Hacker News Reader

Comment by xrd | Hacker News Reader

There is so much great comedy out there that somehow avoids his concerns. What a lazy attempt at legitimizing his lack of talent.

View on HN

Airplane! is considered to be a good comedic film. Bearing that in mind, what makes you say that its writer lacks talent?

I'm assuming you read the article where he says none of his jokes could be made today and that good comedians have gone into hiding. I'm saying there are great comedians out there that have no problem creating great comedy, comedy that easily is able to avoid the impossible pitfalls he is intent on describing. That's laziness.

For the record, I love Airplane. But this take of his is pure laziness and self pitying.

Name one of the top ten comedy films of 2019.

There were ten comedy films in 2019? Is that your point? It's been a comedy desert as of late as far as movies go.

The trailer for Dave Chappelle's Sticks and Stones (2019) shows him walking in a literal desert. The top comedies of that year seem to all be stand up specials, does that really count?

Comedy only comes woven into dramas now.

He states that:

> Airplane! would probably not have been made, and Police Squad! (the ABC sitcom that was the root of the Naked Gun movies) would have been cancelled after two episodes instead of six

the idea of losing masterpieces is utterly, totally unacceptable. Masterpieces are irreplaceable.

Google the interenet search engine would not have been founded in 1853, you would not build stables, had water troughs and a salon for the apple campus in 2021. There is zero chance Rocky would win an Oscar today.

It is (or at least should be) acceptable for taste, culture and technology to change over time.

«taste» is a median, «culture» is a median. Local phenomena. Genius is above that struggling growth. That those petty things may inhibit the creation of something remarkable is unacceptable. The "taste and culture" of some random ones, even when overwhelmingly numerous, should remain in its place, and not act as inhibitor. Especially of something precious which could have been but may get discarded: these would be huge losses. (Also and furthermore, because there are really bad products around, so Quality and Reach (as an other perspective for the idea "Genius") as exemplary parameters need to be defended as ideals.)

Would you be glad to be in a world in which the Airplane! project gets discarded for some local cultural reason?

Edit:

Furthermore, there is a difference (understatement) between evolution (eu-volution) end devolution (dis-volution). An example: I read a particularly undignified article today in British press (a childish reaction to other pieces, which displayed bad reasoning and lack of intellectual method and development). Alasdir Campbell remembers articles of his rejected in his times because they were "thin": based on presumptions, written just to write, shallow: bad quality. At the time, the journalist had quality controllers. Today, apparent dumbness fair. Disvolution. Interestingly, the trend seems to be an "everything passes" in structures, and censorship on individuals. So, «change» per se is not all of it: there is progress and regress, gain and loss.

It very nearly did. It is ALWAYS a world where such a project is nearly discarded. The way they got it made, and I've got a DVD with 'making of' commentary about this, is by working insanely hard and cramming in so many jokes at such a breakneck pace that the result is just giddy, demented comedy.

That will ALWAYS be possible. You don't get to half-ass it and think just being offensive is enough. Check out the Red Letter Media take on 'Top Secret': these producers had a LOT more going on than just being offensive, and that is absolutely a factor in 'Airplane', hugely so.

The secret is that the offensiveness is only one of many surprises executed at a audacious, rapid pace. In 'Top Secret' they got considerably more surrealist, but that's exactly when you can get away with an offensive joke: disorient with confusion, then pull a silly gag where it's apparently mean but the target of the gag is actually the straw-man power guy (HEDley…)

No matter WHEN you're doing this, if you half-ass it you've got no chance. Comedy's actually a lot of work.

> taste and culture are local phenomena. Genius is above that

A movie is a commercial enterprise created in the local time and space. They are converting so called "genius" into a medium to communicate it.

Too early / too late, too slow / too fast. Get it wrong and genius is not genius at all it is just stupidity. There is quite a bit of selection bias when you consider that the subject matter is 40 years old, and how many brilliant minds have tried and failed over that period.

Find the secret to threading the genius through the eye of the needle and you have gold.

Wait, you're saying Zucker "lacks talent"? For real?

No, I said his take on "it's impossible to make comedy these days because of social justice warriors" is a fallacy and a lazy take on his own current lack of talent.

Edit: I said lack of talent and it does read that I'm saying complete lack of talent. What I should have said is that this is a poor excuse for a current lack of talent.

Zucker actually addresses this:

  > Unlike my peers, who can channel their rage into more socially acceptable
  > psychological projects, I have no marketable skills aside from crafting jokes.

Of course, the brilliance is that this is itself a joke. Self-depreciation.

> current lack of talent

I thought his commentary was witty. Much wittier than mine.

I saw Airplane when it was first released. I laughed so hard my gut hurt. Many thanks to the Zucker Bros for that!

(One of the jokes that almost nobody gets is when there's an exterior shot of the jet, you hear the sound of a 4 piston engine bomber. I love how the Zucker movies are stuffed with nice touches like that.)

I remember reading that it was a compromise:

- ZAZ wanted to the movie in a propeller plane (and B&W)

- The studio would only fund it if it were a jet and color, since the audience would identify with modern passenger jets.

So, they agreed with the jet, but switched the sounds instead.

The studio was right. Nobody these days wants to see a B&W movie except for cinephiles.

I've opined before that new viewers would be attracted to older movies if they'd use AI to colorize them. Sacrilege! I know, I know, but colorizing an old movie is not a destructive process. I don't see an actual problem with redoing older movies to be more watchable by a modern audience.

(One could also add a decent soundtrack to silent films, not those godawful squeaking violins or somebody doodling on a pipe organ. And bring in some foley artists! and some voice actors to dub the dialog and get rid of the title cards!)

Unless my memory fails me, Turner colorized a bunch of old black and white movies. Are these colorized versions still around or did people decide that they hate them? I honestly don’t know.

He did. They have vanished from distribution. I've seen some of them, and they just looked terrible from the primitive coloring technology they used at the time. Modern colorizations look far, far better, like "They Will Not Be Forgotten" where WW1 footage was colorized.

A lot of people cried "Abomination" when Turner did that, saying he was destroying the old films, but nothing of the sort happened. Just like someone photoshopping color onto an old Civil War picture (a popular thing to do) the originals are undamaged.

People do really great jobs colorizing old photos, it just brings them to life. I have several in my wallpaper folder.

Such as?

Chappelle would seem to be a relevant comparison.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com