In the 90's we saw a surging trend in offices everywhere: The motivational posters started taking on a very specific format. Each poster consisted of a wide black border around a photograph. Below the photograph was a tangentially related personality trait (like leadership or ingenuity) or workplace goal (like teamwork or success), usually only one word. Below that, in smaller type was a short sentence describing why that trait is good to have in life or in the workplace. Here are some examples of some you might find in a real office, as case points:
The point I'm making here is that these are not just photos with inspirational captions, they follow a very specific format, and it has become widely recognized.
As with all popular things parodies have began to appear. The good ones I see are well thought out, and fit the format perfectly, making for some humorous images. Again: all of them consist of a black border with a single trait or goal, and a single sentence about why it's good. Here are five examples drawn from the message boards and blogs of the internet:
In any medium, good parodies manage to make fun by only changing one thing about the original work. In most successful demotivational posters, the parody succeeds by replacing the positive personality trait with a negative one, or using a picture that creates a strange or unexpected advantage to the otherwise clear quality, still others use a quirky or overspecific sentence. However, the sentence below is always still positive, and the first word MUST be a trait or goal. That is the most important part. If nothing else, that must be followed. It cannot be a noun (proper or otherwise), it cannot be a command, it cannot be an expletive, nothing else: It must be a trait or goal.
On the internet, every plebian wants to try their hand at parody styles and popular memes, so now we are starting to see an influx of motivational poster parodies. Here's the problem I have: almost none of them are right. Very few of the publicly created demotivational posters actually follow the format, which dilutes the humor, and ruins the parody. Mostly folks are just adding captions that they think are funny, and bolding the first word or a word that describes the picture, as if that's all it's about. This is like thinking that you can write an episode of Frazier by just running all the big words you know together into random strings of dialog. This is not clever, it just makes you look foolish. Look at these examples collected from message boards and blogs:
None of these work, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. All of these could have been made into posters that followed the format with just a little more thought, but instead you messed up the joke, and soon this parody format will be just another ruined, meaningless meme, like lolcats.
I like the one about hope.
I have so many of those; I'd upload them but my ftp is pissing me off.
Check it.
At the risk of looking foolish I will try to add some posters which I think are cleverly made.
See forum for images
See forum for images
See forum for images
Thank you.... perfect examples of posters that don't work, and which could have been made to fit the format with only a small amount of extra thought.
I think the unique one works well. It's awesome!
I think your definition of "funny" may be so strict that you give some people the impression you don't like humor.
Oh no! Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about funny. My article is not really about 'funny' specifically. It's about using parody properly to preserve the chance for future humor:
The 'unique' poster is a good example: Is is funny? yes. Is it clever? yes. is it a parody of a motivational poster? no.
The sentence below the heading would need to be a positive spin on the trait, while still maintaining it's negative aspect. As it stands: "Just because you are unique, does not mean you are useful" is funny because it makes a good point, but it is directly insulting. To be a good parody, it would need to be sort-of sideways insulting, sarcasm or facetiousness would work well, but this one doesn't even need that. It just needs a spin on the message that can make it seem like it's trying to tell someone that being unique is a good thing, while the rest of us get the message that it is a bad thing. So, instead of the direct insult presented in the poster: consiter it with this modified line:
"When you're unique no one expects you to do anything useful"
See how this option retains the 'positive' message aspect of the original posters, while still being insulting to the trait, and getting the same message across.
This is what I mean that some of these only need a tiny bit more work to make them really shine as parodies.
Actually I just read the one about hope and its not as good as the picture.
HOLD UP! The ones with James T. Kirk and A Dirty Mind are both incredibly funny, despite the failed attempt of being a true Demotivational poster.
I'm going to make a guess that this meme wasn't popularized until Despair, Inc. started creating the images and marketing them to parody the legit motivational posters. If that's the case, their criteria for parody is not congruent with yours CB. Particularly, they don't follow the assertion that the sentence following the trait/goal/adjective needs to be indirectly witty or insulting. Theirs are quite direct.
"Defeat: For every winner, there are dozens of losers. Odds are you're one of them."
"Give Up: At some point, hanging in there just makes you look like an even bigger loser.
"Humiliation: The harder you try, the dumber you look."
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid."
"Worth: Just because you're necessary doesn't mean you're important."
I'm not sure anyone can establish characteristics of the meme as being proper and therefore establishing criteria for judging value, really.
I don't think he's judging value, I think the point is that if people wouldn't have strayed from the original structure, it wouldn't have gotten so played out already. Of course, this is how just about every meme meets its end. I'm still waiting for YTMND to fizzle... but people have stuck to the simple format.
Here's my point. I disagree that the images presented in this thread are failed attempts at demotivational posters.
In it's most basic form, parody is a humorous or satirical imitation of something. All the images presented in this thread meet that, at least with regard to style and presentation.
You can't go adding other criteria to the definition. "In any medium, good parodies manage to make fun by [U]only changing one thing[/U] about the original work (emphasis added)." To this, I raise the BS flag.
See forum for images
Thusly.
There can still be good parodies that change all kinds of stuff... but the BEST parodies change as little as possible.
The images I presented above would havebeen fine as StarTrek jokes or as Zombie jokes, or whatever, if they had been just a picture with a caption.
But they used a preexisting format for their caption. a format witch lends additional meaning to the work, but they're not doing it on purpose. If one is going to break a format in their art, it should always be done on purpose, and with a meaning. If the breaking doesn't have purpose, then it's just broken, and thusly incorrect.
For example: The poetic form of the Shakespearian Sonnet is an established form that already has meaning. All of the original ones were about romance, and romantic trials, and were formatted very specifically. If you write a Shakespearian sonnet about ninjas and pirates, it better also present a romantic trial, and if it doesn't there better be a damn good reason you use that particular form without following the meaning behind it, otherwise, you're just doin it wrong.
Keep in mind: I'm not talking about entertainment value. I'm talking about being correct from a critical analysis POV.
UR DOING IT RONG
Hey! Who gave the English teacher access to the Internets?