site banner

Friday Fun Thread for March 6, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Great write up. I'd explain the decline in action movie quality to the complex dynamics of genre filmmaking as a whole: pure action movies, rom-coms, and comedies used to be huge at the box office, attract big stars, and attract big budgets, but over the last 15ish years, all three genres have been demoted almost entirely to low-tier streaming fair. Action, romance, and comedy still exist on film, but on the biggest budgets they are packaged in super hero films and cross-genre blockbusters. In 1994, you could get Nick Cage and Ed Harris and Sean Connery to work together on a $100 million blockbuster like the Rock, now you can only get that money for a Marvel movie where the actual action is a secondary concern (at best). Meanwhile, pure action movies are left to Jason Statham, rom-coms are pumped out on Netflix, and comedies are almost dead entirely.

comedies are almost dead entirely.

This is what baffles me a bit about the current landscape. Growing up comedies were usually some of the biggest movies in a given year. Superbad, Tropic Thunder, Zombieland, whatever Will Ferrel movie came out that year, and Seth Rogan's Oeuvre.

Inevitably those would be the films people would be quoting at each other forever thereafter.

And they're really a footnote these days. My guess is its just been subsumed by television series.

Or, as you point out, subsumed by Superhero movies. Deadpool still does big numbers while being more pure comedy.

The explanations I've heard for the decline of comedies:

  • Foreign box office is much more important now than in the past (especially China) and it's hard to do cross-cultural humor.
  • Comedy movies used to make more money in the VHS/DVD phase than in theaters (often 2-5X as much), but now that whole sector is basically dead, streaming isn't as dependent on marginal movie value.
  • In the olden days, movies were the best way for a comedian to get their content out. Now we have many more televised specials, YouTube, podcasts, Twitter, etc., all of which are far lower cost and less risky than a comedy movie.
  • As you say, tv comedies are still alive and well, and pumped out at a faster rate than ever in the streaming era. It's still easy for Shane Gillis to make a little Netflix show like Tires, but if he was around in the late 1990s, he would have been paid $10 million for a $40 million budget movie.
  • And yeah, the genre bending of modern blockbusters seemed to have consumed much of the desire for movie comedies. Even the action-comedies like Men in Black or Beverly Hills Cop seem to have fallen off.

That all makes sense.

But still, Superbad did $121 million domestically. Relatively unknown cast and director, a non-sequel, just carried on the strength of writing and acting.

And somehow, near as I can tell, the 'vulgar teen/coming of age sex comedy' is literally dead as a genre, and I partially blame MeToo, since borderline rapey interactions are a source of some of their humor.

Gen Z Came of age without any equivalent cultural touchstone.

I think that's mostly explained by the normal ebb and flow of comedy trends. The vulgar teen coming of age sex comedy era was basically 1999 (American Pie) to Superbad (2007), with Road Trip and Van Wilder and a bunch of others inbetween (I don't think 21 Jump Street counts, too meta), maybe with Project X as a limping capstone (2012).

But I also can't think of the defining comedy trend of the 2010s. I asked AI what the biggest comedies of the 2010s were, and it said: Deadpool 2 (2018): $785.8 million Deadpool (2016): $782.8 million Men in Black 3 (2012): $654.2 million Ted (2012): $549.3 million — the decade's biggest "pure" live-action comedy The Hangover Part II (2011): $586.7 million 22 Jump Street (2014): $331.3 million (It also noted Bridesmaids for cultural importance, which is true, but also vaguely fits into coming age but from the other gender).

What's the trend of those movies? Sequels and IP I guess. The better and boringer answer for "what was the comedy trend for Gen Z" is just Marvel movies, or rather, a sanded-down, repeated ad nauseum derivative of Joss Whedon comedy.

Or maybe Marvel is still the late millenial trend, and the real gen Z trend is that they don't care about comedy movies at all, and their comedy world is memes and streaming and nonsense like "6-7."

The vulgar teen coming of age sex comedy era was basically 1999 (American Pie) to Superbad (2007),

Have to disagree, since my dad had VHS copies of Revenge of the Nerds, Porky's, and Earth Girls are Easy. I was not allowed to watch.

By 2001 the genre was played out enough that they produced Not Another Teen Movie as a full on parody of the entire thing. Which introduced me to Cerina Vincent('s breasts). I think it's just been a mainstay of Hollywood since the 80's until circa 2012 (Project X), and now is just gone. Might just be the fact that kids watch actual internet porn now, so titillating tease movies don't have the appeal they used to.

and the real gen Z trend is that they don't care about comedy movies at all, and their comedy world is memes and streaming and nonsense like "6-7."

Streamers and Youtubers.

The fact that Markiplier made a pretty bad (by most accounts) indie horror movie that nonetheless made $50 million is a sign of something.

Also, Horror as a Genre is still plugging along extremely well, which mildly surprises me, since imo the genre hasn't had much originality to offer for decades.

Have to disagree, since my dad had VHS copies of Revenge of the Nerds, Porky's, and Earth Girls are Easy. I was not allowed to watch.

Ah, fair enough, but I'll nitpick to say that American Pie was a resurgence of the trend, and it definitely increased the gross out angle of it. Totally agree that internet porn put a big dent in the appeal of this stuff.

Also, Horror as a Genre is still plugging along extremely well, which mildly surprises me, since imo the genre hasn't had much originality to offer for decades.

I'm surprised you think this, I think we've been in a horror renaissance since the mid 2010s and really kicking off with Hereditary (2018). Since then, we've had other Ari Aster movies, Jordan Peele, Robert Eggars, the Philippou Brothers, Zach Creggor, Osgood Perkins (more mixed), Empty Man, Smile (at least Smile 2), Together, etc. To me, this stuff is waaaaay better than almost all pre 2010 horror movie, except some of the true classics like Exorcist or the Shining.

My personal benchmark on Horror films is The Ring which was innovative as it was a monster movie but the monster doesn't appear until the end, after the fakeout that things were 'fixed,' and most of the horror is the sense of dread that permeates the film.

And that movie only 'works' because of that brief period where CRT TVs, VHS tapes, and landline phones were the most common tech of the day. I don't think you could remake it effectively now!

And as I understand it the recent crop of horror films avoid this issue by making the horror come from psychological conditions that may or may not have a literal personification onscreen, sort of a 'the monster is inside you the whole time' concept, or more abstract "racism/sexism/right wing politics/relationship drama" as the looming allegorical danger.

I think what I mean wrt horror films is that they inherently play with the same tropes over and over again. Body Horror, Jumpscares, indestructible/implacable entity that wants YOU, specifically, dead, straight up gore (hello, Terrifier 3), psychological uncertainty (am I crazy or not?), various metaphors for sexual assault, and the occasional thick layer of existentialism.

I haven't heard of one that really breaks the mold of audience expectations in a while. Cabin in the Woods was innovative for satirizing how formulaic they tended to be.

I watched Weapons last year, and it was a satisfyingly entertaining movie, and the ending was great. But after the initial mystery of "Where the fuck did those kids go" resolves, I felt pretty disconnected. The film wisely switches over to 'action' mode whenever the pace starts to lull. And the concept of being 'locked in' and conscious whilst your body is compelled to commit violence against people you care about is indeed horrifying.

I just feel no need to watch the film again!

Perhaps the most 'innovative' recent horror movie I saw was 2014's The Guest. And it was innovative in the sense that the 'horror' element was hiding in plain sight, then escalates to the point where its basically a straight-up slasher movie... but also with competent action. Oh, also Bone Tomahawk (same year) for hiding behind a Western facade for 90 minutes and whipping out the horror only after you've gotten comfortable that the movie plays by the standard Western rules. I feel a need to watch the film again... but not sure if I can stomach it.

I guess I just like Horror movies that masquerade as something else so you don't KNOW what they're trying to do until it is too late. Straight horror movies generally have me anticipating most of the scary bits well before they happen. Also it always annoys me when the core danger in the film could be handily solved with a gun.

But I do have to retreat from my argument about horror not doing much innovative for decades. I've also heard good things about Nosferatu and Midsommar.

I don't know if I'd call them good, per se, but two horror movies that I've recently seen that very earnestly tried to do something new were "Glorious" and "Anything for Jackson".

In the former, a man gets trapped in a highw rest stop with an Eldritch monstrosity, and if he doesn't satisfy the monster's physical needs through a glory hole, the world will end. The monster is voiced by JK Simmons, who is having the time of his life.

In the latter, a pair of grieving grandparents draw on the power of Satan to perform a "reverse exorcism" on a pregnant woman to try and bring back their dead grandson.

And the concept of being 'locked in' and conscious whilst your body is compelled to commit violence against people you care about is indeed horrifying.

I totally did not get this from weapons. I kind of assumed their personality got wiped once she took them over, but maybe that's just cope to protect my psyche, because that is fucking horrific.

I've also heard good things about Nosferatu and Midsommar.

You're clearly a big movie person, you need to watch both ASAP

More comments

And that movie only 'works' because of that brief period where CRT TVs, VHS tapes, and landline phones were the most common tech of the day. I don't think you could remake it effectively now!

It could be argued that One Missed Call is an attempt at making The Ring for the cellphone generation. Of course, it's not nearly as good, but it's not the worst either.

And as I understand it the recent crop of horror films avoid this issue by making the horror come from psychological conditions that may or may not have a literal personification onscreen, sort of a 'the monster is inside you the whole time' concept, or more abstract "racism/sexism/right wing politics/relationship drama" as the looming allegorical danger.

This can be done in a fresh way, though; The Babadook is very on the nose, but the fact that it's something we can definitely sympathize with makes it work more than the monster was the personification of something we all reflexively condemn. The Boogeyman attempts it with another sympathetic metaphor but with much less skill.

And the concept of being 'locked in' and conscious whilst your body is compelled to commit violence against people you care about is indeed horrifying.

It indeed taps into the root of horror: powerlessness.

More comments