Comments on: Weak ‘Funny People’ Box Office Shows What Audiences Really Want

By: JeffPerren

JeffPerren — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:30:57 +0000

"Apatow’s Knocked Up and Sandler’s Bedtime Stories were both excellent films that did very well at the box office."

Uh, huh. This is exactly why I rarely see a film made post-1965. There's nothing excellent about vulgarity, and nothing funny about it, no matter what alleged values it tries to smuggle in. I'll save my dollars for a copy of genuinely excellent, funny films like Adam's Rib, The Philadelphia Story, Bringing Up Baby, or even Monkey Business.

"Filmmakers in general must learn that vulgarity, explicit sexual content, absurd story lines, mad violence, and the like are not what appeal to most of their audience film-goers attend movies with such content because of the other good things in the films, specifically the positive messages and aesthetic enjoyment to be found behind the trashy surface nonsense. Emphasizing the former is the way to both artistic and audience success."

Well said.

By: maatkare

maatkare — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:06:48 +0000

Different take at the NYT, but similar themes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10douth...

And let's be real: clearly what audiences want are movies based on 80's cartoons & toy lines! And talking guinea pigs!!

By: maatkare

maatkare — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:06:40 +0000

Different take at the NYT, but similar themes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10douth...

And let's be real: clearly what audiences want movies based on 80's cartoons & toy lines! And talking guinea pigs!!

By: Gary

Gary — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:37:02 +0000

Critiquing Judd Apatow's or Adam Sandler's movies is like trying to find plot and coherence in kindergarden playground exchanges (a place where language is noticeably more adult).

Films like the "Forty-Year-Old Virgin," "Knocked Up," and "Funny People" are aimed at pick-pocketing adolescent audiences, to whom sex is still just dirty words, fantasy, and masturbation.

Hollywood needs a new ratings system, in which Apatow-like films are labeled "suitable only for DDIQT" (Drooling Double-Digit IQ Teens).

By: Jettboy

Jettboy — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:19:43 +0000

I completely disagree. Open-intelligent films, especially comedies, aren't made and haven't been for some time. The dominant stupid audience has been created by Hollywood be not making enough openly-intelligent films, ergo audiences don't expect a movie to be that anymore. I also vehemently disagree that this film would be in that category anyway.

By: Jettboy

Jettboy — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:15:50 +0000

You are not alone. There was a time when comedy was about humor and not the latest fart or sex jokes. Sadly, I have to watch "Wizzards of Waverly Place" and "Spongebob Square Pants" to get a hint of that anymore. You know, shows for kids in order to get sometimes adult-minded humor.

By: CBK

CBK — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 03:07:04 +0000

I like Sandler and Apatow, but haven't had time to see Funny People. Is it just me, or does it seem odd for a blogger to critique the appeal or lack thereof of a film he admits he's not seen? I'm reminded of the travel agents in "Waiting for Guffman" who've never actually left their small Missouri hamlet.

By: Sarah Nichole

Sarah Nichole — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:37:34 +0000

Happy Gilmore is great. How can you not find something to snicker over in that one?

By: Raven

Raven — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:30:59 +0000

Quite right. And the premise of the thread itself is rather silly. People don't know what they want until they see it and studios don't really know what people want until the people lay down their sheckles for it. And furthermore art is about trying and sometimes failing. Funny People is a decent human comedy and will do fine, and so will Apatow and Sandler. Not everything can be a blockbuster.

By: ScottDS

ScottDS — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:59:38 +0000

I'm only 26 and I do like Apatow (I find myself more a fan of the films he's produced like Superbad than the ones he's directed). However, I find some of the aforementioned films (Blazing Saddles, Airplane!, etc.) infinitely more watchable than Apatow's stuff. I own them on DVD and/or Blu-Ray yet I have no interest in owning Apatow's stuff, except for Superbad. I can't even explain it. Maybe the pop culture references date his films whereas Airplane!, Ghostbusters, etc. are relatively timeless movies. And in Apatow's movies, I can tell when the actors are improvising which is practically a sin. With the other movies, I laugh not at the profanity (for the most part) but the clever gags and puns. Hell, I smile when I think of George Kennedy saying, "Ted… why?" in The Naked Gun after getting shot with the cufflink dart.

Sorry, but I do think Porky's is funny but the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. American Pie was great in its day (ten years ago) but I find it's a bit dated (I liked the second one better for some reason). There's Something About Mary I thought was totally overrated but I should probably see it again.

My thesis is this: will people still be talking about and quoting from 40-Year Old Virgin (which I liked but it DIDN'T deserve the four stars my local paper gave it) in twenty years the same way we talk about Caddyshack, Animal House, and the various Landis/Reitman/Brooks/ZAZ films?