
It's hard to laugh at what used to be funny - abe-epton
http://abetriesagain.blogspot.com/2009/06/its-hard-to-laugh-at-what-used-to-be.html
======
snprbob86
There'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
_There'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).

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Didn't you just say the same thing as the guy you replied to?

From your first line I was expecting a rebuttal.

~~~
froo
Actually I thought I explained it well enough.

He's saying that Pixar films outpace Dreamworks films from an artistic point
of view, because they both use the animation artform to tell their story.

I'm saying that both studios have different primary goals, one is squarely
focussed on maximising profits while the other is more focussed on 3D
animation as an artform (which is apparent given its catmull/lasseter
pedigree).

That would be like trying to compare the artistic values of a Tarantino film
to a Michael Bay film, which nobody in their right mind would - yet because
the two studios use animation as an artform (instead of filming actors in the
tarantino vs bay scenario which would be a classic apples vs oranges
argument), people automatically lump them together... which is fundamentally
wrong.

Now if you want to discuss two animation studios which have similar goals -
Pixar vs Blue Sky Studios is definitely good for comparison, Pixar vs
Dreamworks, however, is not.

~~~
snprbob86
You should have read my entire message:

"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."

You simply rehashed what I said, added some angst, accused me of comparing
apples to oranges. You then proceeded to compare the same apples to the same
oranges. Evidently, you can compare them; we both drew the same comparison.
So... I'm confused... what's the problem here?

~~~
froo
Actually, I thought I had added additional information about technical
proficiency in that same post but I got it mixed up with something else I
argued some weeks ago on here.

The only way to accurately compare the two would be on a technical proficiency
and currently, Dreamworks edges out Pixar in that department, but by such a
small margin that it's almost negligible.

If we were to do a year by year comparison, UP and Monsters Vs Aliens were
very similar (although some of the lighting in UP was fantastic, Jeremy Birn
does some great stuff, I've read his book, fascinating stuff)

Last year though, Kung Fu Panda was simply astounding from a complexity issue.
Fur + Cloth and having cloth interact with that fur, especially when you're
considering the fact that the character rigs have to do very complex manouvers
to perform the kung fu moves... that's simply astounding.

Even moreso when you consider that when the cloth was interacting with fur, it
would flatten it when it would move over, with the fur springing back up
afterwards (eg, master shifu) - Cloth + Fur are typically the hardest things
to do in 3D, so having both work, plus on the scale that some of the scenes
did (the revealing of the dragon warrior + the crowd) shows just how amazing
the film was.

------
joel_feather
It 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.

~~~
maarek
True, but "Who's on First" is still one of the funniest things you can find.
Not all humor needs to be fresh.

~~~
WilliamLP
It's funny the first few times you hear it.

------
rms
I'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
That'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
I guess I'll try and work on it.

------
danbmil99
Python 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

------
zimbabwe
The 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.

~~~
chops
I 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
But 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
_Meta-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
I 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.

