Woody Allen started out “doing stand-up” in the 1960’s. (e.g. Spotify has “Woody Allen – The Stand Up Years Years 1964-1968”). I would have to re-listen to some of his stuff to give any sort of critique – BUT the fact that the “The Stand Up Years” was released in 2015 implies SOMETHING positive.<\/p>\n\n\n
ANYWAY – one of Mr Allen’s famous lines was: <\/p>\n\n\n Eternity is a long time, especially near the end. <\/p>Woody Allen<\/strong><\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n Humor rarely translates well between generation. Artist\/art\/audience are all shaped by the times in which they live – and therefore the “generic societal sense of humor” obviously shifts over time.<\/p>\n\n\n Is Woody Allen’s stand up act still “funny” today – yes. Was it (probably) considered MUCH funnier in the 1960 – also yes. (btw: hoopladigital has the album – I’ll listen to it later \ud83d\ude09 )<\/p>\n\n\n It isn’t just that the material is “older” as much as “it was written at a specific point in time to be delivered at a certain point in time to an audience”<\/p>\n\n\n Humor<\/strong> Meanwhile back at the ranch …<\/strong> Marvel has a new movie coming out (in November 2021) called “The Eternals<\/a>.” I’m sure it will be entertaining, but the story is VERY old. Of course it should be remembered that the purpose of the movie is to entertain and “make $$” – and it will probably do both.<\/p>\n\n\n Anyway – the “very old” part touches on issues worthy of profound thought and\/or deep analysis – which I won’t go into now. <\/p>\n\n\n HOWEVER – from a “storytelling” point of view, if you have “all powerful eternal beings” in the “Marvel Cinematic Universe” (MCU) the question they have to address is “why they let bad things happen.” From the trailer it looks like they are going for the generic “we are not allowed to interfere with mortal history” thing – which again, is a storytelling tool as much as anything.<\/p>\n\n\n If you are going to have “supremely strong” heroes then to tell an interesting story, you also need “supremely strong” villains. e.g. if the “hero” is all powerful, then the outcome is never in question and there is no real “conflict” which means there is no real “story.”<\/p>\n\n\n This is why “Greek heroes” tended to have “tragic flaws<\/a>.” If memory serves the ancient Greek concept of “gods” was that they were just like humans, but they lived forever. Then if you live forever, you have no real motivation to seek “glory” or accomplishments – i.e. who cares if anyone “mortal” remembers you, they are gonna die while you continue on …<\/p>\n\n\n So in the MCU – Thanos snapping his fingers and wiping out half of existence is pointless – eventually the population would recover, and if you are “eternal”, well even Thanos would eventually die (in the MCU) and you would continue – so “no problem”<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n Again, from a “storytelling” point of view – stories about “happy people never having any problems” simply aren’t interesting. Golden Age Comics To be clear I’m not criticizing “Superman” – just pointing out the problem. If you have seen the old “Super Friends<\/a>” from 1973 – sure, the intended audience was “8 to 10 year olds” – but when Superman shows up, it tends to end the episode (in a very deus ex machina<\/a> kind of way).<\/p>\n\n\n From a pop-culture point of view. Part of the problem with Superman and Batman was that the “audience” grew-up. If you read those comics from the 1950’s and 60’s there are a lot of classic stories – but they don’t spend a lot of time dealing with “real world problems.” <\/p>\n\n\n Contrast that with Marvel’s “Spider-Man” (first issue 1962) – where poor Aunt May seemed to always be on the verge of death, and the bills were piling up, so Peter Parker had to get a job, and deal with going to school, and worry about his girlfriend, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n (of course in true “over reaction” fashion – DC has almost jumped into the other ditch in recent years – but that isn’t important now) <\/p>\n\n\n SO they either have to settle on telling almost exactly the same story over and over – or they need to invent weaknesses for Superman, and introduce “worthy opponents” (and a discussion on how “Lex Luthor” has changed from “mad scientist” to “evil businessman” to “Machiavellian politician” is another subject)<\/p>\n\n\n By 1986 the problem facing DC was declining comic sales and so the “future of Superman” meeting (probably) went something like “well, we can invent another form of kyptonite or we can reboot the franchise and make Superman less powerful.” (fwiw: I thought the “reboot” went well – but then they “killed” Superman in 1992 … it must be a tough job \ud83d\ude09 ) King David the psalmist<\/strong>
“Humor” may be eternal – BUT audience tastes change. What was commercially successful “back then” might not be successful “now” – but of course there is still nothing new under the sun (observed from a distance, over a long enough period of time – there are probably “cycles of humor” – but that is a different post)
Obviously what we think is “funny” tends to fall into the “can’t argue with taste<\/a>” category – but is also influenced by time\/place\/audience.<\/p>\n\n\n
Is there a “universal” sense of humor? Well, maybe. We would probably have to venture into abstractions and pointless generalities but something that EVERYONE would think is “equally funny” is gonna be hard to find – simply because we aren’t all the same. <\/p>\n\n\n
fwiw This is a big reason why “Superman” has been hard for DC to “do right” in recent years. <\/p>\n\n\n
<\/strong>The “golden age Superman” (in comics) from 1938 to 1986 illustrates all of the above storytelling problems. Of course at the start “Superman” wasn’t really “Superman.” Then as his powers grew, they also needed to introduce “weaknesses” in the form of the many flavors of Kryptonite<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n
I’ll also point out that “golden age Superman” was basically a (very) secularized version of a protestant Christianity concept of the Divine.<\/p>\n\n\n
Yes, I could spend some time supporting that last statement – but it is one of those things that “once you’ve been told” tends to be obvious. Of course if you passionately disagree with me on the subject – I could always be wrong … (and to be clear I’m NOT saying “Superman” is allegorical in a larger sense)<\/p>\n\n\n