Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Link to our thread on Knocked Up (2007).

- - -

Rudd, Mann reprise 'Knocked Up' roles for Apatow

Judd Apatow's next project will see Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd reprise their "Knocked Up" roles in an untitled laffer set for summer 2012.

Apatow will write and direct the film, the first he's helmed since 2009's "Funny People." Apatow, Barry Mandel and Clayton Townsend will produce.

In "Knocked Up," Mann played Katherine Heigl's older sister, who is married to Rudd's character. Plot details are vague, and it's not clear whether Heigl or Seth Rogen would reprise their roles from 2007's "Knocked Up," one of Apatow's biggest successes with $200 million in worldwide box office. . . .

Variety, January 6

Judd Apatow says new movie is neither prequel nor sequel to 'Knocked Up'

I've seen people speculating about whether this would be a prequel or a sequel, but I figured the answer wouldn't be that easy. After all, what do you call "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and "Get Him To The Greek"? They're related, but is one really a sequel to the other?

I decided to ask Judd directly, and here's what he sent in reply:

"Thanks Drew. It is neither. It is just a story from Pete and Debbie's current life.

People really responded to their characters and problems. I felt like there was a lot of ground I could explore with them, so we'll be shooting in July and will come out the following June.

There are some fun details yet to reveal but I will let them come out slowly. It's more fun that way."

Drew McWeeny, Hitfix, January 6

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the follow up film is mainly about the Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann characters, that's a good thing. Their relationship provided a thread in the Knocked Up film that rose above the other (crasser) threads of the Seth Rogen relationship and the guys-hanging-out-smoking-pot scenes. There was something very real and vital in the way the Rudd-Mann marriage was depicted in that film. Not only did their fights evoke powerfully real-world marital complexities, but two other scenes involving their characters (one in which he suggests that they have sex, the other in which they have to try to decide how to explain to their kids where babies come from) were laughs for the ages. Let's hope that Apatow trusts the mature side of his comic instincts without feeling he has to make his films "adult" by making them crass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, you can't really have an Apatow film without SOME degree of "crass" (a word that I will forever associate with a certain editor who tended to insert it into other people's reviews). Rightly or wrongly, whenever I think of Rudd's character in Knocked Up, I think of a certain trip to Vegas that he and Seth Rogen's character take.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their relationship provided a thread in the Knocked Up film that rose above the other (crasser) threads of the Seth Rogen relationship and the guys-hanging-out-smoking-pot scenes. There was something very real and vital in the way the Rudd-Mann marriage was depicted in that film ... Let's hope that Apatow trusts the mature side of his comic instincts without feeling he has to make his films "adult" by making them crass.

Part of which was funny because the marriage relationship Rudd was running from/contemplating/agonizing over in those scenes seemed so real.

So crass = less real?

I thought the Rudd/Mann marriage storyline in Knocked Up was great fun. But I fail to see how it was somehow superior to the Rogen/Heigl storyline. Sure, Ben and his friends make dirty jokes and whatnot, but there was nothing unreal about that (when guys, or even just bachelor guys, are hanging out together). What wasn't mature or adult about how Seth Rogen's character had to change in order to be the man that he needed to be for Alison and the baby? If Ben & Allison do show up as supporting characters in this one, they are obviously going to be more "adult" acting than before. After Freaks and Geeks, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Funny People, you can fully expect some "crass" and funny humor in the next one, but you can also expect more of a moral and more heart than 95% of all the other comedies being currently churned out by Hollywood.

As a film on "marriage," I wonder what the over/under is on this film being more meaningful than Kirk Cameron's Fireproof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the over/under is on this film being more meaningful than Kirk Cameron's Fireproof.

A statement I never thought I would ever hear anyone say. :)

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Persiflage, I appreciate your comments and your question relating crassness and reality. You are right that the Rogen/Heigl storyline also contains much that is very real, even when it involves dirty jokes or other "crass" things. I agree also that there is quite a bit of value in that storyline, especially in the way the Rogen character changes. I am still trying to process how to react to Apatow's filmmaking, though. Some of his crassness is connected with reality in a way that makes it worthwhile, yet I can't help but sometimes feel he seeks out crass situations in a way that is artistically and morally inappropriate. I once heard Ravi Zecharias refer to The Pilgrim's Regress in a sermon, in which book a character says "You lie because you don't know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment and what it has meant for garbage." I have a sense that Apatow, even in his sometimes comedic genius and perceptiveness about human nature, mixes in a bit of his own confusion about the difference between which things we are supposed to come to for nourishment and which things we should lay aside as garbage. We have to watch his movies carefully and discerningly to know what to take as nourishment and what to take as garbage. I would love to hear others' thoughts on this, as this is a topic that is ripe for good discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Persiflage, I appreciate your comments and your question relating crassness and reality. You are right that the Rogen/Heigl storyline also contains much that is very real, even when it involves dirty jokes or other "crass" things. I agree also that there is quite a bit of value in that storyline, especially in the way the Rogen character changes. I am still trying to process how to react to Apatow's filmmaking, though. Some of his crassness is connected with reality in a way that makes it worthwhile, yet I can't help but sometimes feel he seeks out crass situations in a way that is artistically and morally inappropriate. I once heard Ravi Zecharias refer to The Pilgrim's Regress in a sermon, in which book a character says "You lie because you don't know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment and what it has meant for garbage." I have a sense that Apatow, even in his sometimes comedic genius and perceptiveness about human nature, mixes in a bit of his own confusion about the difference between which things we are supposed to come to for nourishment and which things we should lay aside as garbage. We have to watch his movies carefully and discerningly to know what to take as nourishment and what to take as garbage. I would love to hear others' thoughts on this, as this is a topic that is ripe for good discussion.

I see you're new here, so just an FYI, don't take any of this personally. We often have strong disagreements in these forums, but I always hate to feel like I'm jumping on something that someone who has only just joined the community has said.

For starters, I wasn't defending "crassness" because it is something real. I was reacting against what I thought was your distinguishing between the crass and the real. But whatever. The main point is that you feel that Apatow "seeks out crass situations in a way that is artistically and morally inappropriate." It seems the next questions is how? Webster's Dictionary defines "crass" as "having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination." I think if you look up other definitions of the synonyms for "crass" (coarse, insensitive, indelicate, rough, uncouth, vulgar, unrefined) you start to find that these are all closely tied to comedy. There's a reason Francois Rabelois made many of the jokes that he made, just like there's a reason the prophet Elijah and the apostle Paul also made certain "dirty" jokes. What is socially considered unrefined, dirty and common is often what is very, very funny.

There is a strong Biblical argument to be made that there is nothing wrong with having a sense of humor about anything and everything (and, in fact, God himself does). There is nothing particularly morally wrong with uttering "bad" words and neither is there anything wrong with making jokes about sex.

As far as Ravi Zacharias's use of The Pilgrim's Regress (and I like Zacharias by the way), he's basically using that quote out of context. Zacharias is somehow applying what Lewis said to pornography (after also telling that story about why Michaelanglo should never have painted any nudes). But I honestly don't quite understand how it ties in with his point - does it mean that sex and nudity are meant by nature as garbage? No, that can't be right. Does it mean that pornography is garbage? Ok, but how does that apply to drinking or analyzing milk again? The story Zacharias has pulled this from is in Book Three, sections V-IX. In this section, the main character John is stopped by "the intellectual climate of the age" and Freudianism (which has boiled down man to chemical reactions, environmental stimulants, and "bundles of complexes). Eventually, he objects when everything keeps being broken down to it's scientific origins - the brain is sponge & chemicals, meat is a dead corpse, milk is a mucous secretion - and argues that there is a difference between dung and milk that this branch of science alone cannot understand.

"You are trying to pretend that unlike things are like. You are trying to make us think that milk is the same sort of thing as sweat or dung."

"And pray, what difference is there except by custom?"

"Are you a liar or only a fool, that you see no difference between that which Nature casts out as refuse and that which she stores up as food?"

"So Nature is a person, then, with purposes and consciousness," said the jailor with a sneer. "In fact, a Landlady. No doubt it comforts you to imagine you can believe that sort of thing;" and he turned to leave the prison with his nose in the air.

Reason eventually helps John escape Freudianism, but he still has to get out of Nature Worship before he regresses back to Christianity. All this to say that basically, because Zacharias uses words like "garbage" and "dirty" to think of the crass or obscene, it made perfect sense to him to use this quote out of context. But, honestly, you can believe pornography is wrong, and still enjoy the crass, uncouth or unrefined humor of an Apatow film - partly because, unlike most mindless Hollywood comedies, Apatow's films have a moral center to them (just like some of those old Medieval Rabelais stories did), and partly because coarse jokes are, indeed, often funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a fascinating commentary, Persiflage. It gives me a lot to consider, so much so that I don't think I can even answer it right now. I'll have to think on it a bit... I may have been too quick to lump Apatow in with traditional Hollywood oversexed, underbrained comedy. I especially can't claim to speak on his work as a whole, since Knocked Up is the only movie I've yet seen by him. In which films do you think that he is at his sharpest and funniest? In other words, which of his films should I see next if the chance arises?

Edited by Brian D
Link to post
Share on other sites

I especially can't claim to speak on his work as a whole, since Knocked Up is the only movie I've yet seen by him. In which films do you think that he is at his sharpest and funniest? In other words, which of his films should I see next if the chance arises?

Yes, absolutely watch his other stuff! First thing you have to do is watch the single and only season of Freaks and Geeks. That show is the best overall summation of how Apatow blends his skill & comedy with morality. The moral lessons on that show are of enough depth to be used in a Bible Study.

Other than that, he's only directed 3 films so far, The 40-Year-Old Virgin (the guy who saves sex for marriage turns out to be wiser than his friends who don't), Knocked Up (getting a girl pregnant forces responsibility on a guy & requires immediate self-sacrifice and commitment), and Funny People ([a] most Adam Sandler movies are meaningless & stupid but Sandler has the ability to do something more meaningful, learning to live selflessly instead of selfishly is never something you can completely learn in a day, and [c] breaking up a marriage is both hurtful and morally abhorrent).

He's influenced & produced other films, but I'd just start with these first. Enjoy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Megan Fox In Talks for Judd Apatow’s Next Film (Exclusive)

Megan Fox is in negotiations to star alongside Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann in Judd Apatow's latest directing vehicle for Universal.

Rudd and Mann are reprising their characters of husband and wife from Apatow's Knocked Up in a new story by the writer-director.

Fox's role is being kept under wraps. . . .

Hollywood Reporter, March 16

Albert Brooks In Talks For Judd Apatow Pic

EXCLUSIVE: Albert Brooks is negotiating to join the untitled comedy that Judd Apatow wrote and will direct for Universal Pictures. The film will star Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd, who are reprising the roles they played in Knocked Up. I'm told that Brooks is in talks to play Rudd's father in a film that will also feature Megan Fox. . . .

Mike Fleming, Deadline.com, March 16

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
ComingSoon.net says the film might be called This Is Forty.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

What tone will Judd Apatow’s 'Knocked Up' spinoff take?

Yet those wondering if the tone will follow in the path of a “Knocked Up” -- that is, a comedy with occasional serious moments -- or more along the lines of a dramatic comedy like “Funny People” may have some resolution: Brooks tells 24 Frames that he sees the drama and comedy getting equal weight.

"That’s where Judd’s going as he gets older, melding [drama and comedy],” Brooks said, agreeing when a reporter asks him if it was in the vein of "Funny People." “He’s developing that [balance] more as more things happen to him; he’s kicking that into his work.” . . .

Brooks, who starred in one of the quintessential dramatic comedies in 1987's "Broadcast News," said the balance in the new Apatow movie is often struck within a matter of seconds. “There are quite a few scenes where something very funny comes, and immediately there’s a dramatic moment that’s more ‘Isn’t that what life is?’”

Brooks is poised for a career reinvention with a turn as a ruthless gangster –- think forks in eyeballs -- opposite Ryan Gosling in the upcoming “Drive” (more on that one shortly). But the 64-year-old said this movie may pose an even greater acting challenge for him.

“Here I am playing a father of Paul Rudd, someone who's 40 years old," he quipped. "That's just really weird to me. For me that feels a lot more different than killing someone."

Los Angeles Times, August 8

Paul Rudd Confirms Judd Apatow’s New Movie is Tentatively Called THIS IS FORTY; Reveals Details

Rudd reveals that the current working title is This is Forty and confirms Charlyne Yi will be returning. He went on to tell us it’s not a sequel and that we’ll see both new and returning characters. However, since they’re still filming, Rudd said he’s not exactly sure who will end up in the film. For more details on the project, hit the jump. . . .

Collider.com, August 8

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

I'm not sure how some of this stuff ended up in the green-band trailer, but anyhoo...

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Segel was in Knocked Up, too; I wonder if he'll be playing the same character here. (Jonah Hill was in both Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him to the Greek, but he somehow ended up playing two different characters, there.)

Hmmm, okay, I just checked the IMDb, and according to that, Segel's character in this film is named Jason, just like the character he played in Knocked up. Not that that necessarily proves anything, natch. :)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Drew McWeeny:

I'm going to be curious to see how much "This Is 40" resembles
this weekend.

If you do decide to read the
, released as part of Universal's awards push for the film, it's interesting how strongly the voices of his actors are already embedded in the script. I can clearly hear
,
, Albert Brooks,
,
, and even Maude and Iris Apatow in the characters that Judd's written for them. And while I like the script quite a bit, it's telling that the sequence I saw them shoot when I visited the set does not appear to be in that script anywhere. Then again the photo I put on this article comes word-for-word from the script, and on the page, it feels like the sort of thing you'll swear was improvised. That's sort of the magic of the Apatow process. . . .

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

David Poland loves it.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

FWIW, "Forty" got changed to "40". But we may want to leave it as is, since our search engine couldn't locate this thread for me when I typed in "This". Had to look up Apatow to get here.

I saw this tonight. Am I the only one here to have seen it so far? It's an entertaining film, not nearly as shrill as a lot of reviews I've read make it out to be. I think some critics look at this family and think they have it too good to be as whiny as they are, but in the end that's the conclusion the characters pretty much come to (not really a spoiler, if you've seen the previews, or any of Apatow's other films). There are times when it seems like it plays more as a series of sketches that got strung together, rather than a through storyline, but the laughs are pretty consistent, and I can honestly say that there are a lot of "been there, done that, felt that way" moments that I don't often experience when watching these type of films. Definitely worth checking out.

Edited by John Drew

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Drew wrote:

: Am I the only one here to have seen it so far? It's an entertaining film, not nearly as shrill as a lot of reviews I've read make it out to be.

I watched it on DVD a few weeks ago and found the characters very shrill, myself, so much so that it kind of eclipsed any other response I might have had to the film. Which isn't to say that the film didn't have its moments, but the overall experience was an unpleasant one, for lack of a better word.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

wasn't sure where else to post this (and feel free to move it elsewhere) but since she is in this movie i thought it was as good a place as any to put this crazy esquire interview with megan fox.

I don't deny that there should be priests to remind men that they will one day die. I only say it is necessary to have another kind of priests, called poets, to remind men that they are not dead yet. - G. K. Chesterton

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...