Jake

Idle Thumbs 159: Wilson's Ghoulish Countenance

Recommended Posts

I feel like that kind of thing - IT references in GH - often comes off as more of a token of affection than a joke. Obviously I can't speak for or illustrious hosts, but that's definitely how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Idle Thumbs references aren't the punchline to anything, though. You wouldn't detect there was anything significant about them if you weren't familiar with the podcast injokes. That's very different to 'reference humour' where your punchline is clearly a reference to something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you still consider it a "token of affection" if it's used as part of a joke, so long as the punchline still exists without the reference? That way, the reference is just a bonus for those in the know. Also, are you saying the thumbs references in GH weren't funny? Because I think it still counts as a joke even if it wouldn't read as one to someone unfamiliar with phaedrus.

 

Edit: I do agree that referential jokes usually don't work very well, especially if 100% of the joke is that it's like this thing you heard of. I just don't think we should be so quick to write it off in any authored material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an Argodale brand in the kitchen, for one. But this is all not in the service of humor, it's a playful nod to friends that's 100% unobtrusive if you're not aware that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really hoping the Watch_Dogs protagonist defensively refers to his own cap as iconic after other characters call him out on it being lame.

 

One thing I haven't heard anyone explicitly point out is that his cap could be referred to as iconic because it has an icon on the front of it (in the broad sense of the word). This also makes his cap symbolic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where were the IT references in GH?

 

The Argodale brand in the kitchen, the Phaedrus Motorcycle ad that Sam has in her room, and the ghost game in the parent's cupboard, that I remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should've read « Aiden's icon-bearing cap » in that case, Ben! There's no weaselling out this one, Ubi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Argodale brand in the kitchen, the Phaedrus Motorcycle ad that Sam has in her room, and the ghost game in the parent's cupboard, that I remember.

 

And the easter egg where you hear Jake's pig noise for a solid ten minutes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Argodale brand in the kitchen, the Phaedrus Motorcycle ad that Sam has in her room, and the ghost game in the parent's cupboard, that I remember.

 

There is also the Puffin binder in the closet.

 

Okay, I can buy that the stuff in Gone Home is not exactly "referential humour". But then what is? Are Mel Brooks movies referential humour? Most of the jokes in them rely some knowledge of another source. What about a stand-up comedian who makes reference to a current event? I just don't see what's wrong with either of those things.

 

It seems that it's like anything: referential humour is fine when done well and bad when done poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's iconoclast, he is breaking the mold for triple-A gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that it's like anything: referential humour is fine when done well and bad when done poorly.

 

That's almost a truism, but there's a deeper reason why referential humor seems a 'lesser' form of comedy. For one, you're necessarily borrowing some pre-existing expression. Unless you adapt that material to add something humorous to it (in which case it is more akin to satire), there's less creativity involved than with coming up with something fresh.

 

A big downside of referential humor is that it ages incredibly fast. If you look at the performance of, say, Jim Carrey as the Riddler in Batman Forever, there's a ton of references to all sorts of 90s things in there: either incomprehensible or just lame at this point. It's also quickly overdone: you wouldn't in a million years re-enact the Matrix bullet time sequence, yet it's in a ton of comedy films spanning at least three years after its release.

 

You might be able to counter that by being obscure (or fast) enough that no one else is doing your particular reference, but then you run the risk of no one getting it. Alternatively, you can make it 'your schtick' and go full Mel Brooks (whose films I find not particularly funny, barring The Producers), or worse, 'Scary Movie' and its ilk. Airplane! and The Naked Gun also employ referential humor, but it's their weakest part and they offset it with tons of original jokes (as you can read here in this completely unbiased and wholesome article: http://www.filmadeus.com/2013/10/the-naked-gun-david-zucker-1988.html).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I haven't heard anyone explicitly point out is that his cap could be referred to as iconic because it has an icon on the front of it (in the broad sense of the word). This also makes his cap symbolic!

 

 

Aiden's Symbolic Cap is a different SKU, it's the only pack with meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's almost a truism, but there's a deeper reason why referential humor seems a 'lesser' form of comedy. For one, you're necessarily borrowing some pre-existing expression. Unless you adapt that material to add something humorous to it (in which case it is more akin to satire), there's less creativity involved than with coming up with something fresh.

 

A big downside of referential humor is that it ages incredibly fast. If you look at the performance of, say, Jim Carrey as the Riddler in Batman Forever, there's a ton of references to all sorts of 90s things in there: either incomprehensible or just lame at this point. It's also quickly overdone: you wouldn't in a million years re-enact the Matrix bullet time sequence, yet it's in a ton of comedy films spanning at least three years after its release.

 

You might be able to counter that by being obscure (or fast) enough that no one else is doing your particular reference, but then you run the risk of no one getting it. Alternatively, you can make it 'your schtick' and go full Mel Brooks (whose films I find not particularly funny, barring The Producers), or worse, 'Scary Movie' and its ilk. Airplane! and The Naked Gun also employ referential humor, but it's their weakest part and they offset it with tons of original jokes (as you can read here in this completely unbiased and wholesome article: http://www.filmadeus.com/2013/10/the-naked-gun-david-zucker-1988.html).

 

I don't know if something aging makes it necessarily bad. If it's good in the moment, what's the problem? Look at The Daily Show: it's built entirely around references to current events that will soon be out of date, but I don't think anybody would say that it's worse for it. Now, the counter-argument to that would be that The Daily Show runs four nights a week for most of the year, so it can afford to be disposable, while something like a film or book is more standalone. But what about Shakespeare's works, that have tons of references that don't work for the average reader now without footnotes. Are they worse because of those references, or does that specificity to the society they were created from make them more interesting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's almost a truism, but there's a deeper reason why referential humor seems a 'lesser' form of comedy. For one, you're necessarily borrowing some pre-existing expression. Unless you adapt that material to add something humorous to it (in which case it is more akin to satire), there's less creativity involved than with coming up with something fresh.

Respectfully, I think this is bullshit. First off, I think 'lesser' form of comedy is nonsense to start with: You can make people laugh at things that aren't funny, which is something that references excel at since the 'joke' is basically "Hey you remember how you're part of the same subculture I'm a part of?" but I'd hesitate to call that comedy at all, as often as it masquerades as that. There are a lot of things that make us laugh that aren't jokes.

 

I don't think making a joke using a reference to pop culture or history is fundamentally different than making a joke based on any other form of shared knowledge, such as the English Language. Sure, the concepts are larger and more complex, but that makes it at most a kind of shorthand. The foundations of humor are still the same: Establish an expectation and subvert it. If you make a reference to something, it's funny if the reference is both non-obvious and not-nonsense. If I say that, I don't know, Dan Brown is the Mike Tyson of literature, in that he's well-known, successful, and has the vocabulary of someone with a lifetime of sustained head injuries, it works reasonably well because it establishes an expectation and subverts it. There's no way to make that same joke without the short-hand of complex concepts that comes with those names, and I don't think that complexity makes it inherently a 'lesser' form of humor!

 

For a similar example, see the Stephen Colbert joke at the press correspondent's dinner 8 years ago, when he said the Bush administration was not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg. This is generally considered a pretty good joke! Do you think it would have been better if he'd replaced them with 'sinking ship' and 'burning blimp'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the Puffin binder in the closet.

Okay, I can buy that the stuff in Gone Home is not exactly "referential humour". But then what is? Are Mel Brooks movies referential humour? Most of the jokes in them rely some knowledge of another source. What about a stand-up comedian who makes reference to a current event? I just don't see what's wrong with either of those things.

It seems that it's like anything: referential humour is fine when done well and bad when done poorly.

The easiest (although imperfect) line for me to draw is that referential humor falls flat for me when the punchline is entirely, or almost entirely, nothing more than a reference itself, and the only reason it's funny is because of the sensation of recognition. This feels incredibly common to me in modern comedy culture.

And yes most of Mel Brooks' movies haven't aged well for me. I'm not saying there's anything "wrong," just that that style of humor has not held up for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of love for Mel Brooks.  Blazing Saddles at least is still better and ballsier than most modern comedies, and I still have a deep fondness for several of his other movies (and feel they hold up).  They do have referential humor, but that's not what makes them good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have to also stand up for Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles. For me, they both are in the same group as The Producers: films that are satires of specific genres. I definitely agree that Brooks' later work gets weaker. A fun experiment is watching Young Frankenstein and Spaceballs back to back and realizing how much you prefer the former.

 

 

There's an Argodale brand in the kitchen, for one. But this is all not in the service of humor, it's a playful nod to friends that's 100% unobtrusive if you're not aware that it is.

 

Absolutely nothing wrong with this reference and I can say that with absolutely no bias.

 

Also, if you turn on commentary mode and open the fridge, there's a track right next to the dressing where I explain why it's in the game and make a 'reference' to Idle Thumbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely nothing wrong with this reference and I can say that with absolutely no bias.

 

Also, if you turn on commentary mode and open the fridge, there's a track right next to the dressing where I explain why it's in the game and make a 'reference' to Idle Thumbs.

PART OF THE PROBLEM

 

HAVE YOU NO SHAME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest (although imperfect) line for me to draw is that referential humor falls flat for me when the punchline is entirely, or almost entirely, nothing more than a reference itself, and the only reason it's funny is because of the sensation of recognition. This feels incredibly common to me in modern comedy culture.

 

This I can get behind, although for me a lot of it has to do with not being too interested in punchline-centric humour.

 

I agree with the above posters that Blazing Saddles is awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of love for Mel Brooks. Blazing Saddles at least is still better and ballsier than most modern comedies, and I still have a deep fondness for several of his other movies (and feel they hold up). They do have referential humor, but that's not what makes them good.

Different people like different things. I keep indicating I'm just talking about what appeals to me. I also find some of his films to be about stuff that resonates beyond its own set of references, but others (like Spaceballs) do not for me and are essentially unwatchable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's weird, I'm pretty sure I saw Spaceballs before I saw Star Wars, or at least before I had strong ideas about Star Wars other than those I had absorbed from pop culture. Yet I thought the movie was hilarious. Star Wars feels like the backdrop of the movie, while most of the best jokes don't have a ton to do with the trilogy. "Combing the desert," "A ship full of assholes," "Bleeps, sweeps and creeps," watching the movie on VHS: all those work without any reference to Star Wars. So that might be proving the point about jokes that rely solely on reference not holding up as well.

 

As a side note, I just remembered that Spaceballs is where I first learned the words "virgin" and "ludicrous."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between Blazing Saddles and Spaceballs is huge, but the difference between Spaceballs and 

 

 

is also huge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now