7 ms·
It's hard to laugh at what used to be funny
- zimbabwe 17y agoThe Simpsons was never a brilliant show. It was good, and you can still watch old Simpsons and enjoy it, but it was never mindboggling genius. Ditto Monty Python. For all the clever ideas, the execution often left something to be desired. Once you know the skits, you start to realize how poorly many of them are done. Monty Python has some exceptions, however: the Life of Brian has some excellent moments, and post-Python many of the team members did some great stuff. In a way we can relate that to startups and design. If you have a brilliant new idea, then you're a gem up to the moment that somebody else does your idea better or goes further with it. If you take an old idea but polish it till it shines, you don't have the same novelty but you've got something that will last for a long time. I can't think of much TV to compare to, however, because most television is so incredibly poor. Arrested Development, perhaps? I can see that one withstanding the test of time.
- gruseom 17y agoMonty Python were certainly uneven, but if there's ever been any sketch comedy that can touch them at their best, I'd love to see it. I disagree with the premise of the article too. Great comedy is timeless. The stuff that wears off is the stuff that didn't go very deep to begin with.
- zimbabwe 17y agoMonty Python's the best sketch comedy I've ever seen, don't get me wrong. I have the complete set, and it's the standard by which I judge all other sketch comedy. At the same time, as you said, they were very unpolished. Sometimes they'd ruin good jokes with bad acting. When everything aligned, as it did in, say, the courtroom scene, or the parrot sketch, they were stunning. The Simpsons very occasionally had moments like that, but returning to their earlier work I found that they too rarely were full-blown terrific. They faded with time not because good things fade, but because they weren't as good as we thought when we were younger and less experienced in comedy. Meanwhile, Shakespeare's comedies are still hilarious, and they've lasted for centuries.
- chops 17y agoI will have to disagree. While I'm not a huge fan of The Simpsons, I can recognize that the comedic landscape is forever changed as a result of The Simpsons and Monty Python. In dismissing those that implemented the idea first, you're minimizing the genius involved. Things like humor just become dated, that doesn't mean that it isn't genius for its time. It just becomes so integrated into society that we become immune to it. It'd be like suggesting Newton wasn't a genius because a 12-year-old can understand Newtonian mechanics. There are those gems that survive the test of time and remain funny (for me: "Who's on First", "Caddyshack", "Office Space", "Dumb and Dumber"), but that doesn't minimize the landscape altering humor of such stuff as Austin Powers, South Park, Napoleon Dynamite, even if you're sick of hearing "Yeah Baby, Yeah!" And yes, Arrested Development is bloody amazing.
- zimbabwe 17y agoBut that's exactly what I said. The Simpsons implemented an idea, then, as other people implemented as well, their original triumph became dated. That doesn't always happen, because if the end result is really labored away on, then it lasts the test of time, at least to some degree. South Park is actually a good example, where even as it's no longer the most offensive thing out there, you can still get a big kick out of Season 3 because they were putting in some genuinely brilliant jokes.
- chops 17y agoMeta-comment: I think people are being excessively harsh in downvoting you. Your comments are contributing to the topic at hand. People shouldn't be downvoting you simply for disagreeing. Back on Topic: But as you said, I don't think we disagree all that much, though I do feel that brilliance or genius can be attributed to something that is extremely funny at first, but may diminish in strength over time. Indeed, I have a feeling that perhaps the funniest stuff (laughing out loud and peeing your pants funny) is the stuff that eventually gets old, because it becomes overused.
- yason 17y agoI don't think how poorly a skit is done affects its quality. Most of original comedy comes from the cheap early times when the team was on a low budget and nobody but them really believed in the show. Fame probably has a negative effect since once you got something you start worrying about losing it and then you're likely to stop being original.
- zimbabwe 17y agoYou just babbled a lot. I don't think how poorly a skit is done affects its quality. There's a difference between idea and execution. You can have a good idea and pull it off shittily, or you can take a bad idea and make it work brilliantly. Most of original comedy comes from the cheap early times when the team was on a low budget and nobody but them really believed in the show. Fame probably has a negative effect since once you got something you start worrying about losing it and then you're likely to stop being original. Do your research a bit more. This is not at all a common trend. Comedians are like normal people: Most of them don't feel the need to innovate at all. But the ones that do tend to be unaffected by fame insofar as it affects their comedy. George Carlin, Ricky Gervais. Gervais especially, as he possibly outdid his original work in response to becoming famous.
- rms 17y agoI've found my humor threshold has increased dramatically over the last few years. I'm not really sure why; it just takes a lot more to make me laugh than it used to.
- snprbob86 17y agoThat's a sad story. Personally, I tend to laugh at everything as much as I possibly can. I've heard that you live longer. And even if that's a lie, I'm living better.
- rms 17y agoI guess I'll try and work on it.
- DanielBMarkham 17y agoMe too. I'm also able to readily distinguish humor that is clever from simply things that make you laugh because they are publicly embarrassing. Seems like a lot of comedians made a lot of money coming up with the most shocking and socially embarrassing material possible and then watching the audience nervously laugh in response. Richard Pryor was really good at this. As social mores change, this kind of shock humor wears off, only to be outdone by the next generation. But the classics, the Carlins and Pythons and such, they'll be funny a hundred years from now.
- smanek 17y agoCompletely off topic: I just want to say I've never seen anyone other than Tocqueville use 'mores.' Bravo, sir ;-)
- DLWormwood 17y agoDidn't you read the article? ...they mentioned that FOX flagged their use of the word "groin" as being potentially offensive. Imagining, in this post-Family Guy/South Park world, that the word "groin" was problematic so recently really makes me marvel at how quickly social mores can change.)
- snprbob86 17y agoThere's a bit of the whole Dreamworks vs Pixar thing. Monsters vs Aliens was cute, timely, and throughly enjoyable. UP was downright brilliant and clearly timeless. Pixar consistently produces a form of the art that is simply higher than Dreamworks can even approach. We see this in stand up as well. There are comedians who are topical, or who test social norms. And then there are comedians like Brian Regan who tell jokes which appeal to everyone and always will. And then there are comedians like George Carlin who tells jokes which are topical, test social norms, AND manage to age well. There's nothing wrong with telling jokes which don't age well. It's easier. If you're going to do a show which runs every night, or every week, for many many seasons: for goodness sake, tell some jokes with short shelf life! You'll never make it otherwise. If you make a great animated film, and people pay to come see it, and they walk out with a smile on their faces, and that's what you set out to do: you have succeeded. If you wanted to make sure they were still smiling, after the 100th viewing, 20 years from now... well... then you're going to produce fewer movies, and you're going to work harder to do it. And maybe you go home more fulfilled at the end of the day. Or maybe you don't. shrug
- froo 17y agoThere's a bit of the whole Dreamworks vs Pixar thing. Ok here we go... Pixar consistently produces a form of the art that is simply higher than Dreamworks can even approach. The thing about that is, that the two studios produce films for completely different markets. Dreamworks focusses directly on producing films for children (with a few outliers) and Pixar focusses on producing films for everyone (with a few outliers) Pixar's process is more story focussed than other studios, A typical Pixar film usually has a 4 year production cycle in which the first two of those are spent primarily on writing and rewriting the story to get the "feel" right. Even then, they have no problem with changing the story at the 11th hour. Case in point - WALL-E's ending was originally very different with WALL-E originally saving EVE from the trash compactors (essentially larger versions of WALL-E for irony). After the film was complete and was screened in Portland, Andrew Stanton changed the ending to what it is today. The story flows better. Compare that to something Dreamworks. Dreamworks focusses on making films which are more technically proficient and aimed at children (Kung Fu Panda was astounding from a technical standpoint and dominated the "Annies" last year, which is the animation industries version of the Emmys). Dreamworks are more focussed on the business side, rather than the entertainment side of the process. That's also why Dreamworks films are typically heavily backed by merchandising and advertising blitzes, because of this focus. So it's difficult to compare the two, it would be like saying a Michael Bay film is comparable to a Tarantino film. The fact is, they have different markets and so approach the filmmaking process in different ways. Nobody in their right mind would try and compare the two film styles. Lastly, before you try and judge Dreamworks' animation pedigree, Jeffrey Katzenberg co-founded the studio and he was responsible for the classic Disney franchsies between 88 and 94 like The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast (which I might add is the ONLY animation film EVER to be nominated for best film at the Oscars).
- danbmil99 17y agoPython lives on because it is uber-genius. Same with the Marx Brothers. Not every artist has what it takes to outlive an age. The Beatles come to mind. As opposed to, say, Donovan (google him) [edit]: another example: Richard Pryor, vs most other standups from his era
- yason 17y agoI just consider time a very good test of whether a comedy, a show, or a movie has any originality in it. I still laugh at many of them dating back 10-30 years but for some it's just plain obvious that they were never genuinely funny.
- joel_feather 17y agoIt has nothing to do with the humour becoming dated. It has to do with the humour being fresh. Humour by definition involves people suprising you. People you know very well have a much lesser ability to surprise you, and their attempts at humour fade from make you roll on the floor with laughter to simply smiling. Comedy has to stay fresh and constantly reinvent itself. It has to run to stay at the same spot.