←back to thread

The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

(www.newyorker.com)
231 points frogulis | 7 comments | 15 Jul 25 03:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.257s | source | bottom
Show context
renewiltord ◴[15 Jul 25 05:20 UTC] No.44568041[source]▶
Haha, the real reason is that people can’t get a joke. One classic I saw is that pg made some comment about philosophy and some other guy went “Looks like you had a bad philosophy class” to which pg replied “I’ve had many”.

Well, that’s funny in a classic pub humour way. Except the guy didn’t get it (and neither did many others) who went on to say “Many bad philosophy classes you mean”

Like, dudes, what did you think that was? Except the whole internet is full of this. Even the slightest of puns needs a second character arriving afterwards who repeats the punch line but with some obviousness baked in.

It’s just that people aren’t literate. And I’ve got to be honest, a lot of such casual wordplay is just beyond Americans (who are generally superior to the British in every other way). They kind of need to be looking at a guy with a microphone to pick up on the joke. Probably the Germanic influence.

replies(3): >>44568583 #>>44570770 #>>44571436 #
1. alexey-salmin ◴[15 Jul 25 13:11 UTC] No.44570770[source]▶
For the less enlightened of us, what is the joke?
replies(3): >>44570989 #>>44571634 #>>44596757 #
2. PaulHoule ◴[15 Jul 25 13:33 UTC] No.44570989[source]▶
There doesn't have to be a joke. If you're rich enough people feel like they have to laugh at your jokes whether or not they are funny. That's the saddest thing about Elon Musk.

I could never explain to NFT fanatics that I wouldn't make NFT art because I couldn't stand producing a product for people who had no taste and would like my worst output as much as my best.

3. npteljes ◴[15 Jul 25 14:41 UTC] No.44571634[source]▶
The way I read it, the joke is just owning the insult in a good way.

It works here on multiple levels, because first, owning the insult is not expected, so that's already a surprise, which can work as a joke.

Then, by actually admitting to the many bad classes, it signals that the author can actually tell good from bad, implying knowledge about the matter after all, refuting the argument in the insult (that he is bad in philosophy because he had bad philosophy classes).

Third, it's a very short, snappy response, in vein of the insult, making the author look competent.

replies(2): >>44572062 #>>44572143 #
4. zzbzq ◴[15 Jul 25 15:18 UTC] No.44572062[source]▶
First guy says something about philosophy.

Second guy says he's had a bad philosophy class, implying it's a bad, naive, amateur, or uninformed take on the philosophical subject at hand.

First guy says he's had many, implying he's actually studied philosophy extensively, perhaps majored in it in college or obtained a degree, refuting the idea that the original take was amateur or uninformed.

5. watwut ◴[15 Jul 25 15:23 UTC] No.44572143[source]▶
But it is not funny. It is not a joke. It is just not engaging with the implied "you do not know what you talk about here" ... which is entirely valid, but not exactly a joke.
replies(1): >>44572308 #
6. npteljes ◴[15 Jul 25 15:41 UTC] No.44572308{3}[source]▶
We can't know if it was a joke or not, but comes across as someone trying to be funny.
7. uniq7 ◴[17 Jul 25 18:53 UTC] No.44596757[source]▶
First I thought it was just a simple witty canned response ala Han Solo, and got confused of why we were elevating it to the level of joke that required to be understood by someone intelligent.

Then, as a non English native speaker, I thought it was a word play ("you have had a bad Phil o Sophie ass" + "I had too many" or something).

Then, reading the responses to your comment, found it was the witty canned response I originally thought all along...