Dissecting the Comedy Frog

E.B. White once said, "Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested, and the frog dies of it." Many seem to agree with White because it's kinda true; that is, who wants to look at something funny, pick it apart and, thus, kill it? That sounds like it would basically defeat the purpose of a surprising humorous moment, doesn't it? Well, even so, analyzing humor and why something is or is not funny is really useful because it can teach us what causes that impulsive bodily reaction we call laughter. So folks, I'd say it's time to get over killing the frog because, I mean, it's already dead and injected with formaldehyde once we hear the joke more than once or twice, so may as well not waste a perfectly dissectible lab frog, right? ;)

Comedy is a difficult medium to use to reach people because there are just certain things some people find funny that others don't. There are also those particular instances in comedies when people believe the jokes used have crossed that fine line between funny and offensive. So, due to the variables of the "What is funny and who is it funny to?" question, it's very hard for comedy films to reach a general audience and make everyone laugh at a certain joke because humor is so subjective. This may be one reason why comedies--even good ones--are rated relatively low.

Let's look at the new comedy Keanu, for example. On Rotten Tomatoes, it's rated pretty high for a comedy at 77%, while other big name comedies such as Scary Movie or The Bee Movie (see our review of Bee Movie here) didn't make it out of the 50% range. The sequels to comedies are much worse though. I mean, get this: The Hangover was rated at 79% while the sequel was rated at 33% and the third part was rated an astonishingly low 19%. Similar trends follow for other recent comedies with sequels.  But why is this a thing?

I have a theory: jokes wear out fast. Like, really fast. When a joke is fresh, it's interesting and new. When the same shenanigans and jokes are repeated over and over again however, the comedy falls flat because we've seen it before. It simply becomes trite and boring after several times. And interestingly enough, many film studios seek to build on the popularity of high-grossing, high-rated comedy films by releasing sequels when the reality is that sequels are typically not that funny. Why would that be? Well, it's always best to follow the common adage "Quit while you're still ahead"--especially when it comes to comedy.  

So, the moral of the story is that, although Keanu is a pretty good film with a decent following and some great humor, if it had a sequel, that sequel would likely be rated pretty low. There's just no way to recapture the effect of the original material, no matter how well-constructed the jokes are.

I guess it was pretty useful to dissect the frog after all because we know more about it now and have some useful advice for Hollywood: the best way to not kill a joke is to not tell it again and again and again and again... *Sarcasm dripping here*  Nah, the best way to kill a joke is to put it on repeat like a broken record, and that is fine, I suppose, if all you want to do with a film is make money on it due to its close association with a preceding famous film.  However, if you want to truly produce a quality comedy film, it's super important to get fresh, new ideas out there because one of the most important parts of comedy is the surprise of it.  Don't forget that, Moneybags! Oops, I meant "Hollywood!" ;)

H. Logan Christensen
(Pragmus Alpha)
CEO of Pragmus Media

Edited and co-written by Corey Cherrington