Maybe it's just me, but this whole thing with not-young celebrities, especially those who are 70+, where the interviewer takes this whole "I'm amazed you're not already dead, or at least doing...
Maybe it's just me, but this whole thing with not-young celebrities, especially those who are 70+, where the interviewer takes this whole "I'm amazed you're not already dead, or at least doing nothing but lying on the floor trying to gather enough energy for your next bathroom visit" bit is tiresome.
People age. If Burnett (or anyone) was tired and wanted a break, they'd fucking retire! Gene Hackman retired, and you never hear from him anymore. He's either tired, or just ready to sit back and enjoy his life quietly. Either way, someone who's still doing projects is probably doing them because they chose to. That's cool, and that should the focus.
It shouldn't be a thing that that has to be framed with astonishment, with "are you sure you don't need a break" and all that. It's gotta get old, way older than an old person, to have that be the question all the time. For every interview (most of which I'm sure are conducted by people half, even a third, of the older celebrity's age) to lead and lean on that angle.
That said, I agree with Burnett. Cringe humor isn't humor. It's just awkward. At best (and it's not really a good thing at all), it's humor at the expense of someone's pain and suffering.
I miss when comedy was just a little more thoughtful. When it was a little more situational. Like George Carlin's bit on English and phrasing, where he expounds on stuff like "no fuck you, I think I'll get in the plane (not on it)." When comedy was scripted. Workshopped. Processed and pondered and crafted into a fine joke, rather than this improv stuff where it's all low bar giggle instead of "oh yes it's funny because it's so right" belly laughs.
Improv is a big reason why I'm less interested in comedy these days. They'll spend the runup PR tour going " we just set the set, and pointed the cameras, and let everyone riff." Okay, thanks for letting me know you didn't bother to write anything. I'll pass.
I don't follow this train of thought. The Office was very much "cringe humor" but it wasn't at someone's expense. It was scripted as much as Carlin's. Humor at someone's expense is bad, but I...
That said, I agree with Burnett. Cringe humor isn't humor. It's just awkward. At best (and it's not really a good thing at all), it's humor at the expense of someone's pain and suffering.
I don't follow this train of thought. The Office was very much "cringe humor" but it wasn't at someone's expense. It was scripted as much as Carlin's.
Humor at someone's expense is bad, but I don't think that it is fair to conflate it with cringe humor.
That's the thing. Everyone's got a different idea of cringe. I might think "bad" comedy is cringe. Hello fellow kids played straight is cringe but hello fellow kids is also cringe humor. Movies...
That's the thing. Everyone's got a different idea of cringe. I might think "bad" comedy is cringe. Hello fellow kids played straight is cringe but hello fellow kids is also cringe humor. Movies with lots of improv can be good or bad - sometimes you'll never notice because the actors are improvising within a tight framework and with their characters in mind.
YouTube 'prank' humor is cringe to me but the success of it proves that there's a market for people that enjoy it. Dane Cook was incredibly popular for a time but would be widely regarded as cringe today. Same with Jeff Dunham.
Basically, I don't really think of cringe humor as being 'cringe humor' - any comedian can include things that make us cringe but that doesn't redefine their whole set as cringe now.
An actor playing a role? It was scripted, agreed to, and played out. If it happened in real life it would be a problem, but it is cringe humor done by actors intentionally. Oscar Martinez was...
An actor playing a role?
It was scripted, agreed to, and played out. If it happened in real life it would be a problem, but it is cringe humor done by actors intentionally.
Oscar Martinez was assaulted. Oscar Nuñez was not.
Oscar Martinez is a fictional person and the assault is no more a problem than the murder of Red Shirt #4 in an action movie.
Cringe humor where one party was not involved in the scripting and planning is bad because it is at someone's expense. Cringe humor where both parties were involved in the planning does not have the problem of it being at someone's expense.
No, that scene was funny. You're supposed to laugh at Michael, not with him. If you're looking at whose expense it was it would've been Michael. @DeaconBlue already alluded to the death of the...
No, that scene was funny. You're supposed to laugh at Michael, not with him. If you're looking at whose expense it was it would've been Michael.
@DeaconBlue already alluded to the death of the author and I feel it's important here. This was funny because it's a scene.
I usually think of cringe humor as being centered around social media. The "cringe compilation" videos that started to get big on YouTube in the early 2010s seem like the start of the trend. And...
I usually think of cringe humor as being centered around social media. The "cringe compilation" videos that started to get big on YouTube in the early 2010s seem like the start of the trend. And that continued on through other platforms like FB, Instagram, and TikTok. Its form has kind of transformed over the years though, and I think it's not so clear to people that a lot of TikTok stitches where the creator makes fun of another video/creator is basically the new cringe humor.
So yeah I agree that The Office shouldn't be lumped into that same category. Making fun of fictional people is very different from real people.
Edit to be more clear: cringe humor in the context of the internet isn't just anything that you might cringe at. It's specifically making fun of real people/things that the creator/audience think are cringy.
Whereas The Office is cringe comedy as a subgenre, which has a different definition. And I don't really see how it's humor at someone's expense, when it's fictional.
Ironically, the title made me cringe. I get the impression that this article was a love letter to Carol Burnett rather than answering that question. This would have been fine, if the author hadn't...
Ironically, the title made me cringe. I get the impression that this article was a love letter to Carol Burnett rather than answering that question. This would have been fine, if the author hadn't chosen such a negative title.
I am still peeved by the title and its premise, so I'm going to say this: nothing happened to it. There are many many many shows about still featuring that kind of fun. There's an entire genre of anime called iyashikei (healing) anime, which is often focused on good fun. Slice of life genre is often the same way. Cheesy romantic comedies are still a thing. Pixar and Disney also produce a lot of the type of fun the author is talking about (they even get criticized for it!). Ghibli movies and movies influenced by it are still popular. And many many more works are still being produced in this manner, not to mention a myriad of fanfictions and fanworks.
This framing that starts with "Whatever happened to..." irritates me, because vast majority of the time it's not followed by a worthy examination of the subject in question. It's almost always cherrypicking, rose-colored glasses, and sensationalization of some trivial issue. It's a very negative framing, which is why I dislike it very much. The other reason is that it's intellectually lazy.
Come to think of it, another reason is that it's clickbait. It begs to be read, and this is tied to the sensationalization and negative-framing I mentioned. After all, in both the traditional and online press, a major way to get something read is to make a mountain out of a molehill. Presenting what you want to say as if it's some profound knowledge or information about a very important problem. But then you find out it's not. Despite my thinking about this, I did read this piece. So I guess mission accomplished by the author. But it only further solidified my reasoning regarding pieces that are framed this way.
https://www.polygon.com/c/2024/1/22/24034466/anime-viewer-survey-research 42% of GenZ and 25% of millennials watch anime at least weekly, with viewership higher than sportsball.
Anime doesn't account for very much of US viewers' watching habits
Maybe it's just me, but this whole thing with not-young celebrities, especially those who are 70+, where the interviewer takes this whole "I'm amazed you're not already dead, or at least doing nothing but lying on the floor trying to gather enough energy for your next bathroom visit" bit is tiresome.
People age. If Burnett (or anyone) was tired and wanted a break, they'd fucking retire! Gene Hackman retired, and you never hear from him anymore. He's either tired, or just ready to sit back and enjoy his life quietly. Either way, someone who's still doing projects is probably doing them because they chose to. That's cool, and that should the focus.
It shouldn't be a thing that that has to be framed with astonishment, with "are you sure you don't need a break" and all that. It's gotta get old, way older than an old person, to have that be the question all the time. For every interview (most of which I'm sure are conducted by people half, even a third, of the older celebrity's age) to lead and lean on that angle.
That said, I agree with Burnett. Cringe humor isn't humor. It's just awkward. At best (and it's not really a good thing at all), it's humor at the expense of someone's pain and suffering.
I miss when comedy was just a little more thoughtful. When it was a little more situational. Like George Carlin's bit on English and phrasing, where he expounds on stuff like "no fuck you, I think I'll get in the plane (not on it)." When comedy was scripted. Workshopped. Processed and pondered and crafted into a fine joke, rather than this improv stuff where it's all low bar giggle instead of "oh yes it's funny because it's so right" belly laughs.
Improv is a big reason why I'm less interested in comedy these days. They'll spend the runup PR tour going " we just set the set, and pointed the cameras, and let everyone riff." Okay, thanks for letting me know you didn't bother to write anything. I'll pass.
I don't follow this train of thought. The Office was very much "cringe humor" but it wasn't at someone's expense. It was scripted as much as Carlin's.
Humor at someone's expense is bad, but I don't think that it is fair to conflate it with cringe humor.
That's the thing. Everyone's got a different idea of cringe. I might think "bad" comedy is cringe. Hello fellow kids played straight is cringe but hello fellow kids is also cringe humor. Movies with lots of improv can be good or bad - sometimes you'll never notice because the actors are improvising within a tight framework and with their characters in mind.
YouTube 'prank' humor is cringe to me but the success of it proves that there's a market for people that enjoy it. Dane Cook was incredibly popular for a time but would be widely regarded as cringe today. Same with Jeff Dunham.
Basically, I don't really think of cringe humor as being 'cringe humor' - any comedian can include things that make us cringe but that doesn't redefine their whole set as cringe now.
Huh? How about when Michael is mindbogglingly homophobic and sexually assaults a male employee?
An actor playing a role?
It was scripted, agreed to, and played out. If it happened in real life it would be a problem, but it is cringe humor done by actors intentionally.
Oscar Martinez was assaulted. Oscar Nuñez was not.
Oscar Martinez is a fictional person and the assault is no more a problem than the murder of Red Shirt #4 in an action movie.
Cringe humor where one party was not involved in the scripting and planning is bad because it is at someone's expense. Cringe humor where both parties were involved in the planning does not have the problem of it being at someone's expense.
Viewers' expense.
No, that scene was funny. You're supposed to laugh at Michael, not with him. If you're looking at whose expense it was it would've been Michael.
@DeaconBlue already alluded to the death of the author and I feel it's important here. This was funny because it's a scene.
I usually think of cringe humor as being centered around social media. The "cringe compilation" videos that started to get big on YouTube in the early 2010s seem like the start of the trend. And that continued on through other platforms like FB, Instagram, and TikTok. Its form has kind of transformed over the years though, and I think it's not so clear to people that a lot of TikTok stitches where the creator makes fun of another video/creator is basically the new cringe humor.
So yeah I agree that The Office shouldn't be lumped into that same category. Making fun of fictional people is very different from real people.
Edit to be more clear: cringe humor in the context of the internet isn't just anything that you might cringe at. It's specifically making fun of real people/things that the creator/audience think are cringy.
Whereas The Office is cringe comedy as a subgenre, which has a different definition. And I don't really see how it's humor at someone's expense, when it's fictional.
I don't think Carol Burnett is talking about cringe compilations on TikTok, so I'm not sure that's relevant.
Ironically, the title made me cringe. I get the impression that this article was a love letter to Carol Burnett rather than answering that question. This would have been fine, if the author hadn't chosen such a negative title.
I am still peeved by the title and its premise, so I'm going to say this: nothing happened to it. There are many many many shows about still featuring that kind of fun. There's an entire genre of anime called iyashikei (healing) anime, which is often focused on good fun. Slice of life genre is often the same way. Cheesy romantic comedies are still a thing. Pixar and Disney also produce a lot of the type of fun the author is talking about (they even get criticized for it!). Ghibli movies and movies influenced by it are still popular. And many many more works are still being produced in this manner, not to mention a myriad of fanfictions and fanworks.
This framing that starts with "Whatever happened to..." irritates me, because vast majority of the time it's not followed by a worthy examination of the subject in question. It's almost always cherrypicking, rose-colored glasses, and sensationalization of some trivial issue. It's a very negative framing, which is why I dislike it very much. The other reason is that it's intellectually lazy.
Come to think of it, another reason is that it's clickbait. It begs to be read, and this is tied to the sensationalization and negative-framing I mentioned. After all, in both the traditional and online press, a major way to get something read is to make a mountain out of a molehill. Presenting what you want to say as if it's some profound knowledge or information about a very important problem. But then you find out it's not. Despite my thinking about this, I did read this piece. So I guess mission accomplished by the author. But it only further solidified my reasoning regarding pieces that are framed this way.
https://www.polygon.com/c/2024/1/22/24034466/anime-viewer-survey-research
42% of GenZ and 25% of millennials watch anime at least weekly, with viewership higher than sportsball.