History of the World Part II

[SciFiMuseum]

Thought you all may want to know about this. Mel Brooks is making 'History of the World part II' as an eight part series on Hulu.

At last! "History of the World Part II" is finally being made – prepare for “phoney baloney stories"

 

[Cephus]

And, as my wife just said, it will be terrible because he won't be able to do all of the stuff that made the first one good because of rampant political correctness.

 

[0neiros]

If you think Mel Brooks gives a bubbly fart about political correctness LOL. the man’s in his 90s. trust me, I am in my mid-50s and have zero F’s to give. to find an F for him to give, you would have to dig down to the center of the earth.
as long as we get “Jews in space“ if he does it as a Star Trek style show OMG I can imagine the prop makers here going berserk.

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

As much as I love Mel Brooks, I can't see this going well.

The Spaceballs spin-offs have, on top of his later films, left a real sour taste in my mouth.

 

[Cephus]

If you think Mel Brooks gives a bubbly fart about political correctness LOL. the man’s in his 90s. trust me, I am in my mid-50s and have zero F’s to give. to find an F for him to give, you would have to dig down to the center of the earth.
as long as we get “Jews in space“ if he does it as a Star Trek style show OMG I can imagine the prop makers here going berserk.

He still has to work within the system and unless he's funding this out of his own pocket and distributing it on his own, he's got to go with the paranoid Hollywood idiots or he's not going to get anywhere fast. I didn't say Mel Brooks was an idiot snowflake but the rest of Hollywood certainly is.

 

[Laspector]

There were Spaceballs spin offs?

 

[Prop Collector]

There were Spaceballs spin offs?

The sequel trilogy.

 

[Bigdaddy]

"Political correctness" isn't a problem for Mel, that's just an excuse to complain about "things I don't like". His best works don't depend on controversy for humor. They depended on superb writing (usually with a partner) and genius comedic timing (usually provided by brilliant actors). Mel did some truly great films but I tend to look at his career as following a similar path a Lucas', he's a great collaborator but tends to not know his own limitations on his own.
I don't have high hopes for this.

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

There were Spaceballs spin offs?

I daren't bring it up. It's best left forgotten.

 

[dascoyne]

If Mel Brooks does Mel Brooks then hats off to him. But if he waters down his trademark humor to appease the current social climate it would be a tragic allegory of the times we live in. Lenny Bruce, we need you more than ever. Chappelle, please stand your ground.

 

[AJTaliesen]

This thread scares me, I hope it doesn't become political, I apologize in advance if I'm making it worse, but...

I love wrong humor. Always have. I get that it's a personal taste. I'm not a mean person in real life, I don't even enjoy practical jokes because they hurt people's feelings. But I love "wrong" humor in movies and stand up. It's the 'wrongness' of it that makes it for me. The "I can't believe he said that!" factor.

Inoffensive Mel Brooks just wouldn't BE Mel Brooks anymore. Inoffensive Mel Brooks is just...Andy Griffith.

 

[Bigdaddy]

Young Frankenstein and the Producers, neither is offensive. I'd hardly refer to those as "Andy Griffith" humor.

 

[AJTaliesen]

I wasn't offended by any of the shows mentioned, myself.

But I admire your optimism in picking the show that prominently features the musical number "Springtime for Hilter" as an example of non controversial.

 

[Bigdaddy]

I wasn't offended by any of the shows mentioned, myself.

But I admire your optimism in picking the show that prominently features the musical number "Springtime for Hilter" as an example of non controversial.

Making fun of Nazis hasn't been controversial since 1946.

 

[Cephus]

If you think there's any way he'd get away with Blazing Saddles today, you are out of your mind.

 

[AJTaliesen]

Making fun of Nazis hasn't been controversial since 1946.

Unfortunately, that's not only not true, but it's so not true I can't even provide evidence without the danger of taking this thread into lockable territory.

I will say that I envy you for missing out on some of the internet's greatest hits of the last few years. Not sure how you missed it, but I can assure you that you are better off. I'll just post this quote, from the New York Times:

"Meanwhile comedians advertise their racist jokes as bold challenges to the tyranny of political correctness, and brand their bigotry as boundary-pushing, taboo-busting bravery. The anti-authoritarian spirit of comedy that flows through Lubitsch and Chaplin to Brooks and his heirs is twisted away from its humanist roots.

At the same time, authoritarian leaders prove impervious to satire. Laughing at how stupid, pompous or corrupt they are doesn’t seem to break the spell of their power. The joke may be on those who persist in believing otherwise. If it were revived today, “Springtime for Hitler” might wind up being a hit for the wrong reasons. Or it might flop because those old Hitler jokes aren’t as funny as they used to be.

I don’t blame Max Bialystock. I find myself envying his misguided faith in the high-minded good taste of the public, even as I cherish Mel Brooks’s belief in our irrepressible vulgarity. Part of me looks back fondly on the days when fascism seemed like history’s dumbest joke. And part of me thinks we’d all have been better off if the opening-night audience at “Springtime for Hitler” had stormed out of the theater in a rage, leaving Max and Leo to make their way safely to Brazil."

 

[Bigdaddy]

Unfortunately, that's not only not true, but it's so not true I can't even provide evidence without the danger of taking this thread into lockable territory.

I will say that I envy you for missing out on some of the internet's greatest hits of the last few years. Not sure how you missed it, but I can assure you that you are better off. I'll just post this quote, from the New York Times:

"Meanwhile comedians advertise their racist jokes as bold challenges to the tyranny of political correctness, and brand their bigotry as boundary-pushing, taboo-busting bravery. The anti-authoritarian spirit of comedy that flows through Lubitsch and Chaplin to Brooks and his heirs is twisted away from its humanist roots.

At the same time, authoritarian leaders prove impervious to satire. Laughing at how stupid, pompous or corrupt they are doesn’t seem to break the spell of their power. The joke may be on those who persist in believing otherwise. If it were revived today, “Springtime for Hitler” might wind up being a hit for the wrong reasons. Or it might flop because those old Hitler jokes aren’t as funny as they used to be.

I don’t blame Max Bialystock. I find myself envying his misguided faith in the high-minded good taste of the public, even as I cherish Mel Brooks’s belief in our irrepressible vulgarity. Part of me looks back fondly on the days when fascism seemed like history’s dumbest joke. And part of me thinks we’d all have been better off if the opening-night audience at “Springtime for Hitler” had stormed out of the theater in a rage, leaving Max and Leo to make their way safely to Brazil."

I don't see why this would be locked as long as we keep our discussion to the context of Mel's films.
I probably have missed out on some of the internet controversy you mentioned since this is and a sparsely populated comic book forum are the only social media I've ever had.
For clarity, I want to point out the term I used in the quoted post was "offensive" not "controversial" there's a distinct difference. The piece you're quoting is just an opinion, some of it I agree with and some I don't, however The Producers has been recently on Broadway (same with YF) with great success and remade as a film (please don't do that with YF!) and continues to be popular.
The only "offensive" aspects of Mel's work I can think of is the rampant use of a racial slur in Blazing Saddles and his constant stereotyping of Jewish culture in Spaceballs. The context of both examples in those films is pretty clear, whether either is actually "funny" or "offensive" or both is completely subjective. My original post in this thread was that Mel's best work doesn't rely on that type of humor and I stand by that opinion.
This new series will succeed or fail based on whether Mel is still good at writing humor for general audiences, has good production, good actors, etc...not if he's "allowed" to be Mel.
Personally I enjoy irreverent humor, but it has to be well written an executed.

 

[Krel]

Mel Brooks proved in the 50s and 60s that he could write clean, and be hilarious at it.

David.

 

[Ron]

Not to change the subject but I saw The Producers a few years ago for the first time and I gotta say I didn't see why it's considered one of the greatest comedies. The premise is good and the material is there but I thought the execution and timing was way off. It was Mel Brooks' directorial debut and it shows. You watch a scene and you can tell what Mel was going for but it just doesn't land right. Not for me anyway. I imagine the reason that it gets such praise is it was a comedy style that hadn't been tried before. Anything that was a "First" or "different" in movies tends to score easy points with film critics.

Ironically I thought the funniest bits were during the Springtime play. It's as if the movie was telling a meta narrative.

Unfortunately, that's not only not true, but it's so not true I can't even provide evidence without the danger of taking this thread into lockable territory.

I will say that I envy you for missing out on some of the internet's greatest hits of the last few years. Not sure how you missed it, but I can assure you that you are better off. I'll just post this quote, from the New York Times:

"Meanwhile comedians advertise their racist jokes as bold challenges to the tyranny of political correctness, and brand their bigotry as boundary-pushing, taboo-busting bravery. The anti-authoritarian spirit of comedy that flows through Lubitsch and Chaplin to Brooks and his heirs is twisted away from its humanist roots.

At the same time, authoritarian leaders prove impervious to satire. Laughing at how stupid, pompous or corrupt they are doesn’t seem to break the spell of their power. The joke may be on those who persist in believing otherwise. If it were revived today, “Springtime for Hitler” might wind up being a hit for the wrong reasons. Or it might flop because those old Hitler jokes aren’t as funny as they used to be.

I don’t blame Max Bialystock. I find myself envying his misguided faith in the high-minded good taste of the public, even as I cherish Mel Brooks’s belief in our irrepressible vulgarity. Part of me looks back fondly on the days when fascism seemed like history’s dumbest joke. And part of me thinks we’d all have been better off if the opening-night audience at “Springtime for Hitler” had stormed out of the theater in a rage, leaving Max and Leo to make their way safely to Brazil."

Good Lord. Could the guy who wrote this be any more pretentious?

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

Unfortunately, that's not only not true, but it's so not true I can't even provide evidence without the danger of taking this thread into lockable territory.

I will say that I envy you for missing out on some of the internet's greatest hits of the last few years. Not sure how you missed it, but I can assure you that you are better off. I'll just post this quote, from the New York Times:

"Meanwhile comedians advertise their racist jokes as bold challenges to the tyranny of political correctness, and brand their bigotry as boundary-pushing, taboo-busting bravery. The anti-authoritarian spirit of comedy that flows through Lubitsch and Chaplin to Brooks and his heirs is twisted away from its humanist roots.

At the same time, authoritarian leaders prove impervious to satire. Laughing at how stupid, pompous or corrupt they are doesn’t seem to break the spell of their power. The joke may be on those who persist in believing otherwise. If it were revived today, “Springtime for Hitler” might wind up being a hit for the wrong reasons. Or it might flop because those old Hitler jokes aren’t as funny as they used to be.

I don’t blame Max Bialystock. I find myself envying his misguided faith in the high-minded good taste of the public, even as I cherish Mel Brooks’s belief in our irrepressible vulgarity. Part of me looks back fondly on the days when fascism seemed like history’s dumbest joke. And part of me thinks we’d all have been better off if the opening-night audience at “Springtime for Hitler” had stormed out of the theater in a rage, leaving Max and Leo to make their way safely to Brazil."

...Good Lord. Could the guy who wrote this be any more pretentious?

Once again, more evidence surfaces proving that the New York Times sucks.