Burning Question: Why Does the Spoofalator Keep Churning?
Coming soon to a theater near you: “The Starving Games,” a spoof of “The Hunger Games.” Why do filmmakers keep doing parodies like this and does anyone still see them?
It’s a legitimate question, especially given how very, very referential these flicks can be. Would anybody even know what that drippy-looking taffy pull of a mask was in “Scary Movie” without having seen “Scream” first? How about the door that opens and closes by itself in “A Haunted House?” That’s a direct reference to “Paranormal Activity,” a flick that was popular, sure, but not exactly a blockbuster franchise like “The Avengers” (which does not, as of yet, have its own send-up by the Wayans Brothers).
Also: Saying that these movies tend to be bad is like saying that Kanye West likes himself a little. The contemporary spoof, unlike classics such as “Airplane!” or “The Naked Gun” series, are generally terrible — lazy with the writing, heavy on the fart and toilet jokes, mainstays of the Razzie Awards.
The two reigning merchant princes of the genre, Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, are themselves the butts of frequent jokes. They’re the brain trust behind “The Starving Games,” which, in addition to “Hunger Games,” also manages to mock “Avengers,” “Oz, the Great and Powerful,” and, for good measure, Harry Potter and Taylor Swift.
"The Starving Games" is due out November 8 to take advantage of the hype of "Catching Fire," which comes out two weeks later. It’s Friedberg and Seltzer’s sixth such mash-up spoof film, and they show no signs of slowing down despite an avalanche of critical backlash. And they’re not alone.
Of 2003’s “Scary Movie 3,” a David Zucker film, Roger Ebert wrote, “It clicks off several popular movies (“Signs,” “The Sixth Sense,” “The Matrix,” “8 Mile,” “The Ring”) and recycles scenes from them through a spoofalator, but it’s feeding off these movies, not skewering them. … Maybe the problem is that the genre is over and done with and dead.”
Or not.
Despite the terrible reviews and the almost inside-joke nature of these flicks, the spoofalator keeps churning. “A Haunted House 2” is expected out next year. “The Fast and the Furious” is also (finally) getting the parody treatment in “Superfast!,” also due out in 2014. This year, we’ve seen, or will soon see, “A Haunted House,” “Scary Movie 5,” “The World’s End,” “Movie 43,” “Not Another Celebrity Movie,” “Inappropriate Comedy;” “The Starving Games;” and “30 Nights of Paranormal Activity with the Devil Inside the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.”
The reason for the constant onslaught: These flicks do make money. “A Haunted House,” released at the top of this year, has so far grossed more than $40 million. That doesn’t sound like a lot, until you realize that the thing was made for about $2.5 million.
And therein likes the evil genius behind the success of these flicks: Make them super cheap, in every sense — pay the typically little-known actors scale or slightly more; have the director do double duty as the script writer or vice versa — and you can’t help but make money.
Why? Because there will always be a certain very loyal (or at least very stoned) demographic ready to watch.
"Whereas ‘Airplane’ and ‘Naked Gun’ were made for everyone, today’s spoof films are so dumbed-down, they really only reach teens and tweens," Exhibitor Relations box-office analyst Jeff Bock tells me. But "there is a lot of money to be made in the world of disposable entertainment these days, which is why these spoof films will never die, they’ll just get worse and worse distribution deals and pay the actors less and less."
Watch the trailer for “The Starving Games”
