I tried reading that as "“Ohv-REED” and I don’t get the pun.
Deux is not pronounced do. It’s close enough, just as it is close enough for duh. If anything, it’s almost a hybrid pronunciation between the two. And why doesn’t that make sense, the multiple uses? It makes sense to you to be used as a weak pun once then as an incongruous nonsensical title elsewhere? Two uses makes it a pattern and makes it humor. Even if it is unintentional, it is a very serendipitous usage. It’s just so simple, and to my eyes obvious, that I don’t believe it is accidental.
Clearly, you’re closed off to anything but your own interpretation here. So I’m just going to say “Yes, dear,” pat you on the head for being such a smart boy to figure out a pun that’s so clever that even most of the people involved with making the movie didn’t catch it, and move on.
I can reverse that with the same authority. Can you say authoritatively that it wasn’t intended? You are making an actual assertion. I’ve at least explained it logically and presented evidence (not proof, just evidence) on how it can be construed this way. All I’ve seen otherwise is comments from those that missed the pun and adamantly deny it is there for no other reason than wounded pride at missing it, or an extreme reaction to the “groan” response puns induce. It’s either there or it’s not, but you can’t make a definitive claim that most of the people involved in making it didn’t catch that. Even I’ve not made that claim.
I’m glad there was a reason for Elphaba’s name in Wicked. I mispronounce it as Ephalba in my head constantly, and just kept thinking to myself “never mind the green skin, saddle a child with a name that ugly and the rest is predictable.”
Yes, dear. That’s very nice.
You either agree or disagree. Objectively, the pun is there (it’s as strong as “Deux it”). Whether it was intentional is anyone’s guess. I stated from the first post that it was my opinion and I backed up the opinion with the logic I used to arrive at it. All you’ve done is said, “nuh uh.” That’s fine, too. But there’s no need to be jerky about it.
Caligula. You are wrong. Very very wrong.
Its ok, it happens to people all the time. No need to get worked up about it.
Your logic seems to be “Absent any suggestion of the sort, I believe this word is meant to be read in a totally counterintuitive and idiosyncratic way, because that would be sort of a joke.”
Without making any personal comments this is (in the strict literal sense) an idiotic idea. There’s nothing objective about it.
**
This is just for the sake of an interesting conversation. I backed off the pronunciation issue. I was trying to find a way to word it and I used the wrong concept. It’s about the pun. I don’t see this as counterintuitive. Let’s examine what I mean by objective.
[QUOTE=wiki (which is good enough for this)]
The homophonic pun, a common type, utilizes the exploitation of word pairs which sound alike (homophones) but are not synonymous. Walter Redfern exemplified this type with his statement “To pun is to treat homonyms as synonyms”. For example, in George Carlin’s phrase “Atheism is a non-prophet institution”, the word “prophet” is put in place of its homophone “profit”, altering the common phrase “non-profit institution”. Similarly, the joke “Question: Why do we still have troops in Germany? Answer: To keep the Russians in Czech” relies on the aural ambiguity of the homophones “check” and “Czech”. Often, puns are not strictly homophonic, but play on words of similar, not identical, sound as in the example from the “Pinky and the Brain” cartoon film series: “I think so, Brain, but if we give peas a chance, won’t the lima beans feel left out?” which plays with the similar - but not identical - sound of “peas” and “peace”.
[/QUOTE]
Is there a pun in the phrase “Just Deux It”? There is no reason for that word to be in there, other than it is a near homophone of do and it is a play off the film title. The pronunciation of Deux here sounds close enough to my English ears to “duh”. Even if the film makers did not intend this as their joke, the fact that I made it into a pun, as weak as it is, makes it a pun. There’s no central authority as to what is a pun and what isn’t a pun. That makes it objective. That is NOT to say it is intentionally placed there by the filmmakers. Airplane introduced a new form of parody that continues today in the “_____-Movie” franchises. It’s basically, for lack of a better word, “stupid” humor. A pun, to be a pun, should be related somewhat to what it is referencing. A reading of “Duh” for a “stupid” movie title is not counterintuitive. Yes, it is idiosyncratic, that’s the freaking point. Is “Just Deux It” any less idiosyncratic? Both rely on a slightly off, but in the ballpark, pronunciation. I understand a question on whether the filmmakers intended it or not, but can you seriously argue a pun doesn’t exist when someone has made it?
Then we get to why in the world would they use the French word for Two in the first place. There is a tradition of pretentious use of French in films for “Fin” instead of “The End”. Is there one for titles? We can possibly falsify it if we can find a relevant film that uses a partial French phrase in such a manner to invoke a parody usage. Perhaps it is a parody of the use of roman numerals, but that requires much more of a stretch than my idea.
I suggest you try reading these words back to yourself, several times if necessary.
And? This isn’t rocket science.
This is all a gag right? No one could this seriously hung up about the pronounciation of the title of a Charlie Sheen movie. Especially when we’ve produced multiple pieces of proof showing you that you’re wrong.
No, it’s more like abnormal psychology.
Most people understand a “pun” as intentional, and supported by context.
Yes, “Part Deux” is a common construction which enjoys wide use outside of the Hot Shots franchise. I think Lamia’s suggestion that you read back that bit about it not being Noel Coward have been a hint that the obvious intent was to evoke tony theatre programmes for humourous contrast.
I was beginning to wonder this myself. Is this a gag? Usually, when you point out a pun, the reaction is, “oh, yeah. Didn’t see that.” or “Groan”. It’s not page after page of “NO IT ISN’T!” But I freaking dropped the pronunciation thing after the first post. It wasn’t what I really meant upon further reflection. It was about the pun. The proof I was “shown” was not only irrelevant, one of them actually bolstered my argument. The argument should be whether it was intentional or not. In my opinion it was, but that means as much as any one else’s opinion. You guys are actually arguing whether the pun exist at all. And in a thread about missing something obvious, I think I hit on one, even if it was unintentional (which I honestly doubt, but I can’t prove it, definitively).
SERIOUSLY? “Hot Shots! Part Deux” was meant to evoke a Tony theatre programme? Where the fuck do you get that? Now I am convinced this is a gag and I’m being whooshed. I made a simple observation that it seemed to me that the title is a pun. It most definitely is supported by context. It’s an ironic use of a “sophisticated” word to make a stupid pun in the title of a movie that is purposefully stupid and the tagline using basically the same joke shows the precedent (a lesser pun on the Nike slogan at the time, but using the same joke-the near homophone). Ever read Mad Magazine? Star Blecch? It’s not supposed to have any other deep meaning than a quick gag. In what context is a zany movie parody of Rambo that takes place in Iraq evoking a Tony theater programme? You can’t tell me that it is a “common construction” that would have been understood by the audience (wouldn’t they have used deuxième partie or even partie deux, anyway?). That is what we call a stretch. But after a search, I can’t find ANY non-ironic uses of “Part Deux” (it set up a meme for mocking sequels, like “Electric Boogaloo”). That would be an obscure freaking joke if it were. This is by the same guy who made a movie called Jane Austen’s Mafia and they removed Jane Austen from the title because they didn’t think anyone would get it.
And where do you get the idea that puns are understood to be intentional? Jay Leno has a 20+ year running routine about unintentional puns in newspaper headlines.
On a side note, I just streamed the film on Netflix. A Tony theatre programme? Saddam’s refrigerator contains items such as: Hungry Nomad (Hungry Man) Microwavable Milk carton advertising “2% Camel Milk”, “Olde Iraqi Beer” and “Falafel Helper”. When Saddam makes a sandwich he seals it with, not Saran Wrap, but “Saharanrap”. Tell me again there NO WAY that the title could not possibly have been meant to evoke a pun on “Duh”. If it’s not intentional, it is the most fitting unintentional pun ever.
Missed the edit. On a world map, they show Iraq bordered by “A Hard Place” instead of Iran. I rest my case.
I’m sorry. I’m so, so sorry. You are just wrong. “Dieux” is semi-funny because of the contrast between the dignified language and the zany, low-brow content of the movie. Sort of like the book named “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” – surprising, amusing juxtaposition.
There is no reason whatsoever to think that “dieux” was intended as a play on “duh.” It makes no sense in this context, not even as a joke. Perhaps if a character in the first movie was known for saying “duh,” then “dieux” could be taken that way. (If Charlie Sheen goes on another live tour, maybe he will call it “Winning _ dieux!” But I hope not.)
You saw a connection that no one else sees. It amuses you. Great. But let it go now.
Why didn’t I think of that? Instead of laying out a cogent, detailed argument backed with multiple examples showing a proclivity on the part of the filmmakers of using not only bad puns based upon the homophonic bilingual qualities of certain words, but the very one in the title used in the same manner I am discussing, to indicate where there might possibly be a pun that is obfuscated by the otherwise incongruous use of a superfluous half-French phrase, I could have simply made an assertion based upon absolutely nothing just denying the other side. It is so much simpler to just say, “nuh uh.” So I guess you win. I am wrong. Somebody shoot me for thinking I saw a pun that no one else is willing to admit they see.
Have you EVER seen Rocky and Bullwinkle? They used to make that kind of joke ALL THE TIME with the titles of upcoming episodes (often puns based upon literature titles). And the context is Stupid movie (and I just watched it 15 minutes ago. It’s a stupid movie) and “duh” is a word to indicate “stupid”. How hard is this? But that was my whole point. People get caught up in what they think is merely an amusing juxtaposition and miss the actual pun. It’s not any more complicated than that.
And I think Dieux means gods, not two. That makes no sense.
More of “a pun that no one else sees at all”. I’d say there’s no unwillingness to admit, but I’m not going to try to prove a negative. i.e., I can’t prove I don’t see something.
“Duh” usually means, “no shit, Sherlock!” in my part of the country.
Consider this: this “stupid” movie was one long string of painfully blatant sight gags, for the most part (to the best of my recollection, anyway; it’s been a while). And yet the title is allegedly this incredibly subtle and sophisticated pun. So subtle and sophisticated, in fact, that only you got it. In which case it doesn’t belong in this thread, which states in the title, “Obvious things…”, not “Subtle things…”