Is Meta-Humor a Problem?
Understanding What Meta Humor is and if it is a Fad or not.
How to alienate people, use an inside joke that others are outside for — how does that make you feel? Everyone once was the new kid [no shit] grasping at straws to find an identity. Being included was a luxury, a privilege, spent through experiences, to miss out — or not too, that is the question. Meta-humor is the alienation — third wheel of humor; it waits on the sidelines, adds on to the jokes other people make, and if you are the third wheel, don’t you hate the phrase, “You had to be there!”
Movies piggyback off successful fads that boom in the box office; the standard example is the idea of the cinematic universe. Everyone has their interconnected lore. Look closely at your beloved franchises — there, you will see patterns that carry themselves through different genres. For real, granted clever, but how can horror movie franchises have a connected universe? It’s a stretch — no yoga. In recent years, meta-humor has consumed media. This safe-house of comedy allows for sequels to increase without the repercussion of poor reviews. Certain movies help from this meta-wipe down, such as Spider-man: Into the spider-verse. Here is an example of meta-humor done right. You are dealing with a character whose history deals with constant rework of renditions by taking a moment to slow down and comment on its 60-year history, oddly refreshing enough.
Let’s talk about the Sam Raimi Spider-Man jokes. Before the MCU children rushed to the theater, there was Tobey Macguire and his organic web-shooters. This trilogy brought us the best Superhero movie of its time [Spider-man 2], a trailblazer to Marvel’s box office success. We know this trilogy wasn’t perfect, but all we had to hold dear in our hearts of superheroes. Phil Lord and Christopher Miller took a cultural phenomenon and fondly had us remember the good, the bad, and the ugly I’m talking to you emo Peter Parker.
I digress as I am here to talk about the love-hate relationship with meta-humor. Let’s talk about the negatives since we got the one unicorn out of the way. If a character doesn’t have the same respect level as a hero, it’s hard to have effective meta-humor about your franchise. Failed references to the previous rendition can lead to more questions than giggles. Pet Semetary came out this year [2019], if you already forgot, and with it came a shroud of meta-narratives that purposefully subverted expectations of the film. A crucial scene involved [spoilers] the daughter being hit by a truck. The writers teased this scene, assuming that the son would get hit, such as the original story. This choice of writing limits the personality of reboots. Of course, artist demands help build more considerable connected lore, but cheeky to use meta-humor to change the story’s dynamic to gain positive reviews is cheap.
On the concept of alienation, meta-humor reached a level of popularity to a point where self-referencing humor is the easiest way to get a laugh. It lacks originality, not because the definition hinders itself from being a cheap laugh, but rather writers use meta-humor as this rhetorical device.
The curiosity I’m bringing up is if this is a fad or good writing? At the moment, to have a movie that mocks its previous wrongdoings works well but is this to acknowledge a promise for better performance or a cheap joke? This only benefits well-established products and makes Meta-humor’s use look like a crutch or lazy writing.
When is meta-humor too much?
