CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Humor › Judd Apatow
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judd Apatow

post #1 of 43
2/2/08 at 7:47pm
Thread Starter 
He's not funny. And he's not particularly insightful. He makes very obvious social commentaries and people pass him off as a genius.*

I fell asleep during The 40 Year Old Virgin when I saw it in theaters, Talladega Nights had a couple chuckles but doesn't hold up to repeat viewings. Anchorman was really weird but Sex Panther and such were never really funny to begin with. Knocked Up had me rollin' but I was really really high when I saw it and I havn't tried to watch it again since then so I'm not sure if I'd really find it funny or not. Superbad (amusing penis drawings notwithstanding) didn't make me laugh at all. Walk Hard failed to be funny on account of being too much like the film it was parodying and using the same damn jokes over and over again and just not being funny.

Although I liked Cable Guy when I was younger but I have no desire to ever see it again, and I've never seen Celtic Pride, Fun with Dick and Jane, Heavy Weights or a single Episode of Undeclared, Freaks and Geeks, The Ben Stiller Show, The Larry Sanders Show or Tom Arnold: The Naked Truth. But somehow I doubt I'd really like any of that, except maybe Freaks and Geeks, I've heard great things about Freaks and Geeks.

To his credit I'd rather watch his stuff than Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer and anything starring Adam Sandler (except Punch Drunk Love) or Rob Schneider. But people (okay it seems to only be Devin and he hasn't said anything recently, but still) already saying Pineapple Express is going to be the best comedy of the year? What the fuck are they smoking?

Go ahead and hate me.

*Not just parodying you Patrick, really not that big on the Apatow
Reply
post #2 of 43
2/2/08 at 8:02pm
I wrote a bunch of different things. But, it's just not worth it. I will say this: There's more to it, to anything, than just not liking it. Things are bigger than you just not liking it. Why is it that some things have resonated and remained? I'm not saying you're wrong. But the things that resonate are usually worth looking into a little deeper.

Fuck it. Apatow is one of my favorite artists of all time. His films deserve to be watched, shared, talked about. Filmmakers of today have begun to imitate his work for a good reason. He wrote dialouge the right way, assembled amazing casts of talented people and gave them enough space to show off their talent. Wish there were more like him.

R.I.P.

R.I.P. Isildur's Bangs' taste
Reply
post #3 of 43
2/2/08 at 8:13pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
I wrote a bunch of different things. But, it's just not worth it. I will say this: There's more to it, to anything, than just not liking it. Things are bigger than you just not liking it. Why is it that some things have resonated and remained? I'm not saying you're wrong. But the things that resonate are usually worth looking into a little deeper.
Reply
post #4 of 43
2/2/08 at 8:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isildur's Bangs View Post
And he's not particularly insightful. He makes very obvious social commentaries and people pass him off as a genius.
Here is where you fail. If you don't think Apatow has insight into the world, then I dunno. He gets the schlub.
Reply
post #5 of 43
2/2/08 at 8:45pm
Thread Starter 
Really? I rather felt that his films don't examine real life and people as much as they push forward tired cliches about certain types of people.

Particularly felt that was the case with The Forty Year Old Version, which I didn't feel gave me any real insight into why a 40 year old man would choose such an existence but instead just took the point of view that the very fact that he did live that way was in and of itself a joke, and to an extent that was also the case with Knocked Up, except stoner losers trying to make it big with a dumb website is a much more niche group of geek than the action figure collector/comic con attendee.

He seems to be trying to make a mark for himself as sort of a hero filmmaker for the schlub and you say he get's it, but instead of giving us real insight into the lifestyles and problems these sort of people face, he takes the whole thing at face value as a joke and throws these characters into ridiculous and unbelievable situations

Which while it isn't particularly uplifting for the true uber-geek out there, would work fine for me, except I don't find his stuff to be all that funny.

It's as insightful as Ugly Betty.
Reply
post #6 of 43
2/2/08 at 8:50pm
My only fault with Apatow is that he has an immature sense of humor. But we also get the experience of his age, so we get heart in some of his movies.

He's a great director though, from what everyone says about him.

So that's really all I have to say about Apatow. I'm still waiting for the huge backlash everyone keeps talking about.
Reply
post #7 of 43
2/2/08 at 8:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radb707 View Post
My only fault with Apatow is that he has an immature sense of humor.
This is necessary. To be a schlub is to be immature.
Reply
post #8 of 43
2/2/08 at 8:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isildur's Bangs View Post
Really? I rather felt that his films don't examine real life and people as much as they push forward tired cliches about certain types of people.

Particularly felt that was the case with The Forty Year Old Version, which I didn't feel gave me any real insight into why a 40 year old man would choose such an existence but instead just took the point of view that the very fact that he did live that way was in and of itself a joke, and to an extent that was also the case with Knocked Up, except stoner losers trying to make it big with a dumb website is a much more niche group of geek than the action figure collector/comic con attendee.

He seems to be trying to make a mark for himself as sort of a hero filmmaker for the schlub and you say he get's it, but instead of giving us real insight into the lifestyles and problems these sort of people face, he takes the whole thing at face value as a joke and throws these characters into ridiculous and unbelievable situations

Which while it isn't particularly uplifting for the true uber-geek out there, would work fine for me, except I don't find his stuff to be all that funny.

It's as insightful as Ugly Betty.
He chose to live that existence because he had a few bad experiences and sort've just stopped trying. He didn't see sex or women as the end all be all. He filled that void of his life with toys and hobbies. I never felt it was used as a joke. Some people really do live like that. But what do you do when you see that kind of stuff in real life?? You laugh and poke fun at him like the other guys in the film do. I thought it was realistic enough. There's plenty of guys who act just like the guys in Knocked Up do. They get high and just wait around for the eventual "big break" they think they're going to get. The movie itself is about growing up and accepting responsibility and accepting the way your life is. The pregnancy is just a catalyst. I thought it showed problems that people would face pretty well. It's not like the message of either film is anything new.
Reply
post #9 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:01pm
I don't think the guy is always on but when he is he really knows how to work the material. The 40-Year-Old Virgin worked I think because it was a nice balance of absurdity and childish humor, carried by great performances. I think that's what really gets his movies across is that he'll hire funny people who look like real, honest guys.

Sure, Walk Hard was a bit much in places ("The wrong kid died!") but I enjoyed the hell out of it, mainly because I knew I wasn't going to sit down to a movie that was trying to change the world. My only real gripe was that I didn't get the Patrick Duffy I was promised in the trailers. Why they couldn't have left in the face mashing he gets is beyond me.
Reply
post #10 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott View Post
This is necessary. To be a schlub is to be immature.
No to be a schlub is to be clumsy or slow or unattractive, or a combination of the three, and it denotes that doesn't care about the opposite sex.

The subject matter doesn't have to rely on immature humor, it can be handled with maturity: see PUNCH DRUNK LOVE, etc.
Reply
post #11 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isildur's Bangs View Post
The subject matter doesn't have to rely on immature humor, it can be handled with maturity: see PUNCH DRUNK LOVE, etc.
If you're comparing PUNCH DRUNK LOVE to Apatow, you're clearly missing the point of his movies.
Reply
post #12 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:07pm
Christ almighty.
Reply
post #13 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott View Post
If you're comparing PUNCH DRUNK LOVE to Apatow, you're clearly missing the point of his movies.
No, the only comparison I was making is that the main characters of Judd Apatow's films are schlubs and so is Adam Sandler's character in Punch Drunk Love. It is you who misses the point.

That point is simple: Dick and fart jokes do not go hand in hand with movies about guys that don't connect well with women and don't seem to really care about it.
Reply
post #14 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:15pm
I don't know if you're a fake or not UC now IB.

I don't think that The Little Tramp is an accurate representation of the homeless, but I empathize with his plight.

I think this is a huge disconnect for a number of geeks. And people who relate to Barry Egan scare me.
Reply
post #15 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:16pm
So you're saying that a comedy about guys who can't connect with women can never have dick and fart jokes in it?
Reply
post #16 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:23pm
I just don't know what to say to someone that falls asleep during a movie then watches another high and doesn't think Superbad is funny. There's nothing you can really say, though. Either you connect to the material or you don't.

But it helps if at any point in you're life were ever a nerd or a slacker. A significant part of my enjoyment of Apatow's work is identification with the characters and the lives they lead. There was a throwaway line in "Freaks and Geeks" that guaranteed my following of this group's work. The character Bill said that he didn't want to be late to class because the last time he did, everyone looked at him. Now, to someone who's never been shy or socially awkward, you'll probably wouldn't understand this kid. But to someone who's thought the same thing at some point in their life, you realize that Apatow and his folks understand these characters because they pretty much were these characters.

There is an honesty and humanity to Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin, and Superbad that distinguishes them from other comedies. Yeah even if they have dick jokes.
Reply
post #17 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte View Post
I don't think that The Little Tramp is an accurate representation of the homeless, but I empathize with his plight.
Sure, but didn't you just post something about me failing here because Apatow in fact did show alot of insight into the world of a schlub?

I was disagreeing with that, but since you bring it up...

Quote:
And people who relate to Barry Egan scare me.
Hey I don't exactly go trying to make friends with these sort of people myself, but unlike the 40 Year Old Virgin (which didn't make me laugh and put me to sleep) I genuinely felt something for Barry Egan.

Apart from again, not eliciting alot of laughs from me, Apatow's films havn't done that for me either on part of his characters being less than 3 dimensional.

Amphibatron, Scott posted that immature humor is necessary in a film about someone who is a schlub. Are you having difficulty following along here? Didn't say that the jokes (ya know those jokes I didn't find particularly gut busting to begin with) in and of themselves are out of place, I just demonstrated that that sort of humor is not a necessity.
Reply
post #18 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:43pm
Honestly? Yeah, I have hard time following along with any of your posts, discussions, rants.
Reply
post #19 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isildur's Bangs View Post
Amphibatron, Scott posted that immature humor is necessary in a film about someone who is a schlub. Are you having difficulty following along here? Didn't say that the jokes (ya know those jokes I didn't find particularly gut busting to begin with) in and of themselves are out of place, I just demonstrated that that sort of humor is not a necessity.
Two things: One, you don't need to be so condescending. Two, you did imply that immature humor had no place in that kind of movie. Just saying, man, there are ways of getting your point across without being a dick.
Reply
post #20 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:47pm
I think there is a level of "me, not me" inherent in all great art. Virgin is taking something real (disconnection from the outside world, fear/misunderstanding of the opposite sex) and taking it to a level of absurdity. Same as Chaplin. The reality is not interesting because it is simply true. I wouldn't want to see a film about a 40 year old virgin, because the truth of it would be that he couldn't turn the corner. He would be too ensconced in his world. But what Apatow and company do is show that you can break out of that funk, be it a couple months of celibacy, or a whole life.

Egan is a basket case, Andy just needs to grow up.
Reply
post #21 of 43
2/2/08 at 9:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isildur's Bangs View Post
Hey I don't exactly go trying to make friends with these sort of people myself, but unlike the 40 Year Old Virgin (which didn't make me laugh and put me to sleep) I genuinely felt something for Barry Egan.
I don't understand how you fell asleep. Is this just hyperbole or are you narcoleptic or something?
And how can you not gather up just a little bit of sympathy for a man on a quest to get laid?
Reply
post #22 of 43
2/2/08 at 10:17pm
We should just make a thread called "I have horrible taste" and be done with it.

(I like Meat Loaf, so first person who plays glass houses is gonna get it.)
Reply
post #23 of 43
2/2/08 at 10:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas View Post
I don't understand how you fell asleep. Is this just hyperbole or are you narcoleptic or something?
I actually just fell asleep, I don't have an explanation for it other than that I wasn't really into the movie. It doesn't happen often. And that wasn't the only time I saw it, not sure if I was clear on that or not.

Quote:
And how can you not gather up just a little bit of sympathy for a man on a quest to get laid?
Mostly because it's something he gets push into, rather than active decision making on his part. He doesn't really make any effort until Catherine Keener comes along, and by that point you do root for him to end up with her, but from that point on the film becomes even less funny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte
I think there is a level of "me, not me" inherent in all great art. Virgin is taking something real (disconnection from the outside world, fear/misunderstanding of the opposite sex) and taking it to a level of absurdity. Same as Chaplin. The reality is not interesting because it is simply true. I wouldn't want to see a film about a 40 year old virgin, because the truth of it would be that he couldn't turn the corner. He would be too ensconced in his world. But what Apatow and company do is show that you can break out of that funk, be it a couple months of celibacy, or a whole life.

Egan is a basket case, Andy just needs to grow up.
Alright Andre, I can understand this, and I'm not trying to say that the lack of reality makes for a bad film, or at least I didn't mean it to come across that way. What I was trying to get at is that Apatow has this reputation for making comedies that go beyond just trying to tell jokes but to portray real humanity and give us some insight into the world that other comedies do not, and because of this his films transcend the genre. I can't get behind that so much.
Reply
post #24 of 43
2/2/08 at 10:35pm
I will believe this- Judd Apatow is a wonderful storyteller, EXCEPT when he's behind the camera. He's probably the least-skilled director currently on the A-List, and his films are fucking ugly to look at. It's why I've seen so many cases of people claiming his films were difficult to sit through at home- in their bloated versions, there's a lot of visually unappealing sitting around and chattering that doesn't lend itself to a "Hey, let's party" atmosphere most comedies have.
Reply
post #25 of 43
2/2/08 at 10:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
We should just make a thread called "I have horrible taste" and be done with it.

(I like Meat Loaf, so first person who plays glass houses is gonna get it.)
Not liking something that most people think is great is not the same thing as liking something most people think is shit.
Reply
post #26 of 43
2/2/08 at 10:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KABONG View Post
I will believe this- Judd Apatow is a wonderful storyteller, EXCEPT when he's behind the camera. He's probably the least-skilled director currently on the A-List, and his films are fucking ugly to look at. It's why I've seen so many cases of people claiming his films were difficult to sit through at home- in their bloated versions, there's a lot of visually unappealing sitting around and chattering that doesn't lend itself to a "Hey, let's party" atmosphere most comedies have.
His films are simplistic, visually, but they're no more "ugly to look at" than the average television show.
Reply
post #27 of 43
2/2/08 at 10:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
We should just make a thread called "I have horrible taste" and be done with it.

(I like Meat Loaf, so first person who plays glass houses is gonna get it.)
I went halfsies on Bat Out of Hell II as a joke a couple of years back. The real joke was I enjoyed the hell out of that thing.
Reply
post #28 of 43
2/3/08 at 3:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
His films are simplistic, visually, but they're no more "ugly to look at" than the average television show.
Good point. Though I think my favorite thing Apatow does visually behind a camera is that push he does on Rudd as he's holding the birthday cake in KNOCKED UP.
Reply
post #29 of 43
2/6/08 at 12:52pm
I don't understand people who don't like Anchorman. I can't understand people who don't like Anchorman. I don't want to understand people who don't like Anchorman.
Reply
post #30 of 43
2/6/08 at 1:12pm
Regarding Apatow's use of low humor:

One of the hallmarks of great postmodern comedy is a mixture of both high and low humor. Seinfeld did this perfectly, and Apatow also has a pretty good feel for it. Juxtaposing complex ironies that expose the follies of humanity with cum jokes is both complementary and synergistic.

And no, I'm not going to be baited into a debate about what postmodernism is or isn't. If you have a problem with my usage of that word, please just ignore it, because we won't get anywhere with a debate about that.
Reply
post #31 of 43
2/6/08 at 1:24pm
What is this, "Declare you have no taste in comedy" week at CHUD?
Reply
post #32 of 43
2/6/08 at 1:38pm
Ripoll opened the floodgates, I guess.
Reply
post #33 of 43
2/6/08 at 2:02pm
I think I'm going to start a BACK TO THE FUTURE thread where I talk about the movie's promotion of materialism and how the movie sucks.
Reply
post #34 of 43
2/6/08 at 2:03pm
I'm hit or miss with Apatow. I admit that I find his broader comedies more appealing. I liked Superbad a great deal. I laughed way too hard at Walk Hard. And I think Anchorman is anarchic genius. Having said that I think Knocked Up commits the worst sin of a comedy in that it's not funny. It may well be insightful but, lord, I didn't laugh once. Part of that may have been the hype as the funniest film of the year.

I still think Freaks and Geeks was amazing when it stuck with the older characters. The young kids, particularly the Neil character, had little appeal for me. I think partially because I identified far more with Lindsay, Ken etc. but partially because I found the actors to be just a little off in the roles. The older actors seemed more grounded in their roles where the young guys went over the edge for me.
Reply
post #35 of 43
2/6/08 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Pathetic View Post
I don't understand people who don't like Anchorman. I can't understand people who don't like Anchorman. I don't want to understand people who don't like Anchorman.
Agreed. Those people must be looked down on.
Reply
post #36 of 43
2/6/08 at 3:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
Agreed. Those people must be looked down on.
To me it was akin to the anarchy of the best Marx Brothers films. No real need for a complex plot they just kept cranking up the absurd until it was unbearable.
Reply
post #37 of 43
2/20/08 at 1:33am
Why are people associating Apatow with films like Anchorman and Superbad? I admit I know very little about show business, but being a producer is a far less intimate connection to a film than being its writer or director as far as I'm concerned. Right?

As far as 'big budget' projects go, he's only directed two major films, which he also wrote, and he had a creative hand in films like Heavyweights (which I thought was hilarious when I was 15- haven't seen it lately), Fun with Dick and Jane, and Walk Hard.

I enjoyed both films he directed. I didn't like Knocked Up as much, but I thought it was still solid. As for Anchorman, and Superbad I'm at a loss as to why anyone would consider them Apatow projects in any meaningful sense?
Reply
post #38 of 43
2/20/08 at 1:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banandar View Post
Why are people associating Apatow with films like Anchorman and Superbad? I admit I know very little about show business, but being a producer is a far less intimate connection to a film than being its writer or director as far as I'm concerned. Right?

As far as 'big budget' projects go, he's only directed two major films, which he also wrote, and he had a creative hand in films like Heavyweights (which I thought was hilarious when I was 15- haven't seen it lately), Fun with Dick and Jane, and Walk Hard.

I enjoyed both films he directed. I didn't like Knocked Up as much, but I thought it was still solid. As for Anchorman, and Superbad I'm at a loss as to why anyone would consider them Apatow projects in any meaningful sense?
That depends entirely on a film by film basis - but in Apatow's case, he's often very involved. He chimes in on scripts, helps casting, and is around on set a lot (correct me if I'm wrong folks). It is also the fact that he is the driving force behind a loose group of comedians doing good work. It's not that each movie he is associated with his, but that the movies that he's involved with bear his stamp (much like a Bruckheimer film bears his, even if he didn't have direct creative control)
Reply
post #39 of 43
2/20/08 at 3:51am
Intimate connection? You'll have to explain your meaning on that one a bit, but saying that a producer has anything even remotely resembling less to do on a movie is just plain incorrect.
Reply
post #40 of 43
2/20/08 at 5:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared Melton View Post
Intimate connection? You'll have to explain your meaning on that one a bit, but saying that a producer has anything even remotely resembling less to do on a movie is just plain incorrect.
When I think of a film, the most significant aspects are provided by in two places IMO: how it's presented in concept. as created by the writers, and how that concept is visualized, as presented by the director. Like Donny before me, I'm well 'out of my element' here, and I realize there are a number of people involved who contribute to each aspect which allows these stories to be more than just a word document, but I think my point, no matter how thoroughly presumptuous, is that, at least in relation to the creative process, few roles are proportional to that of the writer and the director.

That sounds either pretentious, or just completely ignorant- Renn's post pretty much answered it- but when we think of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, for example, do we really think of it as much Gondry and Kaufman's work, as say, Anthony Bregman? Is there a reason his name isn't as familiar?

I realize these differ on a case by case basis, and I'm not trying to downplay the role of everyone involved, especially with respect to the producers (Bruckheimer is a great counter example to my point, but much Apatow, I think these are exceptions rather than the rule), but can Superbad really be said to be as much Apatow's work as it is Rogen and Mattola's (not meant to be rhetorical)?
Reply
post #41 of 43
2/20/08 at 9:08am
As you said, it is a case-by-case thing. Most producers leave the creativity to the "creatives" but others meddle heavily. With Superbad, for example, I wouldn't be surprised if Apatow completely rewrote the script or at least workshopped it with Rogen.
Reply
post #42 of 43
4/12/08 at 4:58pm
I just finished watching freaks and geeks for the first time.

I know this is old news, but what a great show. Understands adolescence and growing up better than everything i've seen before. I related to a ton of situations. And Carlos the Dwarf will go down in history as the best role playing name ever.
Reply
post #43 of 43
4/29/08 at 5:04pm
A bit late to the discussion, but for every misstep Judd Apatow had, he did have some part in creating one of the most insanely satisfying characters ever.

Millie.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Humor
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Humor › Judd Apatow