Mel Brooks or Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker?

[Metallo]

These are some of the greatest comedy minds of the 70's and 80's IMO. I love so many films these guys did.

Both had a great stable of regulars that popped up in more than one film. Brooks gave us Get Smart, The Producers, Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles, History of The World, Spaceballs, etc.

ZAZ gave us The Kentucky Fried Movie, Airplane, Top Secret, Police Squad, The Naked Gun trilogy, Ruthless People, Hot Shots 1 & 2, etc.

I lean towards Brooks but what say you all?

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Mel Brooks. that guy was brilliant, you couldn't make the movies he made today.

 

[CGHulk]

Mel Brooks.

It's good to be the King!

 

[DarkSovereignty]

plus, brooks at his worst (dracula: dead and loving it) is a hell of a lot better than the ZAZ at their worst (basically their solo efforts)

 

[Ultra Lantern]

Mel Brooks

All his movies were very funny.

 

[Octoberist]

Mel Brooks no question

 

[Duke]

I'm gonna go with Mel Brooks as well, because the guy was brilliant with his comedic genius. From Blazing Saddles to Dracula: Dead & Loving It, & everything else in between. I also give props to Jim Abrahams & David Zucker for comedy gems such as Airplane, The Naked Gun, & Hot Shots. However, Brooks takes this by far.

 

[Kurosawa]

Mel but they are all funny and have made some hilarious movies.

 

[Jack Napier]

Mel Brooks. Even though I think the "Naked Gun" movies are about as funny as it gets.

 

[Silvermoth]

I love Mel Brooks because it's a bit like getting dinner and a show with a movie. He really knows how to do a Broadway show.

I have a soft spot for the Zucker brothers though because my mum and I used to watch their movies all the time with my sister. I mean mostly Naked Gun, Spy Hard, Mafia etc.

 

[Metallo]

Been watching Brooks's films over the last couple of weeks (I'll be posting in the "last movies you watched" thread when I finish) and I must say Brooks was a genius when it came to songs and musical numbers.

The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, High Anxiety, History of The World, and even To Be or Not To Be had some hilarious AND and catchy original songs. Even Brooks himself was entertaining performing them. Thats one thing I'd say he had over ZAZ.

The only people on the same level with music in comedy today are South Parks Parker and Stone and the writers on the early seasons of The Simpsons like Conan O'Brien.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

My personal preference is ZAZ but that is not in any way a knock on the legend that is Mel Brooks.

 

[DyeLorean]

I'm gonna go with ZAZ, just because I think that if they had the same kind of films under their belt as Mel, I think they could've been better.
Although I really like Mel, I grew up with ZAZ movies. I think they are terrific, I laugh every time even though I've seen them 100 times.

 

[Hotwire]

These guys really knew how to do a spoof movie right. Wish they would do some new stuff. I've had enough of these "Something Movie" films.

 

[FrichKazzone]

I laugh every time even though I've seen them 100 times.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Mel Brooks.

I lost all respect for David Zucker when he started doing pro-war Republican propaganda films.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I lost all respect for David Zucker when he started doing pro-war Republican propaganda films.

What has that got to do with the question the thread posed?

As for myself, eh, I guess I think of them pretty much the same, sometimes they really hit the mark, sometimes they really don't.

Out of Mel Brook's stuff I've seen The Producers is an all time classic(his best film imo), Blazing Saddles, also an all timer(his 2nd best), and Young Frankenstein(very good, but can drag now and again).
I saw bits of Men in tights on tv and could not watch it. I thought Spaceballs was awful when i saw it, which was a long time ago in a and i am not going to make an equally unfunny Star wars gag here.

zaz, I have seen all three Naked Guns(1st is one of the all time greats, 2nd is good afair, but it reuses a lot of Police Squad gags to lesser effect, the movie does feel like they were struggling to equal the classic 1st, and the 3rd is pretty bad, the humour feels more like regular crappy 80s type slapstick comedy, rather than the classic PS style, but watchable for Drebin, once).
The Police Squad series is stone cold comedy gold, like the 1st film.
I saw the first Airplane film, pretty good, never saw the the second. I saw one of those Rambo piss take flicks with Charlie Sheen which was alright(the one where he passes his dad on the AN boat), and the one with Val Kilmer a long time ago, also alright afair.
Don't recall what other flicks of theirs i have seen, if any.

 

[Rowsdower!]

What has that got to do with the question the thread posed?

As for myself, eh, I guess I think of them pretty much the same, sometimes they really hit the mark, sometimes they really don't.

Out of Mel Brook's stuff I've seen The Producers is an all time classic(his best film imo), Blazing Saddles, also an all timer(his 2nd best), and Young Frankenstein(very good, but can drag now and again).
I saw bits of Men in tights on tv and could not watch it. I thought Spaceballs was awful when i saw it, which was a long time ago in a and i am not going to make an equally unfunny Star wars gag here.

zaz, I have seen all three Naked Guns(1st is one of the all time greats, 2nd is good afair, but it reuses a lot of Police Squad gags to lesser effect, the movie does feel like they were struggling to equal the classic 1st, and the 3rd is pretty bad, the humour feels more like regular crappy 80s type slapstick comedy, rather than the classic PS style, but watchable for Drebin, once).
The Police Squad series is stone cold comedy gold, like the 1st film.
I saw the first Airplane film, pretty good, never saw the the second. I saw one of those Rambo piss take flicks with Charlie Sheen which was alright(the one where he passes his dad on the AN boat), and the one with Val Kilmer a long time ago, also alright afair.
Don't recall what other flicks of theirs i have seen, if any.

One of the aforementioned propaganda films was a comedy in the style of his older films in which he "parodied" Michael Moore, because Zucker believed at the time (and probably still believes) that the Iraq War was a wonderful thing and anyone who questioned it was an unpatriotic idiot.

So that's why it's relevant here. It's bad enough that he made pro-Bush political videos during the Worst President Ever's re-election campaign, but that could be considered seperate from his comedic film work. But since he decided to try and merge the two, it tarnishes his legacy as a filmmaker. It's a shame, because I really do love some of his older work, like The Kentucky Fried Movie and Airplane. But I can't look at him the same way after his actions in recent years.

And regardless, even if all of that hadn't happened, I'd still rank Brooks mugh higher than him, even if he fell off a bit after the 1980s.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Well, maybe you should do some research into every artist you encounter to see what their personal politics are, just in case you like someone who has views that are different from your own. I mean, of course you don't want to be watching their work if they disagree with you politically.

From what you are saying here, you're still judging him on his personal politics in regards to the ad, not the quality of the ad.

 

[Rowsdower!]

And maybe you should actually read what I wrote. I wasn't only referring to his political ads, but an actual commercial film he made with Leslie Neilson and other actors that he used to promote his right-wing beliefs. It's fine if he wants to believe in all of that, and he's free to make movies about it if he sees fit. But if he does, then it absolutely should be included in the conversation of his overall filmography. And if said film is a failure on multiple levels (which, IMO, it was... critically, commercially, etc.) then it can count as a strike against him as a director.

But I don't expect you to understand that. You just pop onto these boards to make snarky comments about everyone for everything. I used to think you were singling me out with your crap, but then I saw some of your arrogant remarks in that disturbing film thread (BTW, I posted there recently too, so you better make sure to check back in there and criticize everything I said while you still can!) and I realized that you're apparently on some sort of quest to either get banned or get every other poster here to put you on his or her ignore list.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Lisetn, you're right, I did make a rash comment at the beginning of that disturbing films thread, I was a little tired, ill and pissed off at the constant veile dinsults that come my way on this forum. So, i went back in and explained myself.
Of course, since then everyone who does not like me has leapt on that as something to attack me for, even though i went back and clarified my menaing, and retracted some of what i said.

Anyway, I wasn't having a go at you personally, i would have asked that question of anyone in the forum, if you notice, i didn't attach any kind of 'snarky' comment to the question, i was serious, i think it's an interesting thing to discuss, whether someone can seperate an artist's political views from his or her body of work.

but, aye, we are getting into a grey area here i guess, where both overlap, a unique situation, it was just the way you talked about his political stance, as opposed to the quality of filmaking i found curious, but then ,as i said, it is a unique one, as the film *is* the poilitical stance, exclusively.
Personally, i would not have included advertisements in my appraisal of the artist's work, political or otherwise.
anyway, i am not that bothered about discussing it further, i am a bit tired and all that.

ok, take it easy rowsy cheeks.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Fair enough; my initial comment probably should have provided more clarification on what I was specifically referring to. The political ads are one thing that can be brushed off as something seperate from his film work but since he decided to merge the two and made a really lousy movie out of it, that's where it downgrades his status as a filmmaker. Politics aside, it's not that different from a director like Joel Schumacher, who made some really great (IMO) films like Flatliners and Falling Down. But then he made the Batman movies and that's all people remember him for. And his career has never recovered from it (and some of his more recent efforts have been even worse). A shame really. He was a good director once.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

eh, that is a whole other discussion, and debatable, but not with me, haha, too tired, and have had that type of convo on the Shuamaher batmans too many times already.

 

[DyeLorean]

"he needs to go to the hospital"
"the hospital? what is it?"
"it's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now"

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Loo: And who are they?
Dr. Klahn: Refuse, found in waterfront bars.
Loo: Shanghaied?
Dr. Klahn: Just lost drunken men who don't know where they are and no longer care.
Prisoner #1: Where are we?
Prisoner #2: I don't care.
Loo: And these?
Dr. Klahn: These are lost drunken men who don't know where they are, but do care! And these are men who know where they are and care, but don't drink.
Prisoner #3: I don't know where I am!
Prisoner #4: Yeah. and I don't drink.
Dr. Klahn: Guards!
[removes prisoners from cell]
Dr. Klahn: Do you care?
Prisoner #5: No.
Dr. Klahn: Put this man in cell #1, and give him a drink.
Guard: What do you drink?
Prisoner #5: I don't care.