Before
you start reading this, keep in mind that this is not a real assignment. This
is just a blog I wanted to write about. I want to write about an observation of
the Parody genre and analyze parody movies from the 20th century and
the more recent movies. Enjoy.
Step 3: “Who and what are the
characters?”
Characters
in parodies are obvious spoofs of the characters from the original source. They
have similarities to the original characters while making them different in
character as well. The leading lady in “Scary Movie”, Cindy Campbell,
portrayed by Anna Faris, sounds similar to Sydney Prescott from “Scream”
portrayed by Neve Campbell. Parts of both names are used for Cindy’s
name. Cindy also aims to resemble Jennifer Love Hewitt from “I Know What You
Did Last Summer”, which is why Anna Faris dyed her hair from blonde to black.
Although elements from the two characters are used for Cindy, her character is
very different from the other two. Cindy is a naïve, clumsy, and a charming
girl. She’s very adaptable, she’s a bit of an odd-ball, and when she has to,
she becomes an unstoppable and unbeatable force of destruction. “Scary Movie”
has its own, original character.
Lone
Starr in “Spaceballs” is a nice blend of the characters of Luke Skywalker and
Han Solo; he intends to do the right thing, but at first if the pay is good.
Dark Helmet is an impatient and irritated villain, making him different from
Darth Vader. Princess Vespa is a pretentious Jewish American Princess, but
she’s likable. The main villain, President Scroob is a high ranking leader that
parodies the role that The Emperor (Darth Sidious) instead of the character;
he doesn’t wear a black cloak, he dresses like a politician.
“Superhero
Movie” has its own characters as well. Being a parody of “Spiderman”, the main
character does not become Spiderman or even a Spiderman look-alike; he becomes
an entirely new character called the Dragonfly. The villain as well is
original; not being a Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus knock-off, he’s a new villain
called Hourglass. Admittedly, for the most part, Dragonfly and Hourglass’
characters and back-stories are close to their original counterparts, but the
new designs and powers help provide some originality.
The
characters in “Epic movie” are not original at all. Their names are exactly the
same as the heroes from “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”; Lucy, Edmund,
Peter, and Susan. There is no character; the four just stand around pointing at
the references. Speaking of references, the characters from other movies that
are being referenced are unbelievably out of character. Agent Neville Flynn
from “Snakes on a Plane” wouldn’t throw an innocent passenger out of an
airplane, Ignacio from “Nacho Libre” wouldn’t confess to the entire orphanage
that he’s secretly a lucha libre without them discovering that earlier and the
priests of the orphanage should be offended by Ignacio being a lucha libre, and
Willy Wonka wouldn’t kill anyone (or would he?).
The
characters in these parodies fill the void of roles to play; Cindy Campbell is
the charming main hero, Dark Helmet from “Spaceballs” is the comedic and
menacing-enough villain, Coach Lambeau Fields from “The Comebacks” (2007) is
the incompetent football coach, Barf from “Spaceballs” is the loyal friend, and
Brenda Meeks from “Scary Movie” is the stereotypical BFF. Those characters
portray the roles in their movies. In “Epic Movie”, the characters don’t really
portray any roles; they just fill the void of the audience by watching and
pointing out the references. The main characters aren’t heroic or charming and
the villains aren’t menacing, they copy evil plans from other movies and
partake in rap numbers.
Step
4: “How should the comedy be executed?”
Usually,
comedy is well-written, light-hearted and most important of all: funny. An
example from “Blazing Saddles” is when Sherriff Bart defeats the giant Mongo by
using his newly invented candy-gram technique, where he hands Mongo a box that
he says is full of candy, but it’s really full of explosives. As Mongo opens
the box, Bart walks away, plugs his ears and the “Looney Toons” theme plays
briefly. Mongo opens the box, it explodes in a cartoonish note and Mongo has
been defeated, but he’s still alive and well. The scene is harmless, funny, and it shows
that Bart is quick to come up with a brilliant plan and that Mongo is very slow
to see the trap.
In
“Dance Flick”, Sugar Bear portrayed by David Alan Grier, is an over-the-top
morbidly obese gang leader who usually talks about junkfood and he is arguably
the best character in the movie. He has a short and admittedly nice musical
number that spoofs the movie “Dream Girls” (2006). The scene is brief, charming,
puts a smile on your face, and it supports the character of Sugar Bear.
There
is also Dark-Comedy where the jokes revolve around violence, sex, and drugs.
“Blazing Saddles” had several comedic moments about violence such as the scene
where the villain, Hedley Lamarr, shoots a thug because he was chewing gum in
line and didn’t think to share with anyone. It’s simple, brief, funny, and it
boosts Lamarr’s reputation as the main villain.
In
“Scary Movie 1 and 2”, Shorty is a pothead who is obsessed with marijuana. He
is dim-witted and for him almost every topic involves getting high. In the two
movies, he influences the killer in the first movie to get high along with Shorty’s
friends, before he kills them. In the second movie, ironically, a giant
marijuana-monster gets high by smoking Shorty. These gags are funny and they
define Shorty as a character.
In
Friedberg and Seltzer’s movies, the attempts of comedy are only Dark Comedy.
All jokes are about killing people, sex, and drugs. They are all vulgarly
distasteful and mean-spirited. In the end of “Epic Movie”, the four main
characters are crushed to death by a giant wheel. In these movies, death has no
consequences. Again in “Epic movie”, Willy Wonka beheads Susan; her head comes
clean off and in the next shot, her head is reattached like the beheading never
happened. Friedberg and Seltzer don’t care if any of the characters die. In
“Spaceballs”, the villains were menacing because they possessed Mega Maid and
they WILL use it to kill everyone on Planet Druidia; this shows that death has
consequences and it builds up the villains and makes the main characters more
heroic by saving Planet Druidia and defeating the Spaceballs. Yes, the
characters who died in the first “Scary Movie” returned in the sequel with no
explanation, but at least they didn’t spring back in the same movie that they
died in. Don’t kill off characters if you’re just going to bring them back; it
tones down the threat of the villains and it makes the audiance uninterested and find nothing engaging about the story (looking at you
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”).
Another
flaw with Friedberg and Seltzer’s movies is that all the attempts of comedy are
predictable. Everyone knows what will happen because the screenplay sounds like
it was written by immature thirteen year-olds on a drug that makes crack and
crystal meth look like sleeping pills. What do you name a spoof of Jack Sparrow?
Jack Swallows. What happens when Superman gets shot in his eye? He screams in
pain. What happens when the Hulk shows up in a hurricane? The hurricane rips
his pants off.
Movies should keep you guessing what will
happen and the payoff is funny and satisfying. If a movie’s completely
predictable, what’s the point of watching it? We watch movies to discover
something new and improve it and make fun of old and tired clichés.
Step
5: “Who will watch this?”
You may ask why Friedberg and Seltzer were
successful enough to make more horrendous movies. “Date Movie” made $84,795,656
at the box office. It was despised by every critic that reviewed it, but the
general audience had a different opinion; they watched this movie and they
loved it. So naturally, Friedberg and Seltzer made another movie and it was
even worse than “Epic Movie”. Despite the criticism of the movie the general
audience watched it and liked it as much as they did with “Date Movie”. The
general audience is unbelievably easy to entertain; just add references to the
latest popular movies and TV shows that the audience can point at. No effort
needs to be put into these movies if the general audience will watch it no
matter how poor the writing and execution is. To a lot of people, the success
of these movies makes Americans look like morons who will just buy a ticket to
watch a painful experience.
Aaron Seltzer (left), Jason Friedberg (right), and your hard-earned money (center)
This
isn’t how comedy works. Comedy needs a well-written story, a talented cast, and
a well-made execution. For decades, parodies have been remembered as legendary
comedies such as “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” (1974), “The Naked Gun
Trilogy” (1988-1994), and “The Austin Powers Trilogy” (1997-2002). These were
well written, they were funny, they had original and memorable characters and
moments that were even parodied by other movies and TV shows. Friedberg and
Seltzer’s movies are insults to these movies; they’re not even in the same
league. They are infested with numerous and unnecessary references and juvenile
jokes. Imagine if “Spaceballs” was made in the same way Friedberg and Seltzer’s
moves were:
·
The
movie would be called “Sci-Fi Movie”
·
The
character making fun of Luke Skywalker would be called Duke Skyrunner or Lucas.
·
Darth
Vader and a bunch of Stormtroopers would be dancing to a Michael Jackson song
for two minutes straight.
·
Maverick
and Iceman from “Top Gun” (1986) would be flying alongside the X-Wings and the
song “Danger Zone” would be playing in the background.
·
A Rodger
Moore look-alike and a Timothy Dalton look-alike would be fighting each other
to determine who the better James Bond is.
·
Yoda would
be a mean-spirited jerk who abuses the powers of the Force to make fun of Luke.
·
A
Xenomorph from “Alien” (1979) would just show up and without mimicking Michigan
J. Frog.
·
A
Patrick Swayze look-alike from “Dirty Dancing” (1987) would be pestering underage
girls.
·
Constant
incest jokes about Luke and Leia.
·
The
climax would have Tony Montana from “Scarface” (1983) come out of nowhere,
killing all the characters. There were no consequences, no story, no real
ending. It was all just an incredibly annoying experience.
Conclusion:
I hope
you all noticed what makes a parody work and what doesn’t. Parodies from the
1970’s - 1990’s were classic and respected movies. We’ve been through all the
clichés and we know how to make fun of them. We know how to write a well-thought
comedic story. We know how to make original characters. Friedberg and Seltzer’s
movies should be used in film schools to observe what you shouldn’t do in a
parody. I wouldn’t even call these things parodies or comedies. Comedies should
make you feel relaxed and get a laugh out of what you’re watching. Friedberg
and Seltzer’s movies will make you cringe and wonder how movies as horrible as
these could be made. These movies deserve to be in their own genre; a genre for
movies that were not possibly made with any good intention, only made to have
the gullible and unsuspecting audience buy a ticket to watch these monstrosities.
It’s not just these movies; other terrible comedies are infamous for being so
painful to watch such as “That’s My Boy” (2012), “The Love Guru” (2008), and
“Good Luck Chuck” (2007) for example. There should be a genre for these movies,
movies that are pure evil and say they are comedies. And I have just the name
for that genre:
I
hereby name this the “Evil Grin genre”.
As
for the other movies such as “The Comebacks”, “Superhero Movie”, and “Dance
Flick”, while these are not good movies, they are worthy of being parodies.
They have their certain targets that are involved in the chosen genre, they
have their original design and moments, and they have their funny moments.
There is still hope for the Parody genre and I am sure that if more of these
movies are made, we will be in a new era of glorious and legendary gems of
comedies. I hope you enjoyed reading my blog and I also hope you learned
something. Thank you.
" At the Shaolin temple the masters are constantly on the look out for one student who will rise above the rest. It isn't always who they expect. Jackie Chan plays such a pupil. Mischievous, with a ready wit, he is constantly disciplines by his teachers. But he is also fearless, and volunteers to guard the Temple's scripture hall., despite the rumor of ghosts. The shrine is haunted and Jackie encounters the spirits of the forbidden book, " The Five-Style Fists. " Banned as being too dangerous to learn , Jackie nevertheless masters the style and uses it to easily pass the rigorous tests his teachers throw at him. The final challenge comes when Jackie takes on a roving band of warriors who discover, to their surprise, that it's almost impossible to fight someone who has been taught by the spirits themselves. "
