Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > 31st Annual RAZZIE® Award Nominees & "WINNERS" > LITTLE FOCKERS
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Just How FOCKing Awful IZ It?!?!?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Just How FOCKing Awful IZ It?!?!?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Just How FOCKing Awful IZ It?!?!?
    Posted: December 25 2010 at 11:08pm
Although, saturwatcher and I might highly question just how "good" Meet the Parents really was. 


The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7177
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 26 2010 at 7:48am
The 1992 or 2000 version?
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1191
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 26 2010 at 7:56am
I take it you mean as a  "remake"??  
 
I haven't seen the original, but reading up on its plot, it's story isn't that well laid out.  
 
SPOILER
 
In the original 1992 movie, you have Greg, who talks to a gas station attendant filling the role of the prophet.  The attendant tells Greg about what happened to the previous boyfriend and recommends Greg stay away.  Well, that sets it up for Pam's parents to make life miserable for Greg without cause, right?  Well, like in the remake, Greg goes all "Dick Van Dyke possessed by Jerry Lewis on steroids," with one over-the-top clumsy accident after another.  Forget that Pam's father doesn't like him.  He's a klutz to the nth degree, and Greg winds up being chased away by the father before Greg does something that ends civilization as we know it. 
 
Now, go back and think about what the gas station attendant said.  Why have that piece making the parents impossible to please when it turns out to be Greg that's the problem?
 
END SPOILER
 
Now, what kind of plot is that?  In light of that confused storyline, the remake would appear to be an improvement over the original movie.
 
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 26 2010 at 9:30am
Yes, I was talking about the 2000 remake with Stiller and De Niro, which was funny at times, but not funny enough -- nor did it have a story that should have gone on to be the trilogy it has become.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vheid View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: December 10 2010
Location: Utrecht
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1209
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 26 2010 at 9:38am
So could someone tell me what the charm of that first film was, because I could never understand why so many people liked it??  


Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 26 2010 at 10:55am
Originally posted by Vheid


So could you tell me what the charm of this first film was, because I could never understand why so many people like it.
Well, it's all about timing. Around 1998/1999, Ben Stiller became a star with "Something About Mary" and Robert De Niro was just starting to dip his toes in (successful) comedy with "Analyze This". So for 2000, we had the then-new and popular comedy act of Stiller, joined with the usually serious, now doing light comedy De Niro. Basically, the entire movie is, as I have pointed out before, Stiller doing something awkward that De Niro doesn't aprove of, which results in Stiller being all embrassed and having to explain himself. Also added onto this was the ever relatable "meeting my future parent-inlaws and extended family routine" that every future husband or wife has to go through, in this case, resulting in a comedy of errors. So the succes of the first movie was all in the timing. However, Stiller and De Niro being all awkward around each other has lost it's appeal, now 10 years later, in which no one considers Stiller to be funny any more, and De Niro just seems to be going from paycheck to paycheck these days.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7177
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 26 2010 at 1:49pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Yes, I was talking about the 2000 remake with Stiller and De Niro, which was funny at times, but not funny enough -- nor did it have a story that should have gone on to be the trilogy it has become.
I'm sorry if you didn't liked it,but the box office results and reviews it got are enough to call it a good remake.
Originally posted by Vheid

So could someone tell me what the charm of that first film was, because I could never understand why so many people liked it??
Aside from what Burn said,it's the fact that the movie is filled with those funny situations that at first sight seem like you only find them in movies,yet,if you think about it you can relate to most of the movie.
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

However, Stiller and De Niro being all awkward around each other has lost it's appeal, now 10 years later, in which no one considers Stiller to be funny any more, and De Niro just seems to be going from paycheck to paycheck these days.
Not that I have a problem with you stating facts like you're automatically right,but...well,yeah.

The act only got tired because the sequels weren't funny enough.But I can assure you if you see that in other movies or shows it can still work.For example MODERN FAMILY(JAY & PHIL).

It's true that DeNiro's latest movies seem like he just does it for the money.At list Harrison Ford admits it.But what makes you say nobody thinks Stiller is funny anymore?
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 26 2010 at 5:01pm
Responding to Vits (see below): 

1. But of course, because as we have been saying all this year, Hollywood must milk a cash cow for all it's worth. Frankly, we really didn't need a "Meet The Fockers". It was pretty much the same movie all over again, except now we're being introduced to Stiller's Type B parents instead of his wife's Type A parents. Oh, and a baby instead of a cat. 
 
2. That's what I meant by a "comedy of errors". I mean only in the movies would a man set a house or lawn on fire from smoking on the roof of the house. Although, you never know these days with the kind of stupid people in the world. Then there's the outragous things like a potty trained cat peeing on grandma's ashes or losing the cat and painting a stray cat's tail to replace him with.
 
3. Well, "Modern Family" is a series that is designed to last for 24 episodes a year with a wide range of events for them to be put through, and it has a large writing cast. Not to mention there's not one but THREE families to work with. As for Stiller not being funny, he's been doing the same routine for the past 10 years at every award show, be it the MTV Movies or the Oscar. "Oh look at me, I'm dressed in an weird costume, isn't that funny!". It's gotten old.

Originally posted by Vits

 
1. I'm sorry if you didn't liked it,but the box office results and reviews it got are enough to call it a good remake.
 
2. Aside from what Burn said,it's the fact that the movie is filled with those funny situations that at first sight seem like you only find them in movies,yet,if you think about it you can relate to most of the movie.
 
3. Not that I have a problem with you stating facts like you're automatically right,but...well,yeah.

The act only got tired because the sequels weren't funny enough.But I can assure you if you see that in other movies or shows it can still work.For example MODERN FAMILY(JAY & PHIL).

It's true that DeNiro's latest movies seem like he just does it for the money.At list Harrison Ford admits it.But what makes you say nobody thinks Stiller is funny anymore?
 
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7177
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2010 at 10:23am
1) I thought we were talking about why the first one was good. 

2)Comedy really is subjective. Some people enjoy a certain type of jokes, and some not. Because of the success of the first one, I think it's fair to say people really like comedies of errors. 

3)Regardless of what I wrote, what I really asked was "Why do you say he's not funny anymore?" Your answer only tells me that only you don't find him funny anymore. 

You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2010 at 1:43pm
1. Well, we're explaining why the first movie was popular at that time, but I wouldn't say it was worthy of a sequel based on the lack of anyway for the story to continue besides just doing it all over again while using Stiller's character's parents.  

2. Yes, but then there's just recycling jokes from the first two movies all over again.  

3. Then ask saturnwatcher or anyone else here what they think of Ben Stiller's tiresome, decade-old "I'm funny because I wear funny costumes" routine. If no one agress that it's gotten old, then I guess it's just me.  

Originally posted by Vits

 1)I thought we were talking about why the first one was good.
2)Comedy really is subjective.Some people enjoy a certain type of jokes,and some not.Because of the success of the first one,I think it's fair to say people really like comedies of errors.
3)Regardless of what I wrote,what I really asked was "Why doyou say he's not funny anymore?".Your answer only tells me that only you don't find him funny anymore.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7177
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2010 at 2:00pm
How can I ask them if you keep talking for them?
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2010 at 2:29pm
Based on past posts made by members here, that's how I know. Like a picture of Stiller dressed as "Navi" from the last Oscars with the caption "Not funny on any planet", or the fact saturnwatcher doesn't take to low-brow humor. Members give hints to their personal tastes and personalities within their posts.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2010 at 3:04pm
Definitons can get a bit tricky. I loved Weird Al Yankovich's UHF, which a lot of people might consider low brow. But compared to most of what one would see in the average Adam Sandler film, it probably fails to meet the definition.
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2010 at 8:59pm
Well, you can't get any more low-brow than jokes about bodily fuctions and body fluids, or private parts and sexual fetishes ... stuff that is common place in Sandler movies. That's the kind of low-brow humor I'm taking about, or "bathroom/locker room" humor, if that is a better definition for it.  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Definitons can get a bit tricky. I loved Weird Al Yankovich's UHF, which a lot of people might consider low brow. But compared to most of what one would see in the average Adam Sandler film, it probably fails to meet the definition.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
GTAHater767 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: October 25 2009
Location: I shall not say
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1455
Post Options Post Options   Quote GTAHater767 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 28 2010 at 12:52pm

Body functions and fluids? Do the words "8.6 Courics" mean anything to you?

And private parts and sexual fetishes? Since I was young, I've known about one of them. It was for something absorbent worn on the genitalia.

Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 28 2010 at 6:24pm
I'm guessing you're just joking here, since I figured you had such a strong stance about sex, you would be one of the people who would be offended by jokes and humor that's all about sex.  

Originally posted by GTAHater767

Body functions and fluids? Do the words "8.6 Courics" mean anything to you?

And private parts and sexual fetishes? Since I was young, I've known about one of them. It was for something absorbent worn on the genitalia.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down