is, it is no Blazing Saddles or Young Frankenstein, and it’s self serving of you to marginalize Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder as you have. Their work turned them both into household names in a way that Abrahams and Zucker never have been or ever will be. For years, all they had to say was “The new Mel Brooks movie” to guarantee an audience. The Zuckers still have to say “From the makers of Airplane.” That’s not a knock on them, it’s just a fact. Most filmmakers do not achieve household name status. Brooks did. They didn’t.”
Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder starred on the screen. They were household names to a great extent because they were household faces. Not the case for ZAZ.
If I can offer a layman’s view, being neither a screenwriter OR someone who works in the film industry . . .
If someone had out of the blue asked me to name some “spoof movies” I likely would have gone straight to what I consider to be the drek – Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans and (apologies) Superhero Movie, because to me they represent the epitome of the death of any intelligence in the genre. But others here have reminded me of some high points along the way, such as I’m Gonna Git you Sucka, Hot Shots, & The Naked Gun. Why is my impression of the genre so skewed towards the awful?
Perhaps its because the holy trifecta of Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstien, and Airplane all happened before 1980 and not a SINGLE spoof movie since has come even close.
And I mean not even close.
As I said, I like I’m Gonna Get you Sucka, but holding it up against ANY of The Trifecta is like comparing “The Cat’s Meow” to “Citizen Kane.” They run in the same circles, yes, but no one is confused as to which one is important and which one is not.
The question is, is it even possible for a spoof as good as Young Frankenstein to be made in the current studio system?
When the writer is beholden to a test audience that WANTS more pop culture references and “comic film reenactment,” even when anyone with half a brain recognizes that those two things are EXACTLY what makes the current crop of spoof movies so bad, where can the genre go?
And Craig, I’m sympathetic to your intentions for Superhero Movie, but this paragraph:
Sounds like a cop-out. I know you don’t want to burn any bridges here, but the audience and the studio IS TO BLAME. They think “Epic Movie” is all the genre can do. The sub-morons who are asking for more pop-culture jokes haven’t SEEN The Trifecta, and likely wouldn’t understand them anyways. Those are just “old movies” to them. The only joke the people who are buying tickets to see “Meet the Spartans” would even UNDERSTAND in ANY of The Trifecta is the flatulence scene in “Blazing Saddles.”
You know it, I know it, and even the studio heads know it, but bucking the trend and letting someone like yourself make the movie you really wanted to make simply isn’t possible anymore.
In the meantime, there are people like me and many others (including, I suspect, yourself), who understand just how good “Young Frankenstein” is and who DON’T GO TO SPOOF MOVIES ANYMORE, BECAUSE WE KNOW WE’RE GOING TO GET KICKED STRAIGHT IN THE BALLS.
As someone else mentioned, perhaps “Black Dynamite” is the answer. The trailers look fantastic, and if it’s as good as it looks, then perhaps working independently is the only way to get it done anymore. The studios have to play it safe, and “Epic Movie” is the result.
Given the Academy’s well known prejudice towards comedy, irrespective of spoofs, the achievement of these respective nominations (both within the same year) becomes all the more significant:
Best Writing, Screenplay Adapted From Other Material Gene Wilder & Mel Brooks for “Young Frankenstein”
Best Actress in a Supporting Role Madeline Kahn for “Blazing Saddles”
Just thought I’d point out, on the subject of Mel Brooks’s Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, I think a huge part of the reason behind of the staying power of these two, and what separates them from most, if not all, of the spoofs that have come after, is the balance between irreverance and love for the genre being spoofed. It’s clear to me, watching Young Frankenstein in particular, that Mel and co. had some degree of affection for the old Universal monster movies. There’s so much attention to detail in recreating the visual style and feel of the films, right down to such details as the awkward pauses in the dialogue and timing similiar to the early talkies, the equipment in Frankenstein’s lab, and the B & W cinematography.
My point being, you can’t properly “spoof” something (or make a spoof that transcends the pop culture environment it was spawned in) if you don’t at least have some degree of respect for it, in this context. The classic horror and western movies Mel was spoofing are worth making fun of. The truly unremarkable movies of five seconds ago are not.
T.W.
As I said on the blu-ray DVD of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, in all the cinematic realizations of Mary Shelley’s enduring myth… has there ever been a finer portrayal of Dr. Frankenstein, combining all the madness, pathos and Promethean desires… than Gene Wilder’s? He wasn’t merely deadpanning or spoofing someone else’s performance, he gave his own indelible interpretation that was virtuoso and legitimate, whether it be comedy or drama.
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN is an equal to other versions of the classic tale. It just happens to be an inspired comedic take.
Well said, Alan.
And how great is it that Gene Wilder also wrote that part?
Say Craig (or Alan) – a question:
A number of comedy classics could be considered Farce.
In my mind.
But I’m not so keen on the terminology as you guys.
So where would you say Farce fits into the landscape of Satire, Parody, and Spoof?
A taxonomy question. Can we include “This is Spinal Tap” as spoof? Because if we can, the trifecta needs to be a quartet.
Hmm. And “Tropic Thunder” for that matter. Is that spoof?
I have a feeling the Chair might rule in favoring of nudging them towards satire, but I’m having trouble justifying that on their subject matter; unless you consider puncturing the over-inflated egos of pampered stars in our society (Rock or Hollywood) a serious social issue. I’m starting to lean towards “low church” and “high church” dichotomy here. . .
Farce is separate from spoof, satire and parody. Well, you can have a satire that employs farce…
To me, farce is pretty much a comedy of errors. Shakespeare did it best; everyone else is following in his footsteps.
This Is Spinal Tap is a mockumentary, which is its own genre, I think.
Tropic Thunder is broad comedy mixed with satire.
By the by, none of this really matters.
I mean, if you enjoy it, then the nomenclature is irrelevant. I just get annoyed when critics ding films for failing to be something they weren’t trying to be anyway.
“By the by, none of this really matters.
I mean, if you enjoy it, then the nomenclature is irrelevant.”
Well, that’s the attitude I take when I try to write comedy: I just try to write something I find funny, and hope others might too.
But if I ever were to try to sell any of it -
I’m gonna have to know what to call it
PS It’s dated now, but I had a Stephen Hawking reference in my first draft of my political satire/parody/spoof/farce/something script: I used his voice as the voice of Al Gore.
Who I felt really needed to be written as a Robot.
Which – obviously – needed a Robot Voice.
So that gave me something like:
Robot Gore stiffly clanks his way to the podium.
ROBOT GORE (voice of Stephen Hawking) Ok class, please take out your homework.
AUDIENCE (groans) Awww!
That might’ve been fun.
But I can’t use it now, can I?
Thanks a lot, Craig! >:(
At least your Hawking scene was funny, I guess.
From Wiki:
“A parody (pronounced [?p???di?] US, [?pa??di?] UK, also called send-up or spoof), in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation.”
At which point Geo notes all key words have been carefully mushed together and wanders off muttering to himself that the term picked to be used for film likely has more to do with the marketing demographic you’re trying to hit more than anything.
A fine point. And honestly, Gene Wilder deserved to not only be nominated for Best Actor for Young Frankenstein, but clearly deserved to win over anyone in the field that year:
(Art Carney in Harry and Tonto(w); Jack Nicholson in Chinatown; Dustin Hoffman in Lenny; Albert Finney in Murder on the Orient Express; Al Pacino in Godfather II)
My criteria is this: You could take almost any decent actor and cast them in any of the nominated roles that year and still have had a very good performance.
Jeff Bridges could have played Nicholson’s part in Chinatown and done well, Walter Matthau could have played in Harry and Tonto, Martin Sheen could have played Michael Corleone with ease, etc.
But I can think of no actor who could possibly surpass or even equal Wilder’s performance in Young Frankenstien.
Banned for life!
I’m curious where you feel “Top Secret!” fits in the scheme of things. To my mind, it very effectively managed to spoof two genres at once while being outstandingly inventive and funny as hell.
I love Top Secret! Curiously, David and Jim and Jerry are less sanguine about it. They feel, and it’s a valid criticism, that the movie actually suffered because it wasn’t one thing or another. Was it a spoof of WWII films? Or a spoof of Elvis movies?
But those concerns aside, it still has some of their greatest jokes ever.
Just to add to the general goodwill for Young Frankenstein: in a high school English class, we read Mary Shelley’s original and, afterwards, watched YF together as a class. Our teacher swore, up and down, that it was the best, most truthful in spirit retelling of the original.
not yet brought before to judge: Princess Bride, Austin Powers, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (and similar horror-comedies).
The deficiencies in some approaches to spoofing are apparent when you examine respective running times. Without a strong plot or reasonably dimensional characters, just a proficient joke machine featuring a decidedly high batting average, the films are consigned to a scant 79 or 83 minutes, whereas “Young Frankenstein” runs 106 minutes and engages on many different levels besides gags.
The lack of sustainability is glaringly apparent on the small screen, as the pilot of “Police Squad” created a template that was replicated verbatim for each and every episode. The audience bailed week after week since there were no characters to have a rooting interest in or legitimate mysteries. The pilot was the best episode, whereas “Get Smart” over its five year run kept building on a funny initial airing, sustaining the premise through a mix of verisimilitude and characters viewers were truly invested in. Maxwell Smart was invariably in real danger as opposed to having everything around him be a total goof.
Alan–
You begin to build on my notion of “low church” and “high church” above. I think “spoof” needs some subdivision, somewhat along the lines of Craig’s point of what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish.
Oh, and in reviewing the thread I note some love for “High Anxiety” above. Y’know, I’d never claim it a classic –but damned if I don’t find myself tossing out lines from it on a semi-regular basis 30 years later.
One of the reasons for me is that, as Craig mentions many times in his article, you have to follow the rules. And when you’ve been following the same rules for 30 years, they become “clichés”. And so films get predictable. By the way, that was the purpose of Scream. Slasher films can be good but now that people are aware of these rules, they become like a parody of themselves. I have to confess that I’m a big fan of slashers and “film noirs” in a way that, the more they use clichés, the more I like them. But the problem with a spoof is that, again like Craig said above, you only watch them to laugh. For me, a predictable film noir is watchable as you can enjoy the mood, the design, the music, the actors… But if a spoof is not funny, the rest is useless. And it’s almost mathematical. A spoof looking like a parody of a spoof equal 0. You know what I mean?
I’ve been knowing the genre since I’m a child. I know the rules. I’ve seen HOT SHOTS 2 more than 100 times and I’m not kidding. With all that background, I couldn’t predict the snail joke or the Hyundai joke in Superhero! Also, I think the hood joke in SM3 and the “I am for that / I’m against that” in the Village spoof were very brilliant writing, because they were not “fillers”, they were adapted at this particular moment. So I still think that if producers give the right time to make a good job, writers can come up with fresh and unexpected material. Because of tight schedules, I understand that you have to come up with more “efficient” jokes rather than “original” jokes.
You’ve tried to regulate that on Superhero! (and I’m sure that’s because you had much more time) but in the SM, “slip & fall” jokes every 2 minutes and “panic scenes” every 10 minutes tend to get boring as people feel like they always see the same joke. Again, it’s efficient and contrary to most people I prefer SM4 to the 3.
Also, I always thought that David Zucker did make SM3 & 4 because of his previous flops at the box office. He wasn’t very interested by the horror genre and wasn’t implied as a screenwriter (I know he was implied in the writing process as a producer) which means something to me. He’s a master of comedy as a director but it’s like he was in “automatic pilot” (not the one from Airplane!), not as motivated as they were on Airplane! (efficient > original).
Now, about DISASTER MOVIE, have you actually watched the whole movie, including the 47 minutes long bloopers in the end credits? Remember also they released Meet the Spartans in January and Disaster in August! I’ve never seen that before! Didn’t they realize that these schedules are insane? Didn’t they realize that spoofing trailers make them look like cheap writers? I’ve also heard a story about a dad and a 6 years old crying girl leaving the theater after the “bloody mouthed princess eating pieces of glass” scene. Do they actually think it’s funny? Do they actually realize that their Chipmunks scene look like a disturbing horror movie?
Craig: When you’re watching movies now, do you sometimes still think as a spoof writer?
Alfie said it so much better than I ever could, but I want to chime in anyways, because the spoof movies as exhibited by Scary Movies 3 and 4 are masterpieces of the genre. Craig, you proved your mastering of the genre with these because they are great, and look at the box office, too! It’s such a shame the terrible Disaster Movies came along and ruined them, because you guys were on such a roll. I agree with you about everything on Superhero Movie and wish wish wish that there was a director’s cut with the scenes the way you wanted them. My God, you and David and the others are heads and shoulders above those idiots Frieberg and whats his name. It’s a shame they killed the genre for now, but these things are psychlical, and you’ll be back and on top in no time.
Latter day spoof movies generally have a slapdash quality, some of them undergoing reshoots a mere few weeks before their release dates in order to exploit topicality, but it should be noted that Craig’s direction on his superhero parody was filled with visual sophistication and style… differentiating it from the other crude knockoffs. Also, the original score was very good and the music could have easily lent itself to an actual heroic fantasy. Another example of verisimilitude.
Thanks, guys. Very nice of you to say.
The score for Superhero was written and conducted by James Venable, who also scored Scary Movie 3 and 4. He did an exception job under very difficult budget and schedule circumstances. Can’t say enough about him. Great guy, and very talented.
I know how to revive the genre: a likable star that can carry the movie.
Spoofs started because people wanted to see Bob Hope as a bumbling pirate, detective, Frenchman.
People wanted to see Woody Allen as a bumbling freedom fighter, Russian, unfrozen-in-the-future man.
People wanted to see Gene Wilder as a mad scientist, gun-slinger, Sherlock Holmes.
These were very likable people (even Woody, at the time) and they got the people in the seats. Then ZAZ came along and showed that the genre could be refined to stand on its own.
Well, the audience doesn’t really believe the genre can stand on its own anymore (because of the reasons you listed, Craig). So, we need another likable star to carry the movie.
At this time, that star is obviously Will Farrell because people want to see him as a NASCAR driver, ice skater, and network newsman. If he were to star in a well-written spoof, it would bring the audience back to the genre.
There may be some other actors out there that can do it, but Farrell would most easily deliver.
I liked the American Carol movie, some parts, too. I think it maybe didn’t follow the rules Craig put out, but that’s okay, because it’s from one of the INVENTORS of the rule. It was a shame it didn’t get more releases. Craig, did you do any work on that one, too? What do you think of using spoof movies to make important political points?
I didn’t work on American Carol.
Not sure spoof and messages mix very well.
C.
Edgar Wright gave a relevant interview in the Guardian that somebody cited in this thread, but I can’t find it now. Here it is in full:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/feb/12/guardianinterviewsatbfisouthbank1
Despite the contention on this thread from a few people that his films aren’t “spoofs,” he dicusses them amongst the titles we’re currently bandying about. This interview was in conjunction with “Hot Fuzz.” He seems to share some opinions, as well as counter a few:
Edgar Wright: “When we wrote it, it didn’t feel like, “Oh, we’ve done zombies, so let’s do cops.” In a weird way, writing this was like we were trying to make a complete departure. And now it sort of feels like, “Which genre next?” But it totally comes from affection. I would hope that this has more in common with Mel Brooks and what Tarantino does. Mel Brooks is an interesting one because he started out making films about stuff that he was totally affectionate about, like musicals, westerns, horror films, Hitchcock films. And then as they get further on and you get to Spaceballs, then it’s just kind of contrived. It’s like they’re saying, “This might be a hit” or “Maybe this will go down well.” What we did was totally out of affection for the genre: less from the idea that we sat down and asked, “What shall we spoof next?”
Edgar Wright: “I love the Zucker brothers’ films – Airplane!, Top Secret and Police Squad! – are my formative experiences. Naked Gun, the first one, but it all goes downhill from 2 1/2. As soon as Leslie Nielsen starts mugging and stops being straight, it goes south rapidly. But the recent things like Scary Movie – I loved Scream and I was already thinking, how can you do a spoof of something that’s already self-referential? It doesn’t make any sense. I’ve never seen the whole of Date Movie or Epic Movie, but I’ve seen enough of Date Movie, where somebody’s doing an impression of Napoleon Dynamite, and it just reminds me of when impressionists like Bobby Davro would be on TV doing an impression of Dame Edna Everage and just doing his own material, and you think, you can’t just do that, can you? You can’t do an impression of a comedian. And then you see a trailer for Epic Movie and you see somebody dressed as Borat, you think, is that it?”
You guys made such a buzz about YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, that I had to watch it. While pretty solid, and surprisingly involving, it’s nowhere near BLAZING SADDLES in terms of funniness.
Mycroft Holmes. Sherlock’s smarter brother. . . (re Wilder, that is). And the late, wonderful (oh I still miss him) Marty Feldman. The bare bottoms thru the ballroom scene is right up there for all time moments in my book. And now I have to give a moment of love to “Last Remake of Beau Geste”. “How’s Father?” “Still alive and dying.”
Why An American Carol doesn’t work is because its caricatures of Democrats is as much as ridiculous as its caricaturs of… Republicans! Zucker complains that Democrats like to caricature Republicans but he does the same thing! It’s like Zucker wants to be more republican than the republicans themselves!
The ACLU lawyers scene is very disturbing (as much as the Chipmunchs scene in Disaster Movie. I can’t believe I say that about a Zucker movie) as it looks like this scene was made to please some rednecks who would enjoy to see these guys killed. Shooting lawyers in the head during 3mn is definitely not funny.
Also, college teachers seeing as dangerous hippies who brainwash american kids is supposed to convince me?
And what about the Leni Riefensthal reference?
Is “Moore is a pig” really the strongest argument that you can find against Moore?
And what about the ending?
Zucker could have made the same movie in the 80′s to make fun of the Republicans!
Besides, about the ill children that Malone was supposed to financially help… does it mean it’s expensive to get cured in USA? Would a courageous director (that Zucker enjoys to laugh at, like George Mulhooney) dare to make a documentary on this fact?
I enjoyed some sequences but I had to forget the message behind. Like a good old Chuck Norris movie. And believe me, I would have liked to be convinced, especially by Zucker who seems to have a great knowledge in political History. I only found Godwin points all along the feature.
Spoofs work when they’re funny. They don’t work so well when they’re not funny. I don’t think I can explain away the rules of the genre.
One can talk about the rules of an action movie and when a movie comes along that doesn’t follow the rules but works anyway, there’s all this reverse engineering and explaining why that particular movie worked…ugh.
I just tend to think that when a movie is written well, thoughtfully casted, skillfully directed, and masterfully edited, it works.
I haven’t seen a funny spoof movie since Scary Movie 3 (I almost didn’t see it because Scary Movie 2 was so terrible). The jokes worked and I thought it was funny.
I’m just a simple man.
A little critique of the writing style of this post: A fundamental rule is that you should never assume that the reader has read the title (or the subheadings) in your copy. Your first sentence is an answer to the question in the title. Believe it or not, many readers disregard titles and jump right into the text.
In addition, and it’s less of a concrete rule, but in general it’s bad form to use questions as titles. As the New York Times style manual says, “Readers rely on [articles] to answer or discuss questions rather than dangle them.”
As bloggers we work without a net (editors), so it pays to bone up on this stuff.
@Peter: And we must follow the NYT, as they are doing so well. Seriously though, when you first come to the website, the article is right there. No one has to click on the heading to get the whole thing. It is right there.
I thought Not Another Teen Movie was funny. It was a little bit too fractured, showing the early signs of spoof writers not giving a fuck about the movie as long as the gags were there.
I did it to a chick the night that movie came out. I did it to her but GOOD too.
Rammed her.
Wow,
That was a great post — and a great education on a genre. One that I’m sure I’ll never work in, but still.
But more than that, it was a great post-mortem on how things go awry in movie land. I’ve always both understood and been frustrated by some of the poorer decisions that are made in the studio development process. I get that it’s about servicing the audience, but this is the first time I’ve understood that an audience could come to expect something they don’t even like, and that that can drive decision-making in a way that doesn’t actually lead to the desired results at the box office. Why is it that this isn’t better understood up front? Is it because sometimes executing poor ideas actually works at the box office? Because until the audience turns against you (and, in this case, rejects a whole genre), there is money to be made?
What do you think it would take (and this is probably a pipe dream) for some reasoned analysis to get injected into the equation from time to time so that the conversation is about how the early money making spoofs you mentioned actually worked so that the spoof in development can emulate that (after all, if you’re going to work to a formula, at least let it be the actual formula that worked)? Why didn’t producers/studios developing spoof movies nail down the rules of the genre? After all, they had a lot to gain from getting it right and a lot to lose from getting it wrong?
I also can’t help wondering about the writers who wrote the bad spoofs. Did they not have a good handle on the rules themselves? Not know how to persuade their collaborators? All of the above?
I’d love to hear your thoughts…
In spoofs like Young Frankenstein, Airplane, and Hot Shots you’ll get 90% of the jokes even if you haven’t watched the movies they’re spoofing. In spoofs that end in Movie or Flick you’ll get 10% of the jokes if you haven’t watched the movies they’re spoofing.
Plus getting a joke and finding it funny are two very seperate things.
Another big thing for me is that the spoofs that define the genre seem to have plots. Most are taken from other movies, but they’re still done in a way that the story of the film makes a strong base. Spoofs that fail tend to be just a series of jokes very loosely tied together. I sat through Disaster Movie in the theater (snuck in theater after watching something else). It just felt like the main character was walking through a series of MadTV sketches.
I’d really like to see a spoof of Scary Movie 3.
Craig,
I think it’s reasonable to excise ad hominem attacks from your site, but there have been quite a few thoughtful critical comments on this subject that have been cut because they aren’t flattering to you. If you’re going to tout your involvement with specific movies, you have to be prepared to take the good with the bad.
I guess it’s possible to live in such a hermetically sealed bubble that you’re completely unaware of how awful so many people think the Scary Movie series is, but I doubt that. If someone not involved with the series had written this piece, I think it would have read more like Edgar Wright’s cogent analysis as cited by Mr. Spencer.
This isn’t a personal attack on you at all, but to pretend that the decline of the genre is the fault of the people behind Date Movie is transparently not true, and transparently self-serving. A year after the failure of Superhero Movie, it would be nice to see you at least acknowledge how much of a hand you, Zucker and the Wayans have had in what’s happened to spoof movies.
I’m not a troll, and I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just think there’s an interesting article to be written here, and it’s derailed by your unwillingness to really let us in.
Aside from blaming others, have you learned anything personally from this failure? Do you think the long term downside to pandering to an audience is worth the short-term upside? Has any of this caused you to reconsider your philosophy as a writer and filmmaker?
An essay in which you discuss these things would be much, much more informative than a piece in which you blame others, and would only enhance your standing with the regulars who come here. Honesty really is the best policy.
Frank Lesher:
Generally, I delete comments that I feel are written in bad faith, i.e. intentionally disrespectful remarks that fail the “you’re just being an asshole” test.
Sometimes those comments attack me, sometimes they attack other commenters.
Your comments are critical of me, but appear intellectually honest and written in good faith, so I’m happy to host them. You and I may differ in opinion about the other comments, but tiebreak goes to the guy who runs the site.
I don’t think my points are specifically self-serving, inasmuch as I didn’t write this piece to puff myself up or justify my own work. I have no doubt that all sorts of people don’t like the movies I write. Then again, all sorts of people do. Some of the names would probably shock the hell out of you.
They sure shocked the hell out of me.
So I’m left with my own opinion to value above all others.
To answer your questions: I don’t think I failed. I do think that I was asked to do things that did pander to the audience, and I disagreed with those things (vehemently, and with a guy who is legendarily difficult to disagree with), but when faced with the choice between doing them and getting shitcanned…I chose not getting shitcanned.
Trust me, the decision was very very very close a number of times.
I don’t think pandering to an audience is ever worth it, frankly. I made the compromises I did in part because I was working with other people I respected, and I wasn’t going to abandon them in the middle. In part, I made those compromises because I felt a responsibility to the material I loved. And, of course, I made those compromises in part out of fear.
My experience with the spoof genre has caused me to reconsider one aspect of my philosophy as a writer–I don’t want to write spoof movies for studios anymore (for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I have creative ambitions that take me far from what the genre offers me as a writer). But I would be enormously naive to think that any other kind of movie is going to be compromise-free. I just hope that I do a better job of navigating those compromises when they are put to me.
That aside, I really do blame the F&S movies for what’s happened to the genre, I don’t feel any need to justify the work I did with David Zucker, Pat Proft and Jim Abrahams, and as always, I remain completely committed to not caring about my standing with the regulars who come here.
Like you said, honesty is the best policy.
Someone cited Marty Feldman’s “The Last Remake Of Beau Geste” from 1977 as a particularly lively spoof.
Back at the time, American audiences only knew Marty as a member of Mel Brooks’ stock company… as opposed to a comedic icon from the UK who had his own imitable style. Marty was an unofficial founder of Monty Python. Most of the Pythons wrote for Marty’s BBC series, including the ITV version shown in America, and animator Terry Gilliam was also predominantly featured.
When Marty made an ill fated deal to write and direct films for Universal, the studio wanted a spoof and Marty chose “Beau Geste” from their library… mistaking it for “The Four Feathers.” Regardless, he pressed on as he theorized ANY melodrama “inverted” was sufficient fodder for comedy. (Around 1974, Marty taught a course partly devoted to how to parody and satirize classic literature at the Sherwood Oaks Experimental College.)
Marty went on to make a very funny film in his homeland style, surreal and with a flippant narrative. Long before “Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid” he spliced himself into B&W scenes against classic movie stars. Marty even predated the identical twin joke Schwarzenegger and Devito enjoyed in their vehicle. “BG” was an innovative send up, as evidenced by its own prophetic title “The Last Remake…”
Nevertheless, what Universal paid for was not Marty Feldman, nor Monty Python… but a Mel Brooks style feature. Behind Marty’s back, the film was re-cut and re-scored. A more linear structure was enforced along with overtly obvious sound effects. (A kettledrum whenever anyone gets punched in the stomach.) The difference was night and day. Marty’s version was hilarious and inspired. The studio’s version was mostly hilarious, but seriously jumbled in its second half. Both versions received nearly identical test scores, so the studio went with their own. Despite the compromises, “The Last Remake of Beau Geste” went on to make money… especially foreign. (The DGA made rulings based on this incident, preventing it from happening again.)
I cite this situation because Craig’s circumstances sound similar… doing a more classical parody, unified with an exact target, versus the scattershot prerequisites of the current trends. To the bean counters, there’s no differentiating… except as to which style is more marketable and suited to the intended audience.
Craig made the correct business decision to cooperate with the studio… allowing the writer and director to live and fight another day.
What I’m left wondering is: how much of the funnier writing did Friedberg and Seltzer do on the original Scary Movie?
From what I’ve been told, F&S wrote a draft, and then the Wayans Bros. wrote a draft, but they never all worked together. I don’t know how much they contributed.
It occurred to me that spoof isn’t entirely dead when you have Reno 9-1-1 and Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire on TV and the Broken Lizard guys doing their thing (maybe Super Troopers wasn’t spoofy enough to qualify as spoof, but Beerfest certainly is).
Stuart,
Spoof is alive and well. Black Dynamite is getting some great reviews, and there’s plenty of others out there. What’s dead – hopefully – is the specific type of spoof movie the Zuckers were at the forefront of creating. I have to agree with Edgar Wright – the genre died somewhere halfway through Naked Gun 2, and hasn’t been funny since. Where it was once a smart, defiantly anti-hip type of comedy, it was mutated into a lowest common denominator kind of schlock fest by the crap that followed.
You’d be insane not to be able to see the difference in quality between Scary Movie 3 and Date Movie, but at the same time, anyone who thinks SM3 isn’t a huge dropoff from Airplane is smoking crack, too.
Dance Flick died this weekend, by the way, and that was pretty clearly a Wayans Brother movie, so I don’t think anyone’s confused by who did what. They’ve just recognized that they’re ALL crap. Whereas once they felt like the end product of a comic vision, they all feel like the end product of a marketing plan. Instead of “Hey, I like this joke!” they’ve become “Hey, the kids will love this joke!”
That’s no way to make anything of quality.
Throw some dirt on the coffin and forget about them. . . then a few years later the clutching hand will come clawing out of the sod to rejuvenate the tradition. Just like an old Count Yorga flick. Wait –have we mentioned “Love at First Bite” yet?
Uhh, never mind. You get the points.
A tangential thought: Mel Brooks produced the remake of The Fly, directed by David Cronenberg. Does the wild exaggeration and black, black humor in that movie (and Cronenberg’s other movies) bear a relation to spoof?
I’ve heard that Dimension bought the F&S script so they would be the only ones to release a Scream spoof. They didn’t want to credit them as it was a different script but F&S lawyers or agents threatened to sue them so they finally got credits.
Another rumor was that they bought the F&S screenplay, then they asked the Wayans to write a new draft based on the “concept”.
Nevertheless, a third Scream spoof called “Schriek if I know what I did…” was made with a much lower budget and a limited release the same year.
Guess what, the first Scary Movie is on cable right now. As I’m watching it, I can’t help but notice how funny the writing is. And the great cast. And the great direction.
Weird…
This has been a really enlightening post and discussion. As much as I love comedy, I’ve never tried to write any comedic scripts, and as a result I haven’t spent much time thinking about the dividing lines between comedic sub-genres. The explanation of the differences between spoof and satire is especially interesting.
And yes, speaking as a moviegoer, the fact that Superhero Movie was given that title certainly prevented me from ever considering buying a ticket. I assumed it was another Friedberg/Seltzer project. (Although, I have to admit, there hasn’t been a spoof film in several years that has appealed to me.)
I think a big problem here is that the spoof genre, like the porn genre, has largely migrated to the internet. Five-minute spoofs on sites like Funny or Die are hugely popular for a few days, then forgotten about once the entity or event being spoofed fades from memory. Studio executives think (wrongly) that the best way to compete is to load an entire 90-minute movie with the same kind of material, not realizing (a) the diminishing returns involved in doing so or (b) the impossibility of matching the timeliness of the internet.
Like Craig says, the great ZAZ films had very few overtly contemporary references in them, which is why they stand the test of time while “_____ Movie” is in the dollar bin at Best Buy before the negative cutter’s check has cashed.
I just saw American Carol, or at least as much as I could stomach. Craig, where do you stand on this film? Do you think a movie that cheerfully applauds the murder of ACLU attorneys falls within the realm of spoof comedy?
See, I’d say that the makeout scene is, on one hand, more “spoof” than the random jokes (like the kitten in the turkey, Drake’s beard, etc.) but, on the other, is also one of the main problems with modern spoof.
I think most modern spoofs are more like a collection of sketches than a cohesive film. The random jokes you mentioned are funny but they are additional broad elements, not the core of a spoof movie. Today, it’s like the plot is simply a device to get to the next set piece. I’m finishing up a spec TV spoof pilot and my approach is to just write a cop show but make it over-the-top and ridiculous (and, of course, peppering in some physical/broad comedy). Personally, I think it works better.
What I’m trying to stay away from, however, are direct references. This is where your example gets into trouble. If you look at many of the best spoofs, people often don’t even know what film they are mocking. As you said, nobody saw Zero Hour!, most people didn’t get that Austin Powers was mocking the Flint movies as much (if not more) than the Bond films.
So while having to directly reference Spiderman might have been a drag, I think the idea of spoofing relationships in Superhero films and the difficulty of hooking up/dating with a superhero could be prime spoof territory. Personally, I think the key to the Spidey makeout scene would be to work it into the story so that it’s a funny joke but also stands on its own for those who didn’t see Spiderman. All too often, I think the reference alone is most of the joke.
I agree with all of that. We tried to fit a joke in with that moment, but it didn’t really earn its way in.
“most people didn’t get that Austin Powers was mocking the Flint movies as much (if not more) than the Bond films”
And the Flint films themselves were parodies of Bond films.
It seems that Paramount is planning a fourth Naked Gun directly for the dvd market. Written by Alan Spencer, creator of Sledge Hammer, the screenplay got good reviews on some websites.
Cool. Are they making it, Alan?
David and I approached them a few years ago about trying to revive TNG for theatrical, but they seemed convinced it was a DVD property. I was kind of surprised. I think a new TNG could succeed in theaters, but it’s extremely casting-dependent.
Craig:
I agree about TNG still working in theaters, as I reinvented the premise for the forensic and procedural age, which is one of the main reasons I took the gig. I wrote it like a theatrical and not some video movie. After all, every other name brand is being revived… but the feature division felt this title had run its course. Probably because it wasn’t character driven so much and its star, the primary association with the public, overdosed on parodies.
I also did it because it was important to have a friend in court for ZAZ there, as the division was talking to someone that penned “National Lampoon” video flicks and ZAZ had no legal recourse to stop this. I control the movie rights to “Sledge Hammer!” and was able to curtail attempts that didn’t sit well with me, like casting Larry “The Cable” Guy in the lead.
If a reboot of TNG ever gets made, it needs to be supervised by someone from the original team… which is what I kept saying over and over. It also needs a more substantial budget than what they were talking. I was fighting for quality control and let’s just say I clashed over the perception this style is easy for just anybody to do. One person they brought in actually claimed “Naked Gun” movies probably “only take two or three weeks to write.” I said that’s not true and they also use spell check.
The feature division was aware of the strong response to the script, but was waiting to see how the dance parody performed… and now most of the key execs just got shit-canned today. That’s where it lays.
I’ve been negotiating over the last three months for a new TV show in the “Sledge Hammer!” vein and will also be the first time I’ve done something for cable. Thanks to your column, I’m going out of my way never to refer to it as a spoof… and only as a satire of spoofs.
I must admit TNG “for the forensic and procedural age” does sound absolutely rife for some dead-pan fun.
Alan Spencer : Glad to read that from you.It definitely should be supervised by Zucker or one of his fellow spoofwriters, at least one of the original writers of the trilogy. We can see that you really respect the genre and as the Sledge Hammer creator, you’re the best non-ZAZ (I include Pat Proft, Bob LoCash and Craig Mazin in the ZAZ team) writer for the job.
It must have been hard to write in these conditions. I thought the “spoof is easy to write” argument to be only read on internet forums… not coming from the mouth of a professional. Besides, it’s very insulting for people who make them.
For a dtv, an actor like Simon Rex as the lead character would be a clever choice in my opinion. But Naked Gun is very related to Leslie Nielsen and we’ve seen many movies or series which have failed to “recreate the magic” with the “new generation” concept. It was very clever from you to bring it in a new direction (dark cop movies as it was reviewed) so we couldn’t really compare the trilogy with the new one. If they don’t do it, I’d like to find a way to read your script.
In a way, I understand them (excepted for them to wait for the “Dance Flick” performance… It has non-sense to think “they didn’t buy a ticket for a spoof so they wouldn’t rent a dtv spoof.” These are two different things, two different markets. Audience doesn’t react the same way to both things.) but I’d be the first one who’d like to see GOOD spoof movies back on theaters.
I hope movie poster spoofs aren’t dead…Mean Streets + One-Sheets = MeanSheets!