Talk:Parody film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Page structure[edit]

This page shouldn't be a list of parody films, but instead, should explain its mean and its history. The category Category:Parody films already lists those films.

I agree but where would we start?Dwanyewest (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not parodies[edit]

Are the Producers and Tropic Thunder actual parodies of anything? I don't think they really belong in this list. JDDJS (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could last action hero be considered a self parody? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.48.160 (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and sources are needed[edit]

Please be sure that all additions to the Parody film article are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have an inline citation for each claim made. As a courtesy to editors who may have added film claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, some of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged {{citation needed}} to allow some time for sources to be added. N2e (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit?[edit]

This page has been marked with the {{copyedit}} template, ~~but this article does not seem to need a copy-edit. I suggest that we remove the template.~~ —MathMaven (talk | edits) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait: I have actually looked at the lead section, and I take back my previous comment. —MathMaven (talk | edits) 18:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page very much needs {{copyediting}}. As of today (1/26/19) the introduction (part before the table of contents) reads, in its entirety:

 "A parody film is a subgenre of comedy film that parodies other film genres or films as pastiches,[1][2][3] works created by imitation of the style of many different films reassembled together. Although the subgenre is often overlooked by critics, parody films are commonly profitable at the box office.[4]"

I *think* the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is supposed to define that article's topic (in this case define what a parody film is). And if this article is, in fact, doing that then its definition of 'parody film' includes the word 'parodies' ...always a no-no to use the word you're defining in its own definition. The definition also includes the word 'pastiche' whose meaning is not known to many (myself included, before I looked it up), which is a dumb idea.

The same sentence is also inaccurate. Wikipedia's definition of 'pastiche' specifically differentiates it from 'parody':

 "A pastiche is a work of visual art, literature, theatre, or music that imitates the style or character of the work of one or more other artists. Unlike parody, pastiche celebrates, rather than mocks, the work it imitates...Pastiche can also be a cinematic device whereby filmmakers pay homage to another filmmaker's style and use of cinematography"

...parodies mock, they poke fun at, they don't 'pay homage'. Niccast (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)niccast[reply]

I'm surprised DreamWorks' adaptation of SHREK! is not on this list.[edit]

Personally, I'm surprised Dreamworks' adaptation of SHREK! is not on this list. I'll let you decide if it is acceptable or not, but it is easy to see that DreamWorks' adaptation of Shrek highly parodizes the Disney genre.

What's more is that DreamWorks' adaptation of Shrek doesn't seem to directly parodize the fairy tale genre as much as it parodizes the Disney genre. Take the character Pinocchio for example: Pinocchio is technically NOT a "fairy tale"; Pinocchio first appealed in The Adventures of Pinocchio, by Carlo Collodi; but of course we all know about Walt Disney's famous and beloved 1940 film adaptation. Also, pixies similar to Tinker Bell (and I believe also Tinker Bell herself is included in the franchise as well) make an appearance in DreamWorks' adaptation of Shrek; Tinker Bell of course comes from Peter Pan, but Peter Pan (full name Peter Pan; or, the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up) is a children's play, again NOT technically a "fairy tale", but again, something that is also a well known Disney movie. Finally, there’s the character Puss in Boots: now the story "Puss in Boots" I don't think was made into anything of the Disney Genre; however, when the character Puss in Boots marks his 'P' symbol on the tree in the second film, he parodizes the way Zorro "makes the sign of a Z" (and Puss in Boots' behavior also seems to parodize Zorro, more than the original Puss in Boots, at least under my opinion); and if you watched the "Hi Ho" Disney sing along song video, you'll know that Zorro IS ALSO SOMETHING OF THE DISNEY GENRE AS WELL.

There are also many other references to the Disney Genre, including Disneyland, and "It's A Small World", all over DreamWorks' adaption of Shrek.

So again, I'll let you make the decision; but under by opinion, based on the evidence, I think you'd agree with me that DreamWorks' adaptation of SHREK! is indeed a Parody Film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmaven555 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Video Game Nerd Movie[edit]

Isn't the Angry Video Game Nerd movie a parody movie? Just wondering. I'm not adding it to the list. If it is, and it seems like it, and somebody wants to add it, then go ahead. 68.229.40.204 (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is misleading and is ambiguous[edit]

The article starts stating that the parody film genre encompasses spoof films, movies with parodies and mockusters, when they can be very different. For example a movie can parody a theme like in The Producers which parodies the Third Reich or The Pink Panther, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or the Austin Powers series that parody a literary/film genre but not a work in particular. Another example is the scene in Toy Story 2 when they make a parody of Star Wars, this, however, doesn't turn Toy Story 2 into a parody or a spoof film. A Mockbuster is a movie that tires to capitalize on a currently-on-theaters film without the need of making a parody of the blockbuster film (although sometime it may look like so), most of the times they simply use a similar title or characters.

When people use the term spoof movie they usually refer to a film that parodies completely another film (as is the case of Airplane!, Scary Movie 1, Ricky 1) or that is composed almost in its entirety of a series of parodies (such as Not Another Teen Movie, Disaster Movie, etc., etc., etc., etc.). A new article that covers only spoof movies should be created or it should replace this one. It should contain a proper explanation of what is considered to be a spoof movie and a history section in order to create a better list that would only include this sub-genre and not all movies that have something related to a parody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.249.197.164 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spoof[edit]

I think the word spoof should be mentioned, maybe in the lead? - Soulkeeper (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]