I have to admit that I’ve never found Mel Brooks to be all that funny. Maybe way back in the days of Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles he had a few good joles, but even in those movies I rolled my eyes at some of the obvious ones. And after that I don’t think he ever got more than an occasional chuckle out of me, across multiple movies.
I loved Young Frankenstein and Spaceballs (and History of the World Part 1!). This one, not so much. I just saw the first ep and I think I’ll circle back to it at some point but it didn’t really grab me for essentially all the reasons mentioned upthread.
Jason Mantzoukas?
…I mean, Mel Brooks is 96 years old. And he’s only one of 15 credited writers on this, and it really isn’t a case of “losing a step” when the last real thing he wrote for the screen was back in 2005. I don’t think this was every going to be much more than comedy put together by committee. Which is fine. But I wouldn’t judge Brooks too harshly for this.
Yeah, somehow I doubt that Mel Brooks is writing parodies of social media apps. Or, you know, is aware of social media apps.
My guess is Paul Scheer, who I sometimes confuse with Kroll though I don’t confuse Kroll with Scheer.
I have now watched all of the first season and reflected on it as a whole. My conclusion is that it really, really, really sucked.
I said I’d give it one more episode, and if it didn’t improve, I’d bail. And I did, and it didn’t, and I did.
And to be blunt, if you want to do a funny story about World War II, Brook’s actual story about heckling the Germans is a lot funnier than a boatload of D-Day troops throwing up because they ate at subpar restaurant the night before.
When I heard about this show my first thought was “Mel Brooks, fuck, he must be 100 years old!” I was close, 96. I was never a fan, not my type of humor. Just looking at his IMDB page makes me wonder why he even did this. It certainly isn’t going to be a big capper to his career.
2000.
My guess: he enjoys working, specifically working with other people making comedy.
Then why did he do this?
I enjoy some humor from just about every decade from the Silent Era forward, some decades more than others.
For my taste, we are currently in a golden age of comedy. In decades past, I had to look long and hard to find a movie, sit-com, or stand-up comedian that I found truly funny. Now, I have no problem at all. Witty, edgy humor is abundant today (not that there’s not a lot of clunkers to sift through, too).
For me, the humor of Mel Brooks hasn’t aged well, mainly because there is wittier, edgier comedy to be found today. The edgier material that I enjoyed from Brooks’ heyday (50s-80s), like dancing Nazis, just isn’t edgy, or all that dark anymore. And, I don’t find broad comedy all that funny anymore, either.
Oh, I can still enjoy some of Brooks’ classic movies, like Young Frankenstein or High Anxiety, but it’s mostly for nostalgic reasons. I have no desire to watch a new Mel Brooks™ movie, especially one that is written by committee, with the once-funny 96-yo Brooks name attached only for promotional reasons.
If I want to laugh, I’ll watch a movie, sit-com, or stand-up routine written and performed by current comedians, or comic actors. If I want to really belly laugh, I’ll watch a movie by Chaplin, Lloyd or Keaton, from the 1920s.
Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles hold up best of the movies I’ve seen.
The “written by committee” part I have no problem with. Plenty of great TV comedies have had teams of writers who collaborated or at least punched up each others’ contributions. Brooks got his start as part of the famed writers’ room of Your Show of Shows, and he collaborated with other writers on many of his movies.
I have no idea how much Mel Brooks personally contributed to History of the World Part 2 beyond his name. But your quoted statement doesn’t seem fair. If you think he’s only “once-funny,” why would you want him to have been more involved?
I wouldn’t. Personally, I don’t want to watch any version of History of the World Part II. That type of humor doesn’t tickle me anymore. Its day has passed. But, humor is a personal affair, so if other people find it funny, that’s ok by me.
On the other hand, Your Show of Shows humor does hold up well, IMO, and I’m sure Mel Brook’s contribution to that show was a big factor.
This latest effort seems pretty predictable if you look at the trajectory of Brooks’ films and other projects. His early films (The Producers, Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles) had strong narrative lines that weren’t just there to set up the gags. That slowly changed around the time of History of the World Part 1, where he had two short narratives and a bunch of sketches that just set up a punch line. I never revisited his Robin Hood and Dracula films because I seem to recall that everything in the scripts were just landing lights for a lame joke. This latest show is all just setup-joke, setup-joke, end of sketch. Funny in small doses but insufferable even in 30 minute batches.
Anecdote: I saw High Anxiety in the theater when I was around 12. Mom took me and my two younger sisters to the movies, but they wanted to watch some baby Disney movie so I chose to go watch High Anxiety instead. I laughed and felt so grown up.
Mel was 7 or 8 years younger then than I am now. He’s now 96. Christ, time does go by.
Just two things:
-
Mel Brooks at the peak of his talent was a comedy genius. Anyone who disagrees is wrong.
-
This series sucks big time.
That is all.
…he’s 96. Why wouldn’t he?
He pitched the idea, and his name is on the show, but Nick Kroll was the real lead in the writers room. And there were 14 other writers.
Brooks makes a bit more money, gets to hang out (over zoom) with a bunch of other people making comedy, and finally provides a punchline to the “History of the World Part I” gag.
It sounds like he had a lot of fun. Which is a perfectly valid reason to do anything.
He realized he could make more money with a flop than he could with a hit?