Topic: What if?

[kinderscenen]

Greetings, fellow degenerates!

I was reading through another post (Top 10 movies), and I couldn't help but notice that the Marx Brothers were in several people's lists (mine too).

That made me think about the Stooges--what if they'd been able to have larger budgets, more artistic freedom (??), etc., that the Marx Brothers had (which I'm going to assume is at least somewhat more than the Stooges had). Would we have movies on par with "A Night at the Opera", or would we still have stuff like "Rockin' Through the Rockies?" or (shudder) "Snow White and the Three Stooges"?  I've always wondered what a larger budget would've done during the Shemp and Joe eras--considering some of the Joe-era shorts, they managed to do pretty well considering the increasing budget restraints.

Anyhoo, the mention of the Marx Bros., Chaplin, etc., made me think about budgets, artistic freedom, and whatnot. I'm not sure if it would've actually made a difference in the comedy of the boys themselves (obviously not), but it is intriguing to think about.

Sunday

[wallawalla]

It's very possible that the Stooges style was ideally suited to the two-reeler format. Even some of the Marx Brothers movies have sections that drag because there wasn't enough good material to fill an entire feature.

One of the cool things about the Stooges is that when a short begins, it begins. No lengthy buildup to the story. It's pedal-to-the-metal comedy, they wreck the place, and it ends. Some of the endings are a bit abrupt, but that's OK. It doesn't take away from the rest of the short.

I guess the quality of the writing would have determined if any early Stooges feature films would have been great. With bigger budgets there would have been more elaborate sets, more extras, and no doubt more clever effects. But there's something endearing about how funny they are without all that fluff.

[Baggie]

 I agree that it's more to do with the quality of the writing than the budget.The Stooges were definately more two-reeler material and weren't suited as well to features as the Marx Brothers were. I love both the Stooges and the Marx Brothers for different reasons. It's always difficult to compare the two groups as they were both so very different in the type of comedy they produced, and that's why I like them both the same. It's hard to explain why both of them are so great even though they are different. There's just something about both groups that makes you laugh, big budget or not, and I don't think a bigger budget would have made the Stooges better. They worked harder with whatever they had, and maybe that striving for survival made them slightly better than everyone else.

[metaldams]

Good topic.  The Three Stooges were better off in two-reelers.  If they made feature films, especially during World War II, what we would've had is The Three Stooges trying to help some dopey romantic couple stay together in between bits of forced comedy routines and usually bad musical numbers.  Abbott and Costello films suffered the same fate during WWII, which is why most of my favorite films from them are around the late 40's and early 50's, as well as their TV show being among their best stuff.  For The Marx Brothers, they made MONKEY BUSINESS, HORSE FEATHERS, and DUCK SOUP during the depression, before The Three Stooges, and before the variety show comedy trend.  A NIGHT AT THE OPERA is one of the few comedies of this style that works, but after that, Marx Brothers films lowered in quality.  As far as the silent comics, that style of comic feature filmmaking was completely dead, unfortnately, by the time The Three Stooges came along.