You disagree that they’re a similar style of comedy? Good Boys is essentially a remake of Superbad with younger kids and with the problematic rapey elements taken out.
2 Likes
There are far less comedies than their used to be, especially of this type, which of course predate Apatow.
These two films are both pre-pandemic. That’s years ago now.
So there does seem to be less focus on comedies in theaters in recent years. It’s debatable if Apatow has anything to do with it, but it’s clearly not as popular now as it was when he was really making films.
1 Like
I know it’s a dumb film, but Me, Myself and Irene never fails to make me laugh at multiple points along the way.
2 Likes
That’s a fair point. My examples could be the exceptions that prove the rule or vestiges of a dying style of comedy. It’s undeniable that there are fewer of these types of comedies. But he did directly make the King of Staten Island recently and I consider that an instant classic. I do love analyzing movies but with comedies thought isn’t required to determine if a film was effective at it’s agenda. If I laughed out loud, it was an effective comedy. If I didn’t, it wasn’t. That movie made me laugh, therefore Apatow is still making effective comedies. If you watched and didn’t laugh, that can be chalked up to diversity of sense of humor and there’s probably not much more to debate.
2 Likes
Exactly.
And, as funny as it remains, Samurai Deli would not make it to air today.
1 Like
YES!! This is all I have to say to the whining comedians (Seinfeld and that POS Bill Maher come to mind), especially when they complain about not being able to play college campuses any more: Get some new material, dudes. I picked up a Milton Berle joke book from a free pile at a yard sale last year. There’s not ONE funny joke in the entire thing! Maybe that garbage got some laughs in 1966, but they suck horribly now.
4 Likes
1 Like
No, but see, it’s the kids who are wrong… the woke-ass kids. /s
Every major comedian working today believes he’s (cause it’s always the dudes, rarely the women) the heir to Carlin (or Lenny Bruce, or whatever). The truth is there was only ONE Carlin. The sooner these whiny manbabies stop acting like they are entitled to laughs and respect just for saying rude words about oppressed people, and start putting out work that actually engages the audience and speaks some actual truth to power, the sooner they’ll start getting laughs from people who are reactionary assholes who lack a sense of humor.
3 Likes
As of 2016 Seinfeld was still trying to make audiences laugh with jokes about TV dinners.
1 Like
Maybe that garbage got some laughs in 1966, but they suck horribly now.
So, I grabbed some of Poggio’s material, from the 15th century. Old, out of date jokes, originally in Latin and poorly translated to English. But here’s the thing: they can still play. You just have to recontextualize them, and you have to put yourself into the mind of someone from that time period and understand what they intended as funny about the joke, and what remains funny and how you bridge the gap.
I mean, Poggio’s material is mostly “my co-workers are dumb,” “get a load of these rednecks,” and “women like sex.” That last one was a misogynist trope in the era, but in 2022, it doesn’t hit the same way.
2 Likes
Same. I was in HS at the time that the show was supposed to depict - I would have been a freshman.
Probably why my mom also loved it, because she lived through those years with us, of course.
6 Likes
Good point. Many comedians have lived through cultural shifts as dramatic as now, yet found a way to continue reaching audiences without punching down.
Yeah, which makes the ending all that much more egregious. They’re the kind of people who should know better, but their version of success just looks an awful lot like the jocks’.
6 Likes
Good point!
Also, I know it’s not a movie, but Schitt’s Creek managed 5 seasons of hilarity without punching down or being cruel. IMO, one of the best of recent comedies.
12 Likes
14 Likes
Absolutely, and put that down to a lack of vision of writer. Maybe the writers DID know better, maybe they, like the nation in general, didn’t quite have a vision of what an alternate version of ‘victory’ would look like. The constraints of narrative demand that someone win, and that win has to be recognizable to the general audience. In 198whatever, win = win the contest (social approval), get the girl(s), assume the ‘cultural leadership’ role once occupied by the bad guys and punish them (by treating them as poorly as they treated the heroes).
We liked, and still very much like, unambiguous black and white morality. X is good. Y is bad. No further discussion is needed.
1 Like
That “get” is doing some heavy lifting. 
I think comedy is cyclical. In the 80s there was a period on tv when there were no sitcoms (and they had been network tv’s bread and butter in the 70s). Then they came back full force. Judd Apatow was a flavor that went out of fashion. Someone else will come in fashion.
Another great example is Kim’s Convenience. I hesitate to suggest Corner Gas as well, because it’s more of an acquired taste, but in general look no further than Canada to see what topical, social comedy without punching down looks like.
It seems like American dudes think you can’t be funny without being a dick to someone. At least, they can’t seem to. A whole generation of them seem to have been raised on the idea that being rude and saying what bigots wish they could say is an automatic trip to an HBO special and sitcom. I guess for a long time it was.
6 Likes
When do you mean?
Golden Girls, Cheers, Diff’rent Strokes, ALF, Night Court, Benson, Small Wonder, 227, Family Ties, Perfect Strangers, Facts of Life, Designing Women, Kate & Allie… I know there were more but these are some I remember watching.
11 Likes
I didn’t say the entire decade was devoid of sitcoms, but there was a period when they went away.
