FANDOM


WikEd fancyquotesQuotesBug-silkHeadscratchersIcons-mini-icon extensionPlaying WithUseful NotesMagnifierAnalysisPhoto linkImage LinksHaiku-wide-iconHaikuLaconic
  • With the Just Bugs Me pages for comedy shows, it says to consider whether or not the bugging issue can be answered with Rule of Funny. Well, isn't Rule of Funny, by its very nature, subjective? What one person might find funny might not be what the next person finds funny. Ergo, my point is that if something bugs you about a show/movie/book/etc., you should be able to say so without worrying about Rule of Funny.
    • Rule of Funny isn't about whether something is actually funny. It's about whether an incongruous plot point is justified by being an attempt at humor. It doesn't have to be successful in that attempt to qualify.
      • Fair enough, I guess. But if that's the case, why should people worry about Rule of Funny if something in a show bugs them? I mean, if an attempt at humor can be Rule of Funny even if it isn't successful, and it's lack of success bothers someone, it shouldn't matter if it was an attempt at humor or not. It won't necessarily bug them any less.
  • People are always using Rule of Funny to justify bizarre occurrences in movies and such. However, doesn't this rule also cover up things that aren't funny? Like, Seltzer and Friedberg movies make no sense and everyone calls them stupid, but can't everything in those movies be justified by Rule of Funny? If so, how can there ever be such a thing as bad comedy if everything in comedy is automatically justified by the Rule of Funny?
    • Rule of Funny is about breaking with reality or continuity in the name of comedy. It's values neutral, and not a justification but a property of the comedic genre. But there can be bad comedy - if the use of such reality-bending fails to produce humor, it is a bad comedy. But, conversely, a comedy is not bad for playing with the laws of physics or by bending its own continuity for the sake of a laugh. Basically, in a pure madcap comedy, humor is the top priority. Seltzer and Friedberg movies are bad because they are unfunny, and poorly written, acted, and directed, flaws which are NOT justified by the Rule of Funny.
    • In short, the Rule of Funny trope is about motivation. So yes, Seltzer and Friedberg movies were motivated by an attempt at humor. The fact that they utterly failed in this endeavor does not change the fact that they were intended to be funny, which is the point of Rule of Funny.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.