3 ms·

Calling an Ipod MyPod pretty well points to the feeling of superiority you can get by buying a expensive fashionable product. This is just one example of a crit

by zupatol 18y ago

Calling an Ipod MyPod pretty well points to the feeling of superiority you can get by buying a expensive fashionable product. This is just one example of a critical and relevant joke which was funny enough to make me laugh. What you call inaccuracies seemed to me just like exaggerations, something every comedian uses. Apple's beautiful posters probably did make white headphones more fashionable, and someone with white headphones probably would be embarassed not to have the corresponding Ipod. Mapple selling MyPhonies sums this up very nicely and also made me laugh. The whole thing made me laugh more than the simpsons movie. I think this is mainly because they chose a good target. I have mixed feelings about apple which makes excellent products but is also surrounded by a consumerist hype which makes me feel uneasy. The hype is not very much criticised, at least not around me. I see people generally critical of well-marketed brands suddenly buying Ipods and Iphones. So this simpsons episode feels like a breath of fresh air.

unalone 18y ago
"Critical and relevant?" You can say that about pretty much any joke that states the obvious. I could call the I'm a Mac ad that has Hodgman not saying "Vista" critical and relevant, because it's got a grain of truth. But that commercial's a commercial, not a comedy show, and if The Simpsons had made a similar joke it would have been below their standards. (Also in its defense: the ad is far more polished.) What you call inaccuracies seemed to me just like exaggerations, something every comedian uses. The difference between good comedy and bad is how the exaggeration's used. The best exaggerations lie with the unexpected: I like using Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition bit as an example. Nobody does expect the Spanish Inquisition, which is what's so funny. Or take Carlin's Seven Words. The words are all so shocking and he goes by them so often that part of the humor's greatness is that by the end he's succeeded in making those words sound mundane, commonplace. But neither sketch stops there. The Spanish Inquisition sketch goes on with the repeated mantra, Seven Words makes a set of brilliant jokes over the the top of the message: "These words are no different. This is all ludicrous." This was more an instance of lazy humor. It was The Simpsons repeating the same general idea - "Apple is overpriced and people love it anyway" - without a hint of cleverness. They bludgeon people with the idea. Some of the soundbites they give are apt for people to take and mock Apple with, but that's not going to make them any more accurate. (There were a few hints of clever - "myPhonies" was a clever name pun even if the concept was poor - but I can't forgive The Simpsons if in 6 minutes they only had one or two clever moments. Not when the general quality of the humor is so poor.) The whole thing made me laugh more than the simpsons movie. That is an incredibly low bar. The Simpsons Movie was an example of The Simpsons at its worst, relying on cliche and repeated memes rather than ever creating genuinely funny humor. I think this is mainly because they chose a good target. I have mixed feelings about apple which makes excellent products but is also surrounded by a consumerist hype which makes me feel uneasy. The hype is not very much criticised, at least not around me. I see people generally critical of well-marketed brands suddenly buying Ipods and Iphones. The hype's incredibly criticized. Usually it's by anti-Apple people, and usually it's their only argument, which just makes the rift worse. When I argue why I use a Mac to a group of Linux-using coders, they respond by dismissing my ideas and saying, "You're only using it because of the commercials." Which in turn pisses me off and makes me less willing to listen to their arguments, now or in the future. The Simpsons is doing the same thing: they're not making good arguments. They're just blindly lobbing around parody with neither rhyme nor reason. It's beneath them. And I've already had people start quoting that at me - "myPhonies! See, Apple's for queeros who like shitty things!" - and I hate it. It's such a waste of time and it kills what might be a perfectly good argument. I can see where you're coming from. I just think that The Simpsons could have skewered Apple much more effectively than they did. And that failure to craft a good series of jokes annoys me. I don't like that Family Guy is better-written than The Simpsons. That feels unnatural to me.
- zupatol 18y ago
  You do sound like a mac user who has heard too much criticism. That's why I wrote I didn't hear a lot of criticism around me. If everybody was in your place, that simpson episode would indeed make no sense. I am in an opposite situation, and for me the general direction of the humor hit a nerve. This makes some jokes funny even if they are not clever, but as you say, there were also some clever ones. It's not a good idea to compare the funny things you come across with Monty Python. You may never laugh again.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Nah. There's a lot of ridiculously funny stuff out there. (I mention "Achewood" at every turn I get, because it's criminally unread.) Your point of view makes a lot of sense. I guess that when I wrote long like I did, people assumed I was making a definitive statement. But mine's just a point of view like any other.

by zupatol 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

"Critical and relevant?" You can say that about pretty much any joke that states the obvious. I could call the I'm a Mac ad that has Hodgman not saying "Vista" critical and relevant, because it's got a grain of truth. But that commercial's a commercial, not a comedy show, and if The Simpsons had made a similar joke it would have been below their standards. (Also in its defense: the ad is far more polished.) What you call inaccuracies seemed to me just like exaggerations, something every comedian uses. The difference between good comedy and bad is how the exaggeration's used. The best exaggerations lie with the unexpected: I like using Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition bit as an example. Nobody does expect the Spanish Inquisition, which is what's so funny. Or take Carlin's Seven Words. The words are all so shocking and he goes by them so often that part of the humor's greatness is that by the end he's succeeded in making those words sound mundane, commonplace. But neither sketch stops there. The Spanish Inquisition sketch goes on with the repeated mantra, Seven Words makes a set of brilliant jokes over the the top of the message: "These words are no different. This is all ludicrous." This was more an instance of lazy humor. It was The Simpsons repeating the same general idea - "Apple is overpriced and people love it anyway" - without a hint of cleverness. They bludgeon people with the idea. Some of the soundbites they give are apt for people to take and mock Apple with, but that's not going to make them any more accurate. (There were a few hints of clever - "myPhonies" was a clever name pun even if the concept was poor - but I can't forgive The Simpsons if in 6 minutes they only had one or two clever moments. Not when the general quality of the humor is so poor.) The whole thing made me laugh more than the simpsons movie. That is an incredibly low bar. The Simpsons Movie was an example of The Simpsons at its worst, relying on cliche and repeated memes rather than ever creating genuinely funny humor. I think this is mainly because they chose a good target. I have mixed feelings about apple which makes excellent products but is also surrounded by a consumerist hype which makes me feel uneasy. The hype is not very much criticised, at least not around me. I see people generally critical of well-marketed brands suddenly buying Ipods and Iphones. The hype's incredibly criticized. Usually it's by anti-Apple people, and usually it's their only argument, which just makes the rift worse. When I argue why I use a Mac to a group of Linux-using coders, they respond by dismissing my ideas and saying, "You're only using it because of the commercials." Which in turn pisses me off and makes me less willing to listen to their arguments, now or in the future. The Simpsons is doing the same thing: they're not making good arguments. They're just blindly lobbing around parody with neither rhyme nor reason. It's beneath them. And I've already had people start quoting that at me - "myPhonies! See, Apple's for queeros who like shitty things!" - and I hate it. It's such a waste of time and it kills what might be a perfectly good argument. I can see where you're coming from. I just think that The Simpsons could have skewered Apple much more effectively than they did. And that failure to craft a good series of jokes annoys me. I don't like that Family Guy is better-written than The Simpsons. That feels unnatural to me.

zupatol 18y ago
You do sound like a mac user who has heard too much criticism. That's why I wrote I didn't hear a lot of criticism around me. If everybody was in your place, that simpson episode would indeed make no sense. I am in an opposite situation, and for me the general direction of the humor hit a nerve. This makes some jokes funny even if they are not clever, but as you say, there were also some clever ones. It's not a good idea to compare the funny things you come across with Monty Python. You may never laugh again.
- unalone 18y ago
  Nah. There's a lot of ridiculously funny stuff out there. (I mention "Achewood" at every turn I get, because it's criminally unread.) Your point of view makes a lot of sense. I guess that when I wrote long like I did, people assumed I was making a definitive statement. But mine's just a point of view like any other.