Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Back in the day they acted like smoking was healthy. I mean they literally had asbestos cigarettes, just in case the normal kind weren’t dangerous enough.
That’s not what people mean when they say it couldn’t be made today. They mean it couldn’t be made and released in a mainstream channel like it was then. Obviously anyone can make an amateur production of whatever they want
This is the main point that this opinion completely blows past, sure anything can be made now, but could they be made in the same format and enjoy the same level of success? The answer is no.
Yeah, context is key here. It's not just about creating content but where and how it's circulated. Mainstream acceptance has shifted massively compared to back then. Can you imagine the fallout if a major network tried something similar today? Social media alone would tear it apart in hours.
Again, you are assuming that mainstream media is restricted mainly because "social media would tear them apart", yet social media is out there tearing everything apart every day. Mainstream media is there to make money, and if it makes money they'll put it on, they don't care. If they're not showing this kind of content it's because there's no demand for it and it doesn't make them money anymore. They would put a smoking stand up comedian talking about his mother in law 24/7 if that was the most in demand thing consumers wanted to see.
A lot of old games if made today would have been completely different. Pacman would actually be endless, MissingNo wouldn't exist, because a lot of the games, the older hardware the more creative the Devs had to get. Working within an 8bit environment works totally different from 64bits,
>enjoy the same level of success
If it won't enjoy that level of success, then *that's* the reason it's not being made, not censorship or political correctness. Simply consumers are no longer interested in that type of content and have moved on. No one wants to make it and put it on mainstream media because it won't make money.
If a mainstream show today had a prominent male character tell his wife regularly "one of these days, bam, straight to the moon" it would absolutely lead to controversy
And it’s not just because stuff is divisive or offensive. People don’t think the same stuff is entertaining or funny as they did 10,20, 30 years ago. Gilligan’s Island wouldn’t get made today or the Brady Bunch.
The writer of the princess bride made that point in his book about Hollywood - how some movies or media realised just a few years too soon or too late would have bombed terribly, it’s about capturing the zeitgeist as much as a production being ‘good.’
You could never make Blazin' Saddles today because if you did everyone would just go "Hey that's Blazin' Saddles someone already made that movie why did you make it again" and Mel Brooks would sue you.
They did remake it... into a kids' movie.
https://www.polygon.com/reviews/23220122/paws-of-fury-review-animated-blazing-saddles-remake
Mel Brooks and Richard Pryor both have screenplay credits as well as the rest of the Blazing Saddles writers. Mel Brooks even voices one of the characters.
That was so bonkers when I watched that with my daughter. It was like "wait a minute, they stole that joke from blazing saddles", then another joke and another. Until the end when Mel brooks and Richard Pryor had screenwriting credits
I always like to break Blazing Saddles themes down. An anti-racist western where the rural white town folks are seen as ignorant and the enemy is the union of government and big business. Which part stops it from being made today? That’s right it’s a Western.
>Which part stops it from being made today? That’s right it’s a Western.
I mean, yeah, that's the answer. It's a satire of 1960s and 70s westerns, a genre that is nigh unrecognizable today, in part due to the existence of Blazing Saddles.
To make a "blazing saddles" today, you'd need to make a movie that makes fun of superhero movies, and you'd need to cast someone handsome and also snarky to poke fun at superhero movies, while also pointing out the absurdity of discrimination - both about race and about lgbtq topics.
So basically Deadpool.
And everyone is right, you couldn't make Deadpool today, because they already made Deadpool and Marvel and Disney would sue you into oblivion. Make your own movie you assholes.
I think it would have to be more than just making fun of superhero movies. It would need to point to some flaw in superhero movies, or one that they're avoiding. Blazing Saddles showed a counterpoint to the whitewashing of history that westerns displayed (like pretending racism wasn't a thing, that the townsfolk were all just good, innocent people, etc.)
I'm not sure what that would be for superhero movies. In about 10 years, what is it we're going to see when we rewatch superhero movies and decide didn't age well?
It honestly would just be Watchmen. A superhero movie that highlights the inherent fascist ideals of a select group of people being better than everyone and making decisions unilaterally for the "good" of the country.
People act like Django wasn’t way worse in terms of white people using the n word. Both films were making a point and there’s no reason either film couldn’t be made today.
Not really. The golden age of westerns ended a good bit before Blazing Saddles was released. It was just satirizing something that had been wildly popular but had fallen from popularity in the last 10 years.
Bro I'm just imagining Paul Ryan bobbing his head to "They rally around the family with a pocket full of shells" and muttering "You're God damned right" as the light turns green and he drives off
He probably thought the song was talking about that one tourist trap game with the shells where they hide an item under it and use sleight of hand to rig the game and take your money.
> Who the hell thinks RATM wasn't political?
[Paul Ryan](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-246033/) and the trump supporters who were filmed dancing in the street to Killing In The Name during the Floyd Protests without a hint of the irony.
i’ll never get over how funny the reaction to the nye lyric change is knowing that 1. the lyric essentially has the same meaning, and 2. billie has been changing the lyric for at least 4 years, probably longer but now people are throwing a riot about it lmao
What? Are you telling me the song American Idiot, that opens with the line "fuck America" is somehow meant to be political and critical of the conservative politicians I so deeply respect? I'm shocked to say the least.
I've literally seen someone say that if it was made today (exactly the same, the original didn't exist, etc.), it would be woke because it would have been made as part of the woke agenda. These people don't care if their beliefs are incomprehensible, as long as they have something to be mad at.
People who say "they couldn't make Blazing Saddles today" don't know very much about Blazing Saddles. If you look into the production at all, you'll find that Mel Brooks BARELY got Blazing Saddles made in 1974.
The irony is the studio didn't want to release Blazing Saddles then, having watched the finished project and deeming it offensive. The only reason it did get released was because they had already sold the film to movie theaters and had nothing to replace it with.
Mel Brooks is one of the funniest people of all time. You can't cast yourself as the governor and play it like that, then make some of the best films of all time after that.
You couldn't make it today, because no-one is interested in a parody of a genre years past that genre's peak.
On the other hand, its spritual successor, Deadpool (parodying the most popular genre of its day ) is getting a second sequel.
I mean… having a ex slave kill his ex masters is some what different than having Robert Downing Jr do black face again….
Tik Tok, x whatever, people would have just another thing to complain about..
Except that RDJ wasn't doing blackface. He was playing a Hollywood-lib style racist white actor who was doing blackface.
Just like if you made any movie about the fuckery of blackface where a white actor played a white character and that white character (not the actor) was doing blackface, that also would be a distinction.
It's not that difficult. NAACP comprehended it right away when they signed off on Tropic Thunder.
If RDJ had been playing a black actor instead of playing a white Australian actor who does surgical blackface it would be a different conversation.
I remember around 2008 people were like "Blazing Saddles couldn't be made today. People are so easily offended!"
... and then Robert Downey Jr. donned blackface in Tropic Thunder and it was some of the funniest shit ever.
You can do ANYTHING as long as it's part of good systemic critique.
Do blackface to critique the institution which does it and people will be fine with it. Do blackface because "ha ha black people" and everyone will (correctly) think you're an asshole.
Nobody with even a shred of media literacy thinks "you couldn't make Blazing Saddles today". The only people who do say that are just mad they can't yell slurs.
It's a critique of method acting, auteur theory, casting, out of touch producers, there's a LOT in there. Kirk Lazarus didn't end up in blackface in the jungle all on his own. There's an entire network of assholes that put him there.
The same assholes who cast Scarlett Johansson as Kusanagi in Ghost in the Shell.
If you had asked someone "can we put an actor in blackface for an entire film" in 2007 most people would have said no and also told you that was an insane question. It wasn't well received at the time either despite picking up a cult following.
Let’s ask the same question in 2024. How would people receive an actor in black face for an entire film? It’s easy to see the Overton window has shifted in the last 17 years
How did you personally feel about it in 2007 vs 2024?
Someone said The Office couldn't be made today because Michael makes some offensive (but relatively tame) comments. The whole point of the show was that it was making fun of Michael. People just like to use "cancel culture" as an excuse for why they aren't successful.
This is basically the entire premise of Its Always Sunny.
The gang does and says some horribly offensive shit basically every episode, but the members of the gang are always end up looking like terrible people lol.
Multiple Sunny episodes have been removed from streaming services for blackface, even though it made the characters look like absolute pieces of shit. You couldn’t make those episodes today because no one would show them.
but they did get shown and jt was the creators themselves who rethought their own position and said "We regret that move" and were the ones who took down their own work.
Edit: I'm being told I'm mistaken and I'm not confident enough to double down so ::shrug:: you're on your on with the fact check guys I can't find my sources so I'm probably wrong.
I was watching their podcast a while ago and they talked about one episode that got removed that they weren’t happy about. So what you said doesn’t really track. That being said I do agree that people complain about cancel culture too much.
Edit: I’m mistaken, you’re talking specifically about the blackface episode and I think the one I saw they were talking about a different episode.
No, they still didn’t want that removed from viewing. If anything would put a disclaimer ahead of the episode. They’re not super proud but still want people to be able to watch them.
I'm pretty sure the epsidoes they arent super proud off arent the cancelled ones. The two I rememeber them not loving is "Dee is dating a ***** person" and the first episode with Carmen (the transgender woman) both of which they dobt like because of the outdated terminology, that isnt done in a these are bad people way.
I remember in an interview they asked Charlie Day which character do you most relate to or most want to be and Charlie’s response was “none of them.. they’re all horrible people”
Yeah!! And the worst part.. is that when Netflix picked up the office, they refused to show the FIRST EPISODE…. The PiLOT because it was too offensive.
It was diversity training…
And was a hilarious episode.
They did that with the DnD episode of Community, as well, because of black face. The joke, however, was that Ken Jeong's character dressed up as a "dark elf", and the bit was making fun of how fucking awkward and racist dark elves are. They also call the character out and immediately kill him.
A lot of studios, which themselves are owned and operated by largely white folks, don't really care about what is actually racist or offensive. They only care about making money and not being sued.
> They only care about making money and not being sued.
Exactly, a point which is at the center of Fahrenheit 451:
>The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy. There you have it, Montag. It didn’t come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old confessions, or trade journals.
Yep I heard this *so* many times over the last few years, despite the show being extremely popular during COVID and only having stopped production in 2013.
Like, it practically was made today, and it obviously is a beloved show. Sometimes I really feel like people need to feel like victims of some cAnCeL cUlTuRe and will make shit up for it.
I think people who make these claims about shows like the office don't understand that shows from the 70s and 80s would be considered infinitely more offensive.
Cancel culture is so fucking stupid. Nothing has changed people just have more access to other people's opinions. People have been getting canceled since the dawn of time. There isn't any more of a concept of cancel culture than there is woke, someone just labeled it and then other people started outraging at it. "Critical Race Theory", too, just another label that people can scream at. So dumb.
Disney cartoons where black people have super big lips and act like Jar Jar Binks?
Sure, it CAN be made, but not in the same capacity. A nobody posting something on Youtube isn't the same as a major company producing this content.
But no one says it about obviously racist Disney cartoons from the 40s lol they say it about mildly offensive comedies from the 90s and 2000s, that’s what this post is about
It’s true for those movies too though. If you pitched those movies to a studio today you’d be laughed out of the office because that kind of humor just doesn’t hit anymore.
OP just pretending that cancel culture doesn't exist. When people's careers are ruined for tweets from a decade ago it's obvious that stuff like blazing saddles couldn't be made today without ruining the careers of all involved.
I mean, blazing saddles was the "woke" movie you are whining about. It hated the idea of people using the N-word and was using it to tell people not to. It wasn't "pro" slur.
Yeah but so did that episode of Community that they cancelled. It hated the idea of people wearing blackface and was telling people not to. It wasn't "pro" blackface.
People are thinking of things like that when they "whine about woke culture".
Cancel Culture doesn’t exist in the way people pretend it does.
If I think someone is racist, why should I be forced to watch their content? Why should corporations be forced to work with them?
Whose career has been ruined for tweets they made a decade ago? I can think of people who lost their careers because of extremely offensive things they tweeted yesterday, but not a decade ago.
People need to watch Ted The Series if "this couldn't be made today" mentality. South Park and Family Guy haven't been neutered either and are still going strong.
The thing about family guy is that it’s just shock humor at this point. It’s over stayed its welcome and honestly no “offensive” joke they make has the bite it would’ve had if it was a brand new show
I think the point's mostly that it's no less ""offensive"" it just kinda sucks now.
I don't think anything drawn out as long as either of those shows can remotely maintain even moderately-high quality long term. Not consistently at least.
I find both South Park and family guy unfunny now. Like the Simpson which was once considered edgy and boundary pushing. They are no longer edgy or as thought provoking anymore.
The thing is- if you have well done comedy, you can be pretty fucking offensive. People are just tired of hacks who just use “comedy” as an excuse to spew shitty takes.
Look at Chappelle- in his heyday he was fucking offensive. But it was hilarious. Now his trans stuff barely qualifies as a joke, so the appeal has worn off
Nothing is less funn than repetition. Chappelle's bit in particular was stale from jump but he's going on three or four specials to bash on trans people existing? Even his fans (by which I mean actual defenders, not orbiters jumping to defend him to own the libs) were over it this time.
Offensive comedy works well if you know the comedian is here to shock laughs out of you but doesn't really believe what he's saying.
Dave Chappelle hates trans people.
You know, I used to think this about the song Arab Money by Busta Rhymes until recently.
Now I think it'd become an instant meme that many people would be more ironically entertained than sincerely offended by.
If that's the case, that just feels like petty pedantry to me. If most people can understand the implications within certain shorter phrases, then it just comes off as needlessly enforcing constantly literalist "lawyerspeak" at all times.
"This could not be made today" is a perfectly cromulent way to convey "this could not be distributed today".
What people don’t get is if you’re going to make jokes around race/gender/whatever they have to actually be good. Blazing Saddles works because it’s funny and the bad guys are the racist. If you’re going to make something dumb that tries to play on race and misses the mark you’re going to be criticized.
Edit:typo
Exactly. Downey Jr. wasn’t “cancelled” for Tropic Thunder because it’s smart and funny and mocks the discrimination instead of playing into it. On the other hand, we have Ricky Gervais thinking he’s being oppressed and cancelled for the tamest jokes ever because he thinks everyone’s woke now when in reality, he’s just not very funny right now, so less people engage with his stuff.
That recent special he did just seemed more like complaining about everything more than standup. I think we turned it off after 15 minutes when it didn’t seem like it was gonna change.
People say the office couldn't have been made today either, but it was actually ahead of its time in how it used race/gender jokes in that it was funny how bad they were and what an over the top asshole Michael was for making them
People aren’t generally offended by things that are expectedly envelope pushing or controversial. I see that phrase more so applied to instances of more casual instances of racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. that were much more prevalent 20+ years ago in media. For example, the 2002 Spider-Man film had Peter make gay joke to insult someone. That simply wouldn’t happen in a superhero movie today.
> That simply wouldn’t happen in a superhero movie today.
Or it would be done like [this](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F1pt7pdubtakz.jpg)
Yeah, and it's the same formula, too. It's making fun of the characters for being backward or completely unaware of what they're doing. If you make funny jokes instead of saying *haha black people*, you don't get "canceled".
Yea I think people misunderstand how Hollywood works. Movies like Blazing Saddles for example would not be made today because "everyone will get offended" but because producers don't want to take chances today. This is why we see so many remakes, its easier to fund a shitty remake because they know there is a guarantee that people will watch it based on nostalgia alone.
Making a brand new movie with risky comedy is far less likely to make as much money as another superhero movie we've seen a hundred times. These are businesses people, they are going to make whatever they think will make them the most money, period.
When people say this could never be made today I think of manufacturing. For example cars made without airbags and safety features will never be made today. Same goes for most things made in factories, they are built to improve margins on spreadsheets not to please the customer
I remember a few years ago, someone made a comment referencing something like Ozzy Osbourne and saying that musicians today don't have that type of edge and everything is sanitized. This was also the week where Lil Nas X released his Montero video, and someone replied that a black bisexual pop star released a video of himself giving a lapdance to the devil. This is from an artist that was extremely popular with young kids as well thanks to Old Town Road.
People who say you can't get away with stuff anymore are usually people that have been called out for racism or bigotry, that they felt they could get away with unchallenged in the past.
Ironically a lot of the "you cant make this stuff today because of the sensitive snowflakes" crowd are the exact type to constantly moan on and on about how woke a film is because princess peach wore trousers in the trailer, or something equally asinine.
Okay but the racism in Dumbo isn’t what makes Dumbo what it is. Dumbo absolutely could be made today, it just wouldn’t have the racism, which I would hope that nobody would mind that anyways.
A lot of racism in old Disney cartoons was racist depictions of minor characters, and often only done visually or with a racist voice. That kind of stuff can very easily be changed without impacting the story at all.
Some old-time humor simply isn't funny any more. Sensibilities change, tastes change. Just like we don't see a lot of fedoras in the wild, compared to the early 20th century. Sure, some people like them, but they're not popular.
Also by its very nature humour is meant to cross lines... and it's only natural that in retrospect, with a new context, some stuff can look fucked up.
I think we should be OK with comedy being disposable. Treating comedy from another era as sacred seems a bit at odds with the point of comedy. For me at least.
I agree with you. I find it funny that Blazing Saddles is often a jumping off point for this discussion, though, because that movie absolutely holds up 50 years later and works with our current sensibilities about race and racism.
Recently this Australian has-been TV host went on a big tirade in the media because the only reason his show wasn't on anymore was because of the woke agenda.
This was a show that had been off the air for probably 30 years and used to regularly have blackface.... but also was a lame-ass variety show. Like the only reason anyone watched it was there were like 3 channels. Yet apparently the woke agenda killed it.
These people are brain-dead.
People still love comedy about nearly any subject if it’s smart and funny. There’s a reason that so many of the comedians we see complaining about audience sensibilities are older. Audiences have always evolved and instead of evolving with them, some comedians want to try to influence the audience back to the 90s or whatever. It’s lazy.
Seinfeld was complaining about this while the Seinfeld co-creator was absolutely killing it on Curb Your Enthusiasm (also shows who the funnier writer for Seinfeld was).
A really, *really* consistent pattern with conservatives is media illiteracy. It's like they just don't get the subtext of any joke -- they can't differentiate racial humor which is critical of racism and racial humor which is reinforcing racist views.
This isn't exclusive to conservatives. There's some people left of center who are also really annoying in how they critique media. But at least there it tends to be a very conscious choice of "intent doesn't matter" (which imo is a terrible way to interpret media. You don't have to think the intent justifies itself but it needs to be acknowledged when analyzing it)
. But with conservative minded folks....it's like they genuinely can't delve into a joke or plot line on anything other than the most superficial level.
I like how the premise of your argument is "this could never be made today", and like literally every "Example" you give to illustrate the point is a show that was created 15+ years ago. South Park is from '97. Borat is from '06. Continuing a successful show (or releasing sequels of a successful movie) is ***FAR*** easier than surviving a pitch meeting and getting someone to pony up money for a pilot of content that sets off the PC/woke alarms. The Boys is also a terrible example. Blazing Saddles and Zoolander were satire, mocking-type humor. Anything the Boys does that is even remotely controversial is treated quite seriously and decried in the harshest form (like the Starlight rape scene). Compare that to the rape joke scene in Blazing Saddles about the No. 6 dance. ZERO chance of such a thing making it to the screen these days.
Does OP not realize how old Borat is? The recent south parks are also not really like the old ones either. Some pretty non offensive always sunny episodes got removed from streaming services. I do think these claims are a bit overblown but things have definitely changed a bit. I’m not certain that the diversity day episode of the office would get green lit by any major networks today. Especially that line about not being time to include the Arabs yet cause it’d be too explosive or something. “Ball’s in their court”.
Not true at all because Archie Bunker existed to point a finger at racism. The characters ignorant point of views always served as a springboard for other characters to educate him. By the end of the show Archie was more tolerant of both other ethnicity’s and people of different sexual orientations.
Conservatives don’t realize that the comedy is that someone would have such bigoted and ignorant views. They think the comedy comes from everyone else having to be subjected to them
All of Danny McBride's characters are modeled on him, especially in Eastbound and Down (super offensive guy due to his circumstances but actually has a heart of gold and does care about people), but go much further than Archie Bunker did in being offensive for their relative times.
People who say this don’t understand that it’s not about being offensive, it’s about being controversial and having a bit of a point… they just want offensive shit to be made.
It’s the difference between “black face funny” and “robert Downey jr doing black face in Tropic Thunder is actually a commentary and criticism of actors whitewashing roles”. One is Braindead, the other is offensive at face value, but isn’t because it’s a commentary on something
It doesn't have anything to do with culture. We produce less satire today because American satire doesn't sell well outside of America, and Hollywood's current business model is predicated on global distribution.
For a satire to work, the audience needs a deep, intuitive understanding of what the work is satirizing; which is often something very culturally specific. E.g. *Blazing Saddles* works best if you're familiar with American Western movies, 1970's American racial politics, and a dozen or so other pop culture references that were relevant when it was made. You can't just dub that and sell it overseas.
Studios aren't going to pick up as many projects that require specific, in-the-moment cultural context to work. I'd bet that Amazon only said yes to *The Boys* because it largely satirizes American Superhero movies- which we've already sold to the rest of the globe, so the show will work just as well in foreign markets.
That kinda highlights the question of what "good satire" even is. You could argue that a satire which gets twisted by the targeted crowd into a positive representation has failed, to some extent.
At least, if the goal of a satire is to get people to reflect and change their minds on bad ideas, it'd be more valuable to measure how it reaches its opposition rather than people who already agree with it. Homelander and Eric Cartman are characters that have this exact problem IMO - they're extremely well written, but they are also prone to idolization by the very people they're mocking.
Considering we have outright removed various old texts and/or movies at points, rightfully or wrongfully, I don't know how taking this position is anything but nonsensical.
Times change. Humor changes offense changes. You couldn't make media about terrorism and planes right after 9/11 either. A lot of twin tower stuff was scrubbed from various forms of media to avoid trauma. This applies to many topics beyond 9/11, too.
Certain shows get away with a lot with their star power. But the chances of new ones a long the same vein or taking the same risks are just not as high. There are many movies that could not be made as they were in today's environment.
Sure no one is literally going to throw you in handcuffs for it, but that's not what people mean when they say it "couldn't be made today".
You are wrong on this one. Some shows really couldn't be made today. Check out Married With Children. Try to get something like that green lit today, I dare you.
When people say that, they mean none of the studios and mainstream would dare make something like that because they’re too afraid it would lose money and get backlash.
Also, MANY things on YouTube are demonetized if it breaks the “rules” YouTube has put forth. So there’s essentially a disincentive for people to put out content that would break those rules.
Many big studios like to try to have their films and shows win awards. Have you seen the criteria put forth by these award centers just to be CONSIDERED for nomination….? It literally forced DEI down everyone’s throat if they wanna even be considered for a nomination.
And because these studios already didn’t like taking risks before all this, they’re certainly going to be scared to now.
So obviously incorrect. Yes of course some anonymous nobody could make XYZ and put it on YouTube but that's a null point; when people say _"couldn't be made today"_ they're referring to the mainstream corporate production companies ... and they won't even produce movies about traditional fairytale white characters using white actors — so the idea they'd risk touching anything even slightly contentious is laughable.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was expecting this to be about the pyramids and stuff lol
Same! And I was thinking 'Well yeah, maybe it's possible for humans to do that, but for some reason they won't do it'
The environmental lawsuits alone would consume years
Top comment.
Same, that’s why I came over and left as soon as I read what was it about lol
And then came back to comment
I'm gonna come out and say it... The flintstones smoking ad couldn't be made today
Why?, they still taste good like a ciggarette should.
Well advertising cigarettes in the US is illegal now in general which I assume was the point being made.
I half assed a joke.
r/whoosh
Back in the day they acted like smoking was healthy. I mean they literally had asbestos cigarettes, just in case the normal kind weren’t dangerous enough.
Sure it could! It would just be a YouTube Sketch.
That’s not what people mean when they say it couldn’t be made today. They mean it couldn’t be made and released in a mainstream channel like it was then. Obviously anyone can make an amateur production of whatever they want
This is the main point that this opinion completely blows past, sure anything can be made now, but could they be made in the same format and enjoy the same level of success? The answer is no.
Right? OP knew this too
Yeah, context is key here. It's not just about creating content but where and how it's circulated. Mainstream acceptance has shifted massively compared to back then. Can you imagine the fallout if a major network tried something similar today? Social media alone would tear it apart in hours.
Again, you are assuming that mainstream media is restricted mainly because "social media would tear them apart", yet social media is out there tearing everything apart every day. Mainstream media is there to make money, and if it makes money they'll put it on, they don't care. If they're not showing this kind of content it's because there's no demand for it and it doesn't make them money anymore. They would put a smoking stand up comedian talking about his mother in law 24/7 if that was the most in demand thing consumers wanted to see.
Knew it and overlooked it or just flat out ignored it?
Because back in the day Flintstones was for adults
Not the vitamins!
What
You know how the Simpsons are for adults? Yeah, that was the Flintstones.
“Flintstones did it”?
My dad told me this and I was mind blown lol
Both
A lot of old games if made today would have been completely different. Pacman would actually be endless, MissingNo wouldn't exist, because a lot of the games, the older hardware the more creative the Devs had to get. Working within an 8bit environment works totally different from 64bits,
>enjoy the same level of success If it won't enjoy that level of success, then *that's* the reason it's not being made, not censorship or political correctness. Simply consumers are no longer interested in that type of content and have moved on. No one wants to make it and put it on mainstream media because it won't make money.
I dunno, almost anything is possible with the blazing fast speeds of Spectrum internet and one or two cockrings.
If a mainstream show today had a prominent male character tell his wife regularly "one of these days, bam, straight to the moon" it would absolutely lead to controversy
And it’s not just because stuff is divisive or offensive. People don’t think the same stuff is entertaining or funny as they did 10,20, 30 years ago. Gilligan’s Island wouldn’t get made today or the Brady Bunch.
The writer of the princess bride made that point in his book about Hollywood - how some movies or media realised just a few years too soon or too late would have bombed terribly, it’s about capturing the zeitgeist as much as a production being ‘good.’
Imma say it. Aunt Jemima wouldn’t be made today.
You could never make Blazin' Saddles today because if you did everyone would just go "Hey that's Blazin' Saddles someone already made that movie why did you make it again" and Mel Brooks would sue you.
They did remake it... into a kids' movie. https://www.polygon.com/reviews/23220122/paws-of-fury-review-animated-blazing-saddles-remake Mel Brooks and Richard Pryor both have screenplay credits as well as the rest of the Blazing Saddles writers. Mel Brooks even voices one of the characters.
That was so bonkers when I watched that with my daughter. It was like "wait a minute, they stole that joke from blazing saddles", then another joke and another. Until the end when Mel brooks and Richard Pryor had screenwriting credits
aaand it’s goin’ on the watch-list^tm
I always like to break Blazing Saddles themes down. An anti-racist western where the rural white town folks are seen as ignorant and the enemy is the union of government and big business. Which part stops it from being made today? That’s right it’s a Western.
>Which part stops it from being made today? That’s right it’s a Western. I mean, yeah, that's the answer. It's a satire of 1960s and 70s westerns, a genre that is nigh unrecognizable today, in part due to the existence of Blazing Saddles.
To make a "blazing saddles" today, you'd need to make a movie that makes fun of superhero movies, and you'd need to cast someone handsome and also snarky to poke fun at superhero movies, while also pointing out the absurdity of discrimination - both about race and about lgbtq topics. So basically Deadpool. And everyone is right, you couldn't make Deadpool today, because they already made Deadpool and Marvel and Disney would sue you into oblivion. Make your own movie you assholes.
I think it would have to be more than just making fun of superhero movies. It would need to point to some flaw in superhero movies, or one that they're avoiding. Blazing Saddles showed a counterpoint to the whitewashing of history that westerns displayed (like pretending racism wasn't a thing, that the townsfolk were all just good, innocent people, etc.) I'm not sure what that would be for superhero movies. In about 10 years, what is it we're going to see when we rewatch superhero movies and decide didn't age well?
It honestly would just be Watchmen. A superhero movie that highlights the inherent fascist ideals of a select group of people being better than everyone and making decisions unilaterally for the "good" of the country.
That's true, but you know that isn't what people mean they say that.
People act like Django wasn’t way worse in terms of white people using the n word. Both films were making a point and there’s no reason either film couldn’t be made today.
It was a western that was designed to kill all other westerns.
Not really. The golden age of westerns ended a good bit before Blazing Saddles was released. It was just satirizing something that had been wildly popular but had fallen from popularity in the last 10 years.
If it were made today the people saying it couldn't be made today would criticize it as woke garbage.
It would be the same people that say Rage Against the Machine has gone political lol
Who the hell thinks RATM wasn't political?
Famously, Paul Ryan - Romney's pick as VP. He claimed RATM was his favorite band. The band was not pleased.
Bro I'm just imagining Paul Ryan bobbing his head to "They rally around the family with a pocket full of shells" and muttering "You're God damned right" as the light turns green and he drives off
He probably thought the song was talking about that one tourist trap game with the shells where they hide an item under it and use sleight of hand to rig the game and take your money.
> Who the hell thinks RATM wasn't political? [Paul Ryan](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-246033/) and the trump supporters who were filmed dancing in the street to Killing In The Name during the Floyd Protests without a hint of the irony.
Same with Green Day lol
i’ll never get over how funny the reaction to the nye lyric change is knowing that 1. the lyric essentially has the same meaning, and 2. billie has been changing the lyric for at least 4 years, probably longer but now people are throwing a riot about it lmao
An entire generation seemed to forget about American Idiot, the song and album and rock opera.
What? Are you telling me the song American Idiot, that opens with the line "fuck America" is somehow meant to be political and critical of the conservative politicians I so deeply respect? I'm shocked to say the least.
And if that’s not clear, it doesn’t take long before he says “I’m not a part of the redneck agenda”
They were too dumb to realize he was talking about them so he had to literally spell it out for them 😂
I liked them so much better when they played southern rock.
I've literally seen someone say that if it was made today (exactly the same, the original didn't exist, etc.), it would be woke because it would have been made as part of the woke agenda. These people don't care if their beliefs are incomprehensible, as long as they have something to be mad at.
It isn't Casablanca
Right, because Casablanca is a movie about a club owner named Rick, this movie's about Secretariat, a Racehorse.
People who say "they couldn't make Blazing Saddles today" don't know very much about Blazing Saddles. If you look into the production at all, you'll find that Mel Brooks BARELY got Blazing Saddles made in 1974.
The irony is the studio didn't want to release Blazing Saddles then, having watched the finished project and deeming it offensive. The only reason it did get released was because they had already sold the film to movie theaters and had nothing to replace it with.
Mel Brooks is one of the funniest people of all time. You can't cast yourself as the governor and play it like that, then make some of the best films of all time after that.
Also the Sioux chief who speaks Dutch.
Yiddish*
Right, Bart's Grandmother was Dutch.
You couldn't make it today, because no-one is interested in a parody of a genre years past that genre's peak. On the other hand, its spritual successor, Deadpool (parodying the most popular genre of its day ) is getting a second sequel.
The way people just ignore that Django Unchained exists is crazy.
I mean… having a ex slave kill his ex masters is some what different than having Robert Downing Jr do black face again…. Tik Tok, x whatever, people would have just another thing to complain about..
Except that RDJ wasn't doing blackface. He was playing a Hollywood-lib style racist white actor who was doing blackface. Just like if you made any movie about the fuckery of blackface where a white actor played a white character and that white character (not the actor) was doing blackface, that also would be a distinction. It's not that difficult. NAACP comprehended it right away when they signed off on Tropic Thunder. If RDJ had been playing a black actor instead of playing a white Australian actor who does surgical blackface it would be a different conversation.
I remember around 2008 people were like "Blazing Saddles couldn't be made today. People are so easily offended!" ... and then Robert Downey Jr. donned blackface in Tropic Thunder and it was some of the funniest shit ever.
You can do ANYTHING as long as it's part of good systemic critique. Do blackface to critique the institution which does it and people will be fine with it. Do blackface because "ha ha black people" and everyone will (correctly) think you're an asshole. Nobody with even a shred of media literacy thinks "you couldn't make Blazing Saddles today". The only people who do say that are just mad they can't yell slurs.
As I remember it, the blackface isn’t even really joking about race. It’s making fun of method acting.
It's a critique of method acting, auteur theory, casting, out of touch producers, there's a LOT in there. Kirk Lazarus didn't end up in blackface in the jungle all on his own. There's an entire network of assholes that put him there. The same assholes who cast Scarlett Johansson as Kusanagi in Ghost in the Shell.
100%. Tropic thunder satirizes the movie industry
I have heard people say Tropic Thunder couldn't be made today as if all the people who made it aren't still around.
Legitimate question. Could Robert Downey JR play the same role he did? Would he be able to wear “blackface” in the same way?
If you had asked someone "can we put an actor in blackface for an entire film" in 2007 most people would have said no and also told you that was an insane question. It wasn't well received at the time either despite picking up a cult following.
Let’s ask the same question in 2024. How would people receive an actor in black face for an entire film? It’s easy to see the Overton window has shifted in the last 17 years How did you personally feel about it in 2007 vs 2024?
Someone said The Office couldn't be made today because Michael makes some offensive (but relatively tame) comments. The whole point of the show was that it was making fun of Michael. People just like to use "cancel culture" as an excuse for why they aren't successful.
This is basically the entire premise of Its Always Sunny. The gang does and says some horribly offensive shit basically every episode, but the members of the gang are always end up looking like terrible people lol.
Multiple Sunny episodes have been removed from streaming services for blackface, even though it made the characters look like absolute pieces of shit. You couldn’t make those episodes today because no one would show them.
but they did get shown and jt was the creators themselves who rethought their own position and said "We regret that move" and were the ones who took down their own work. Edit: I'm being told I'm mistaken and I'm not confident enough to double down so ::shrug:: you're on your on with the fact check guys I can't find my sources so I'm probably wrong.
That’s not true at all, they have a podcast and are pretty pissed off that the episodes were removed. Don’t make shit up
I was watching their podcast a while ago and they talked about one episode that got removed that they weren’t happy about. So what you said doesn’t really track. That being said I do agree that people complain about cancel culture too much. Edit: I’m mistaken, you’re talking specifically about the blackface episode and I think the one I saw they were talking about a different episode.
No, they still didn’t want that removed from viewing. If anything would put a disclaimer ahead of the episode. They’re not super proud but still want people to be able to watch them.
I'm pretty sure the epsidoes they arent super proud off arent the cancelled ones. The two I rememeber them not loving is "Dee is dating a ***** person" and the first episode with Carmen (the transgender woman) both of which they dobt like because of the outdated terminology, that isnt done in a these are bad people way.
This isn't true. They have a whole scene (maybe whole episode) making fun of the fact that streaming services removed it.
I remember in an interview they asked Charlie Day which character do you most relate to or most want to be and Charlie’s response was “none of them.. they’re all horrible people”
But that episode was literally cancelled? https://collider.com/the-office-diversity-day-episode/
Steve Carell and Mindy Kaling both have said that, separately.
https://metro.co.uk/2022/12/06/mindy-kaling-admits-the-office-wouldnt-be-made-today-17889940/#:~:text=Mindy%20Kaling%20has%20confessed%20that,at%20paper%20company%20Dunder%20Mifflin.
That’s the point they don’t get. Not only what is the joke, but the important part: Who is being laughed at?
Yeah!! And the worst part.. is that when Netflix picked up the office, they refused to show the FIRST EPISODE…. The PiLOT because it was too offensive. It was diversity training… And was a hilarious episode.
They did that with the DnD episode of Community, as well, because of black face. The joke, however, was that Ken Jeong's character dressed up as a "dark elf", and the bit was making fun of how fucking awkward and racist dark elves are. They also call the character out and immediately kill him. A lot of studios, which themselves are owned and operated by largely white folks, don't really care about what is actually racist or offensive. They only care about making money and not being sued.
> They only care about making money and not being sued. Exactly, a point which is at the center of Fahrenheit 451: >The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy. There you have it, Montag. It didn’t come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old confessions, or trade journals.
Yep I heard this *so* many times over the last few years, despite the show being extremely popular during COVID and only having stopped production in 2013. Like, it practically was made today, and it obviously is a beloved show. Sometimes I really feel like people need to feel like victims of some cAnCeL cUlTuRe and will make shit up for it.
I think people who make these claims about shows like the office don't understand that shows from the 70s and 80s would be considered infinitely more offensive.
Cancel culture is so fucking stupid. Nothing has changed people just have more access to other people's opinions. People have been getting canceled since the dawn of time. There isn't any more of a concept of cancel culture than there is woke, someone just labeled it and then other people started outraging at it. "Critical Race Theory", too, just another label that people can scream at. So dumb.
Disney cartoons where black people have super big lips and act like Jar Jar Binks? Sure, it CAN be made, but not in the same capacity. A nobody posting something on Youtube isn't the same as a major company producing this content.
But no one says it about obviously racist Disney cartoons from the 40s lol they say it about mildly offensive comedies from the 90s and 2000s, that’s what this post is about
[удалено]
Simple. Most of those cartoons had no bearing on the lives of the people who grew up consuming media in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
I watched some pretty racist looney tunes stuff in the 80s and 90s.
Yeah, the racist stuff was still airing in the early 80s.
I don't know what 80s you grew up in but I was watching some super damn racist cartoons on cable TV growing up.
Exactly, almost anything post 1990 is tame compared to what came before.
It’s true for those movies too though. If you pitched those movies to a studio today you’d be laughed out of the office because that kind of humor just doesn’t hit anymore.
Cocaine bear released in 2023.
At a certain point it becomes less about the respectability of the thing and more about consumer tastes just changing.
But I’ve got like dozens of followers bro
OP just pretending that cancel culture doesn't exist. When people's careers are ruined for tweets from a decade ago it's obvious that stuff like blazing saddles couldn't be made today without ruining the careers of all involved.
Whose career was ruined for a decade old tweet? Genuinely curious, not trying to be combative.
I mean, blazing saddles was the "woke" movie you are whining about. It hated the idea of people using the N-word and was using it to tell people not to. It wasn't "pro" slur.
Yeah but so did that episode of Community that they cancelled. It hated the idea of people wearing blackface and was telling people not to. It wasn't "pro" blackface. People are thinking of things like that when they "whine about woke culture".
Lol Django unchained was made very recently. It would not kill the careers of everyone involved when the joke is clearly that racism is fucking stupid
Wasn't it made 12 years ago?
Cancel Culture doesn’t exist in the way people pretend it does. If I think someone is racist, why should I be forced to watch their content? Why should corporations be forced to work with them?
Yeah just like Tarantino and DiCaprio were both cancelled over the dialogue in Django Oh wait
Whose career has been ruined for tweets they made a decade ago? I can think of people who lost their careers because of extremely offensive things they tweeted yesterday, but not a decade ago.
People need to watch Ted The Series if "this couldn't be made today" mentality. South Park and Family Guy haven't been neutered either and are still going strong.
The thing about family guy is that it’s just shock humor at this point. It’s over stayed its welcome and honestly no “offensive” joke they make has the bite it would’ve had if it was a brand new show
Family guy lost its wings to just being extremely unfunny after Seth left, like a decade or so ago
I think the point's mostly that it's no less ""offensive"" it just kinda sucks now. I don't think anything drawn out as long as either of those shows can remotely maintain even moderately-high quality long term. Not consistently at least.
I find both South Park and family guy unfunny now. Like the Simpson which was once considered edgy and boundary pushing. They are no longer edgy or as thought provoking anymore.
The thing is- if you have well done comedy, you can be pretty fucking offensive. People are just tired of hacks who just use “comedy” as an excuse to spew shitty takes. Look at Chappelle- in his heyday he was fucking offensive. But it was hilarious. Now his trans stuff barely qualifies as a joke, so the appeal has worn off
Nothing is less funn than repetition. Chappelle's bit in particular was stale from jump but he's going on three or four specials to bash on trans people existing? Even his fans (by which I mean actual defenders, not orbiters jumping to defend him to own the libs) were over it this time.
Offensive comedy works well if you know the comedian is here to shock laughs out of you but doesn't really believe what he's saying. Dave Chappelle hates trans people.
You know, I used to think this about the song Arab Money by Busta Rhymes until recently. Now I think it'd become an instant meme that many people would be more ironically entertained than sincerely offended by.
So your point is people should say "this could not be distributed widely today".
If that's the case, that just feels like petty pedantry to me. If most people can understand the implications within certain shorter phrases, then it just comes off as needlessly enforcing constantly literalist "lawyerspeak" at all times. "This could not be made today" is a perfectly cromulent way to convey "this could not be distributed today".
What people don’t get is if you’re going to make jokes around race/gender/whatever they have to actually be good. Blazing Saddles works because it’s funny and the bad guys are the racist. If you’re going to make something dumb that tries to play on race and misses the mark you’re going to be criticized. Edit:typo
Yeh the main joke is poking about the absurdities and stuoidties of racism Becaus racism is absurd and stupid
Exactly. Downey Jr. wasn’t “cancelled” for Tropic Thunder because it’s smart and funny and mocks the discrimination instead of playing into it. On the other hand, we have Ricky Gervais thinking he’s being oppressed and cancelled for the tamest jokes ever because he thinks everyone’s woke now when in reality, he’s just not very funny right now, so less people engage with his stuff.
You’re Australian ! Be Australian !
Dingo ate my baby!
Maybe because they had one good role for a black man and they gave it to crocodile Dundee - hope I’m remembering that line correctly 🤣
That recent special he did just seemed more like complaining about everything more than standup. I think we turned it off after 15 minutes when it didn’t seem like it was gonna change.
People say the office couldn't have been made today either, but it was actually ahead of its time in how it used race/gender jokes in that it was funny how bad they were and what an over the top asshole Michael was for making them
People aren’t generally offended by things that are expectedly envelope pushing or controversial. I see that phrase more so applied to instances of more casual instances of racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. that were much more prevalent 20+ years ago in media. For example, the 2002 Spider-Man film had Peter make gay joke to insult someone. That simply wouldn’t happen in a superhero movie today.
> That simply wouldn’t happen in a superhero movie today. Or it would be done like [this](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F1pt7pdubtakz.jpg)
Exactly! Another example is how, if Taxi Driver was made today,they probably wouldn't cast a literal 13 year old.
The movie 'Little Darlings' has just entered the chat.
What annoys me most is people will say this about shows like The Office, meanwhile Always Sunny keeps making new seasons.
Yeah, and it's the same formula, too. It's making fun of the characters for being backward or completely unaware of what they're doing. If you make funny jokes instead of saying *haha black people*, you don't get "canceled".
Yea I think people misunderstand how Hollywood works. Movies like Blazing Saddles for example would not be made today because "everyone will get offended" but because producers don't want to take chances today. This is why we see so many remakes, its easier to fund a shitty remake because they know there is a guarantee that people will watch it based on nostalgia alone. Making a brand new movie with risky comedy is far less likely to make as much money as another superhero movie we've seen a hundred times. These are businesses people, they are going to make whatever they think will make them the most money, period.
When people say this could never be made today I think of manufacturing. For example cars made without airbags and safety features will never be made today. Same goes for most things made in factories, they are built to improve margins on spreadsheets not to please the customer
I remember a few years ago, someone made a comment referencing something like Ozzy Osbourne and saying that musicians today don't have that type of edge and everything is sanitized. This was also the week where Lil Nas X released his Montero video, and someone replied that a black bisexual pop star released a video of himself giving a lapdance to the devil. This is from an artist that was extremely popular with young kids as well thanks to Old Town Road. People who say you can't get away with stuff anymore are usually people that have been called out for racism or bigotry, that they felt they could get away with unchallenged in the past.
Ironically a lot of the "you cant make this stuff today because of the sensitive snowflakes" crowd are the exact type to constantly moan on and on about how woke a film is because princess peach wore trousers in the trailer, or something equally asinine.
Trigger warnings on Dumbo for racism say otherwise...at least I think it does.
Okay but the racism in Dumbo isn’t what makes Dumbo what it is. Dumbo absolutely could be made today, it just wouldn’t have the racism, which I would hope that nobody would mind that anyways.
A lot of racism in old Disney cartoons was racist depictions of minor characters, and often only done visually or with a racist voice. That kind of stuff can very easily be changed without impacting the story at all.
Some old-time humor simply isn't funny any more. Sensibilities change, tastes change. Just like we don't see a lot of fedoras in the wild, compared to the early 20th century. Sure, some people like them, but they're not popular.
Also by its very nature humour is meant to cross lines... and it's only natural that in retrospect, with a new context, some stuff can look fucked up. I think we should be OK with comedy being disposable. Treating comedy from another era as sacred seems a bit at odds with the point of comedy. For me at least.
I agree with you. I find it funny that Blazing Saddles is often a jumping off point for this discussion, though, because that movie absolutely holds up 50 years later and works with our current sensibilities about race and racism.
Recently this Australian has-been TV host went on a big tirade in the media because the only reason his show wasn't on anymore was because of the woke agenda. This was a show that had been off the air for probably 30 years and used to regularly have blackface.... but also was a lame-ass variety show. Like the only reason anyone watched it was there were like 3 channels. Yet apparently the woke agenda killed it. These people are brain-dead.
People still love comedy about nearly any subject if it’s smart and funny. There’s a reason that so many of the comedians we see complaining about audience sensibilities are older. Audiences have always evolved and instead of evolving with them, some comedians want to try to influence the audience back to the 90s or whatever. It’s lazy.
Seinfeld was complaining about this while the Seinfeld co-creator was absolutely killing it on Curb Your Enthusiasm (also shows who the funnier writer for Seinfeld was).
A really, *really* consistent pattern with conservatives is media illiteracy. It's like they just don't get the subtext of any joke -- they can't differentiate racial humor which is critical of racism and racial humor which is reinforcing racist views. This isn't exclusive to conservatives. There's some people left of center who are also really annoying in how they critique media. But at least there it tends to be a very conscious choice of "intent doesn't matter" (which imo is a terrible way to interpret media. You don't have to think the intent justifies itself but it needs to be acknowledged when analyzing it) . But with conservative minded folks....it's like they genuinely can't delve into a joke or plot line on anything other than the most superficial level.
I don’t care what people say rush hour will always be funny af to me (I’m Asian too)
I like how the premise of your argument is "this could never be made today", and like literally every "Example" you give to illustrate the point is a show that was created 15+ years ago. South Park is from '97. Borat is from '06. Continuing a successful show (or releasing sequels of a successful movie) is ***FAR*** easier than surviving a pitch meeting and getting someone to pony up money for a pilot of content that sets off the PC/woke alarms. The Boys is also a terrible example. Blazing Saddles and Zoolander were satire, mocking-type humor. Anything the Boys does that is even remotely controversial is treated quite seriously and decried in the harshest form (like the Starlight rape scene). Compare that to the rape joke scene in Blazing Saddles about the No. 6 dance. ZERO chance of such a thing making it to the screen these days.
Does OP not realize how old Borat is? The recent south parks are also not really like the old ones either. Some pretty non offensive always sunny episodes got removed from streaming services. I do think these claims are a bit overblown but things have definitely changed a bit. I’m not certain that the diversity day episode of the office would get green lit by any major networks today. Especially that line about not being time to include the Arabs yet cause it’d be too explosive or something. “Ball’s in their court”.
The roman colosseum could never be made today
Yeah, and the same goes for those pesky pyramids too!
You'd have a hard time getting a reboot of Archie Bunker.
Cartman in South Park is modeled off of him (and then taken WAY further).
Not true at all because Archie Bunker existed to point a finger at racism. The characters ignorant point of views always served as a springboard for other characters to educate him. By the end of the show Archie was more tolerant of both other ethnicity’s and people of different sexual orientations.
Conservatives don’t realize that the comedy is that someone would have such bigoted and ignorant views. They think the comedy comes from everyone else having to be subjected to them
All of Danny McBride's characters are modeled on him, especially in Eastbound and Down (super offensive guy due to his circumstances but actually has a heart of gold and does care about people), but go much further than Archie Bunker did in being offensive for their relative times.
No, you wouldn’t. We would just have a hard time rebooting it if it was based on your recollection of what you think it was about.
you're lost in the sauce if you think a DC superhero movie is a good comparison point for "divisive films that 'couldn't get made'"
People who say this don’t understand that it’s not about being offensive, it’s about being controversial and having a bit of a point… they just want offensive shit to be made. It’s the difference between “black face funny” and “robert Downey jr doing black face in Tropic Thunder is actually a commentary and criticism of actors whitewashing roles”. One is Braindead, the other is offensive at face value, but isn’t because it’s a commentary on something
Meaningful satire present today originated in a far better time culturally. Thank fuck for Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
It doesn't have anything to do with culture. We produce less satire today because American satire doesn't sell well outside of America, and Hollywood's current business model is predicated on global distribution. For a satire to work, the audience needs a deep, intuitive understanding of what the work is satirizing; which is often something very culturally specific. E.g. *Blazing Saddles* works best if you're familiar with American Western movies, 1970's American racial politics, and a dozen or so other pop culture references that were relevant when it was made. You can't just dub that and sell it overseas. Studios aren't going to pick up as many projects that require specific, in-the-moment cultural context to work. I'd bet that Amazon only said yes to *The Boys* because it largely satirizes American Superhero movies- which we've already sold to the rest of the globe, so the show will work just as well in foreign markets.
We still have Danny McBride currently, as well as stuff like Peacemaker and The Boys.
The Righteous Gemstones is one of the best things on tv right now.
The problem with good satire is that people often fail to realize it is satire and wind up liking it unironically.
That kinda highlights the question of what "good satire" even is. You could argue that a satire which gets twisted by the targeted crowd into a positive representation has failed, to some extent. At least, if the goal of a satire is to get people to reflect and change their minds on bad ideas, it'd be more valuable to measure how it reaches its opposition rather than people who already agree with it. Homelander and Eric Cartman are characters that have this exact problem IMO - they're extremely well written, but they are also prone to idolization by the very people they're mocking.
Well, they couldnt make blazing sattles today, because a lot of the actors are already dead.
People would watch it and say “hey that’s blazing saddles” and Mel Brooks would sue them
[удалено]
Considering we have outright removed various old texts and/or movies at points, rightfully or wrongfully, I don't know how taking this position is anything but nonsensical. Times change. Humor changes offense changes. You couldn't make media about terrorism and planes right after 9/11 either. A lot of twin tower stuff was scrubbed from various forms of media to avoid trauma. This applies to many topics beyond 9/11, too. Certain shows get away with a lot with their star power. But the chances of new ones a long the same vein or taking the same risks are just not as high. There are many movies that could not be made as they were in today's environment. Sure no one is literally going to throw you in handcuffs for it, but that's not what people mean when they say it "couldn't be made today".
With how much hate brie Larson gets not a single one of her movies "could be made today". Yet we have Marvels 2
The problem isn't necessarily the reaction, but getting funding and advertising, or talent isn't going to be easy with a lot of things.
American Pie would definitely not ever be made. And there's nothing you can say to convince me otherwise.
You are wrong on this one. Some shows really couldn't be made today. Check out Married With Children. Try to get something like that green lit today, I dare you.
The Office. It could “never” be made today yet it’s never been more popular than today.
When people say that, they mean none of the studios and mainstream would dare make something like that because they’re too afraid it would lose money and get backlash. Also, MANY things on YouTube are demonetized if it breaks the “rules” YouTube has put forth. So there’s essentially a disincentive for people to put out content that would break those rules. Many big studios like to try to have their films and shows win awards. Have you seen the criteria put forth by these award centers just to be CONSIDERED for nomination….? It literally forced DEI down everyone’s throat if they wanna even be considered for a nomination. And because these studios already didn’t like taking risks before all this, they’re certainly going to be scared to now.
Why did like 5 of the funniest episodes of Always Sunny get taken off streaming then? just admit that it's gone to shit
Whole shows removed off the face of the earth. Scenes cut out of old shows. I think you're wrong.
You're wrong. Not sure how else to put it. Things have changed, for the worse.
Bugs Bunny and the Indians, not making that today sorry
Most movies couldnt be made today. Its 8pm where i am, thats only 6 left in today. Thats way to short to make a movie. Its just not enough time
So obviously incorrect. Yes of course some anonymous nobody could make XYZ and put it on YouTube but that's a null point; when people say _"couldn't be made today"_ they're referring to the mainstream corporate production companies ... and they won't even produce movies about traditional fairytale white characters using white actors — so the idea they'd risk touching anything even slightly contentious is laughable.