A Very Queer Thanksgiving Weekend Thread | We Here. We Queer. Move On. | 3-Day/5-Day: Black Panther 45.9/64, Strange World 11.9/18.6, Glass Onion 9.2/13.3, Devotion 6/9, The Menu 5.2/7.3 | Daddy Cameron, please save us!

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, Eric Clade said:

How dare you forget the third one. The most iconic of them all

 

 

Pauly Shore? Napoleon Dynamite?! That voice cast screams "Asylum joint", but it's from Lionsgate...no wonder they're for sale.

 

 

1 hour ago, Torontofan said:

 

Comdies are a dead genre for cinemas 

 

cause before you go with friend watch a comedy that pushes the edge.

 

Now a lot of these comedies are very tame or very niche. 

 

Like I watch comedy films from 2010 or before, they were wild and didnt have much limits lol 

 

Comedy films would be the bread and butter of cinemas as they are cheap to make and would release between major films keeping theaters a bit busy

The big comedies of the 2000s and 2010s were sneakily more expensive than you'd expect, more mid-budget than low budget. Even The Hangover, which didn’t have big stars at the time, cost $35 million in 2009, and that was with Todd Phillips forgoing his salary in exchange for a percentage of the gross. With Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler at their peaks, the budgets really escalated. A whole different type of comedy, but Nancy Meyers movies have ridiculous budgets: The Holiday (2006) cost $85 million, somehow. Like, Hallmark has made house swap Christmas movies in 2 weeks for 30 times less.

 

Anyway, comedy was always iffy internationally and worldwide grosses became more important to studios in time. DVD sales collapsed and a big moneymaker for edgy comedies was an unrated version for the home market with extra footage too hot for theaters. If they could make hit comedies as cheaply as hit horror, the genre would make a comeback in theaters. Once the budget gets bigger the studio wants to play it safe, which affects the humor.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[thedast]

1 hour ago, SullyJake said:

Maybe it's my age, but I think its actually just a lack of good content

I agree, but only in theatres. I haven't been impressed by most releases this year. EEAAO is the first time in ages I was taken on an emotional ride in a mid-tier movie. Too many better options now outside of what gets released to theatres.

[Eric the Fall Guy]

6 minutes ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Pauly Shore? Napoleon Dynamite?! That voice cast screams "Asylum joint", but it's from Lionsgate...no wonder they're for sale.

 

 

The big comedies of the 2000s and 2010s were sneakily more expensive than you'd expect, more mid-budget than low budget. Even The Hangover, which didn’t have big stars at the time, cost $35 million in 2009, and that was with Todd Phillips forgoing his salary in exchange for a percentage of the gross. With Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler at their peaks, the budgets really escalated. A whole different type of comedy, but Nancy Meyers movies have ridiculous budgets: The Holiday (2006) cost $85 million, somehow. Like, Hallmark has made house swap Christmas movies in 2 weeks for 30 times less.

 

Anyway, comedy was always iffy internationally and worldwide grosses became more important to studios in time. DVD sales collapsed and a big moneymaker for edgy comedies was an unrated version for the home market with extra footage too hot for theaters. If they could make hit comedies as cheaply as hit horror, the genre would make a comeback in theaters. Once the budget gets bigger the studio wants to play it safe, which affects the humor.

 

 

Will Packer kinda had a thing going when it came to making cheap comedy films. Pretty much all of his comedy films were around the 20M range outside of Ride Along 2. Even Night School, which had Kevin Hart as a more established star and Haddish likely getting a pay upgrade due to Girls Trip still did $29 million. I don't know if he'll ever go back to doing them, especially after his infamous Oscars show, but his work was basically the closest we have to the "Blumhouse for comedy" angle and nobody seems interested in following up on that outside of the occasional Easter Sunday bomb. It can't possibly be that hard to make a production company that makes comedies in the Blumhouse model.

[Krissykins]

1 hour ago, charlie Jatinder said:

CS is limited to cities where Fableman reception would be better. RT can get votes from anywhere.

That’s not just the case for Fablemans then, that would apply to every film, where RT verified is usually a good indicator of where CS will land. 
 

So we’re still back at the original point lol. 

[Legion Again]

7 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

That’s not just the case for Fablemans then, that would apply to every film, where RT verified is usually a good indicator of where CS will land. 
 

So we’re still back at the original point lol. 

No it doesn't apply equally to every film. Some have more geographical bias in appeal and some have less. Charlie is saying fableman is near the max on that axis and that seems quite plausible to me

[CaptNathanBrittles]

Who needs the comedy genre when MCU movies crack jokes every 10 seconds?

[Torontofan]

1 hour ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Pauly Shore? Napoleon Dynamite?! That voice cast screams "Asylum joint", but it's from Lionsgate...no wonder they're for sale.

 

 

The big comedies of the 2000s and 2010s were sneakily more expensive than you'd expect, more mid-budget than low budget. Even The Hangover, which didn’t have big stars at the time, cost $35 million in 2009, and that was with Todd Phillips forgoing his salary in exchange for a percentage of the gross. With Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler at their peaks, the budgets really escalated. A whole different type of comedy, but Nancy Meyers movies have ridiculous budgets: The Holiday (2006) cost $85 million, somehow. Like, Hallmark has made house swap Christmas movies in 2 weeks for 30 times less.

 

Anyway, comedy was always iffy internationally and worldwide grosses became more important to studios in time. DVD sales collapsed and a big moneymaker for edgy comedies was an unrated version for the home market with extra footage too hot for theaters. If they could make hit comedies as cheaply as hit horror, the genre would make a comeback in theaters. Once the budget gets bigger the studio wants to play it safe, which affects the humor.

 

 

and I think safe humour is quite lame to the audiences that normally watch comedies.

 

Like hangover and tropic thunder and such had a lot of comedy that really pushed limits

 

Current comedies dont push any limts i find.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Torontofan

[Jonan23]

Encanto would have been huge pre pandemic. Disney fans adored it. The Bruno song trending on social media if the film was still in theaters would have greatly extended the legs. A lot of my friends raved about the movie in social media after they saw it on streaming. 

 

Side not, I just watched Thirteen Lives. Really well made, I think this is the type of film that would have been a word of mouth 150 million grosser in the late nineties early 2000's

 

[jedijake]

We know that streaming has heavily affected cinema. The question is how long can streaming hold up? To keep subscribers, they have to keep adding compelling and entertaining content. Does the cost of adding that content exceed the amount gained from subscriptions enough to make a profit? And if not enough content is added or created, how many subscribers will drop the service. It's like a big circle that gets smaller and smaller.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, Eric Clade said:

Will Packer kinda had a thing going when it came to making cheap comedy films. Pretty much all of his comedy films were around the 20M range outside of Ride Along 2. Even Night School, which had Kevin Hart as a more established star and Haddish likely getting a pay upgrade due to Girls Trip still did $29 million. I don't know if he'll ever go back to doing them, especially after his infamous Oscars show, but his work was basically the closest we have to the "Blumhouse for comedy" angle and nobody seems interested in following up on that outside of the occasional Easter Sunday bomb. It can't possibly be that hard to make a production company that makes comedies in the Blumhouse model.

I guess you can only make comedies so cheaply because you have to pay comedians enough to make it worth their time vs. touring. Comedies can work without particularly extensive sets, so they've got to be paying the cast/director/producers the bulk of the budget. Like, $20 million is "cheap" for a studio comedy but Get Our had a budget under $5 million. Then there's real microbudget horror that people will watch because they like concept, even if they've never heard of the actors and they aren't amazing. Is there a comedy equivalent to Paranormal Activity?

 

 

49 minutes ago, Torontofan said:

and I think safe humour is quite lame to the audiences that normally watch comedies.

 

Like hangover and tropic thunder and such had a lot of comedy that really pushed limits

 

Current comedies dont push any limts i find.

When Todd Phillips was doing Joker promo, he mentioned "woke culture" as a reason he wasn't making comedies anymore and Film Twitter lost their minds. Jokes that were edgy/bad taste in 2009 get you "canceled" in the 2020s, or at least TikTok tries. Every few weeks a Gen Zer seems to discover Tropic Thunder and goes viral, calling for RDJ to be held accountable for it. Comedians are apologizing for 20-30 year old routines. Stars and studios just don't want the headaches, especially now that the box office isn't great for comedy anyway.

 

Outside of that, raunchy comedies go in and out of style. They were big in the late 70s and 80s, faded, then made a comeback in the 2000s and 2010s before falling off. So maybe they will cycle back in style again, but not exactly like they were before.

 

[Torontofan]

14 minutes ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

I guess you can only make comedies so cheaply because you have to pay comedians enough to make it worth their time vs. touring. Comedies can work without particularly extensive sets, so they've got to be paying the cast/director/producers the bulk of the budget. Like, $20 million is "cheap" for a studio comedy but Get Our had a budget under $5 million. Then there's real microbudget horror that people will watch because they like concept, even if they've never heard of the actors and they aren't amazing. Is there a comedy equivalent to Paranormal Activity?

 

 

When Todd Phillips was doing Joker promo, he mentioned "woke culture" as a reason he wasn't making comedies anymore and Film Twitter lost their minds. Jokes that were edgy/bad taste in 2009 get you "canceled" in the 2020s, or at least TikTok tries. Every few weeks a Gen Zer seems to discover Tropic Thunder and goes viral, calling for RDJ to be held accountable for it. Comedians are apologizing for 20-30 year old routines. Stars and studios just don't want the headaches, especially now that the box office isn't great for comedy anyway.

 

Outside of that, raunchy comedies go in and out of style. They were big in the late 70s and 80s, faded, then made a comeback in the 2000s and 2010s before falling off. So maybe they will cycle back in style again, but not exactly like they were before.

 

 

 

There isnt one comedy film made today that is as mainstream and famous as tropic thunder from 13 years ago.

 

late night comedians have a fraction of the appeal as 10-15 years ago

 

Old comics bring in much bigger audiences and sell out shows while newer comedians have niche appeals.

 

Comedy is about pushing the limit, and yeah comedy from 20 years ago would be to far today. However today it seems pushing any limit is wrong and that does lead to good comedy I feel. 

 

That is why the comedy genre has died off and new comedians in general are not as famous as before. 

 

That all i can say before i get cancelled by the mods XD 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Torontofan

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, Torontofan said:

 

 

There isnt one comedy film made today that is as mainstream and famous as tropic thunder from 13 years ago.

 

late night comedians have a fraction of the appeal as 10-15 years ago

 

Old comics bring in much bigger audiences and sell out shows while newer comedians have niche appeals.

 

Comedy is about pushing the limit, and yeah comedy from 20 years ago would be to far today. However today it seems pushing any limit is wrong and that does lead to good comedy I feel. 

 

That is why the comedy genre has died off and new comedians in general are not as famous as before. 

 

That all i can say before i get cancelled by the mods XD 

Pop culture is pretty splintered, it's hard for a new comedian to become massively popular.

 

Talk shows have really fallen off, not sure how James Corden got pushed in movies so much. Carpool Karaoke had a moment but come on.

 

 

[AniNate]

Tropic Thunder was already kinda pushing it when it was released, definitely wouldn't happen now

[Torontofan]

17 minutes ago, AniNate said:

Tropic Thunder was already kinda pushing it when it was released, definitely wouldn't happen now

 

I am not arguing that the jokes are fine in that film today.

 

I am Saying that for comedy films to really break out and become popular they usually have to push the limits of that time or they end up being boring. Like they have to be absurd. 

 

[George Parr]

People are confusing "some people complaing about stuff" with there being worse consequences than before. The idea that this has somehow gotten worse is absurd. Islamic writers in western countries have been faced with fatwas calling for the death for decades now. Salman Rushdie had to live in hiding and almost died from an attack on him. Monty Python faced criticism from all over the place, to the point that some of their movies were even banned in some western countries, but sure, you can't tell jokes you could tell back then anymore...

 

"Cancel culture" is mostly rubbish. A made up term by those who want to complain about stuff, mostly about society having changed in a way that the things they want to say aren't revered anymore.

 

Are there people who will complain about anything? Yes.

Are they somehow louder or more influential than in the past? Absolutely not.

The internet can amplifiy a bunch of people whining about stuff, but that's basically it. Most of the supposedly cancelled people haven't been cancelled at all. Though they do love to take a big tour through all shows and news channels talking about how they are prevented from talking, which is rather ironic. For the most part, complaints about cancel culture are more rampant than actual cancel culture.

 

Anyone who thinks that nowadays you can barely tell any darker joke while it was perfectly normal in the past hasn't paid any attention to the last century. Go and look back at the 50s, 60s, etc. you will be hard-pressed to find anything remotely edgy in any part of it. Heck, Elvis swinging his hips a bit got people up in arms. The whole period was uptied to the max, and that very much continued into the next few decades. Compared to that anything goes today.

 

Just because different jokes cause different reactions today, doesn't mean that there are somehow more jokes you can't tell now. All it really means, is that some topics appear differently today than they did in the past. And if you look at how tame and uptight the past has been, there is zero reason to assume that we somehow have an era of unprecedented complaining, on the contrary, the opposite is the case.

 

Funnily enough, those who complain the most about cancel culture tend to support political parties who stand the most for the repressed old view that didn't like jokes, had clearly defined gender roles (to put it nicely) and was about to call for a new crusade against anyone questioning christianity.

Edited November 28, 2022 by George Parr

[Eric the Fall Guy]

 

[Eric the Fall Guy]

 

[Porthos]

1 hour ago, George Parr said:

The internet can amplifiy a bunch of people whining about stuff, but that's basically it. Most of the supposedly cancelled people haven't been cancelled at all. Though they do love to take a big tour through all shows and news channels talking about how they are prevented from talking, which is rather ironic. For the most part, complaints about cancel culture are more rampant than actual cancel culture.

 

 

Evergreen.

 

[Eric the Fall Guy]

 

[krla]

6 hours ago, George Parr said:

People are confusing "some people complaing about stuff" with there being worse consequences than before. The idea that this has somehow gotten worse is absurd. Islamic writers in western countries have been faced with fatwas calling for the death for decades now. Salman Rushdie had to live in hiding and almost died from an attack on him. Monty Python faced criticism from all over the place, to the point that some of their movies were even banned in some western countries, but sure, you can't tell jokes you could tell back then anymore...

 

"Cancel culture" is mostly rubbish. A made up term by those who want to complain about stuff, mostly about society having changed in a way that the things they want to say aren't revered anymore.

 

Are there people who will complain about anything? Yes.

Are they somehow louder or more influential than in the past? Absolutely not.

The internet can amplifiy a bunch of people whining about stuff, but that's basically it. Most of the supposedly cancelled people haven't been cancelled at all. Though they do love to take a big tour through all shows and news channels talking about how they are prevented from talking, which is rather ironic. For the most part, complaints about cancel culture are more rampant than actual cancel culture.

 

Anyone who thinks that nowadays you can barely tell any darker joke while it was perfectly normal in the past hasn't paid any attention to the last century. Go and look back at the 50s, 60s, etc. you will be hard-pressed to find anything remotely edgy in any part of it. Heck, Elvis swinging his hips a bit got people up in arms. The whole period was uptied to the max, and that very much continued into the next few decades. Compared to that anything goes today.

 

Just because different jokes cause different reactions today, doesn't mean that there are somehow more jokes you can't tell now. All it really means, is that some topics appear differently today than they did in the past. And if you look at how tame and uptight the past has been, there is zero reason to assume that we somehow have an era of unprecedented complaining, on the contrary, the opposite is the case.

 

Funnily enough, those who complain the most about cancel culture tend to support political parties who stand the most for the repressed old view that didn't like jokes, had clearly defined gender roles (to put it nicely) and was about to call for a new crusade against anyone questioning christianity.

Cancel culture is great if you're already rich and famous and have a platform. But if you're a nobody who got fired because some random person tweets your employer, and your employer fires you, it's not like you're going to get much of a platform. Think about that Hispanic guy who was cracking his knuckles while driving. Someone took a photo of him in traffic, tweeted it to his employer saying the guy was making the "ok" sign, and his employer immediately fired him. But I guess you believe that's just "consequence culture." Losing your livelihood because of a single tweet. That's what you endorse? 

 

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/

 

Now imagine you're young and trying out comedy (or even older and trying out comedy). And if you say the wrong thing, some psycho is going to hunt down where you work during the day and get you fired. So now you've got to colour within the prescribed lines, or possibly face losing any chance at a career in comedy AND losing any job to support yourself, along with having the first google results for your name attached to headlines about how bigoted you are. But I guess that's just 'consequences'.

 

And let me guess, you're probably in favour of criminal justice reform. Some dude violently commits a hate crime, serves his time, and you'll be saying how that poor guy has repaid his debt to society, that jobs shouldn't be able to turn someone away for having a criminal record, how they should have all their rights restored. Someone tells and edgy joke and you're lining up to have them lose their job, get cut off the internet, to never be allowed to speak again, because 'consequences', and since there's no sentence, there's no time served, that person is stained forever. 

 

OJ Simpson has a Twitter account. Convicted rapist Mike Tyson has a Twitter, a TV show, etc. But someone raps the n-word and they lose their scholarship. Quote rap lyrics on Twitter in the UK and you get charged with a hate crime. Crack your knuckles while driving the company truck and you get fired. Violently rape someone and you get welcomed back into society after you serve your time (if you're rich). Bet Brock Turner is doing well, while the poor utility worker who allegedly made the "OK" sign is still trying to get back on his feet.

 

Cancel culture will only affect the middle and lower class. When you justify it as 'consequences' in one breath, while acknowledging that the rich are basically unaffected, you're simply stating that you support a class war, and you're on the side of the rich. That you hate that regular people have rights that prevent them from being arbitrarily destroyed by the government, and that you want to use social culture to punish them, since you can't use the government to do it.