Mel Brooks had explained, that's because he found the money, in a bag, in his basement a while ago.

Pronounced "soitch," but yes, it was already laid out for them. Plus the fan made part 3:

I'm sad it's not Spaceballs 3: The search for 2

Doctor Who seems the most forgiving in that area. It has a built in etch-a-sketch mechanism between series/actors/writers and we've generally gotten accustomed to shrugging and go "sure, why not" again and again.

the Tolkien legendarium is a lot more loose than most people think. it's got a reputation for a high degree of specificity and detail, but that's more true for some things than others, and sometimes those details are contradictory between different versions of the same story throughout the editing process, with no clear indication of which one should be considered canonical

Doctor Who has gleefully gone the "everything is canon" route in recent years, especially applicable when your main cast constantly travel back and forth through time making significant changes to the course of events.

Well I'm currently in the middle of watching the new Scott Pilgrim series on Netflix and that seems to specifically be setup to flip everything canonical. Withholding final verdict until I finish it but so far I am liking it.

Warhammer CAN be that way sometimes (mostly 40k), though it varies heavily depending on who you're talking to. Some of that is due to retcons in the real world and some of it can be justified in-universe simply by the fact that their stage is the entire Milky Way galaxy, there's a LOT of wiggle room to be found there

Back in the day, Conan Doyle was sick of Sherlock Holmes.

In the first story, Watson had a shoulder injury from his time in Afghanistan, and in a latter tale it was a leg wound.

I feel like super hero comic fans have a bad rep, but are more easy going about this than one may think. Things kind of drift in and out of continuity all the time. Especially if we’re talking about a big creator. Grant Morrison misremembers Batman’s son’s origin? Okay, that’s the new origin! He wants to bring back the second Robin’s red hair, which was written out twenty years ago? Okay, that’s a thing again.

Loose interpretation is something lots of videogames use on purpose with an "unreliable narrator" POV

• dark souls, bloodborne, elden ring games are pretty much built on it. Most of the lore is given through item descriptions, so tying up the big picture is usually the result of interpretation
• Elder Scrolls games use the unreliable narrator trick a lot as well, the issue is that it's also used by writers to retcon stuff into more generic material. Since it's an open world action RPG with some level of choice they've made the weird decision to have all possible actions canon at the same time, even contradictory ones

The Elder Scrolls even has an alternative current that aims to destroy the concept of canonicity itself, it's called c0da and they're basically trying to turn fan fiction into having the same legitimacy as ingame canon. It's a bit weird but it's led by one of the original writers for the elder scrolls, who happens to be one of the main influences for Morrowind, the best Elder Scrolls game

You're taking about "loose canon" but the whole conversation is already about Mel Brooks.

Every Miku is canon.

Marvel? When in doubt, it’s another universe.

TTRPGs usually have a fairly loose canon, and Paizo definitely like to lean heavily into the multiple mythologies aspect.

Reenactment:

It does leave a sour taste in my mouth, but I'm curious all the same.

You know, if you hadn't ended your comment with that smug, masturbatory dreck, you might have said something worth talking about.

I detest mad magazine and love spaceballs. And yes I've watched it again a few times while being an adult.

It's almost as if different people have different opinions and you shouldn't push your own opinions onto others but what do I know.

Please refrain from gatekeeping what others may enjoy.

So. I never watched SB because of similar sentiment. Until very recently.

At first I was: yep, that's why I never watched it.
But the film actually gets better the longer it goes. Crazier, more unhinged, free flowing production. In the end I liked it because it's much more than MAD-style camp. Artistically honest. Almost Dada.

Phew, now I sound like the world's No. 1 SB fanboi. I'm not. I just felt triggered by "dick jokes" because that really doesn't do it justice.

So, you didn't like a mad magazine parody of star wars? Where you at in the descent bro, I want to watch you hit the surface.

Finally found GalaxyQuest at the thrift store; hoping for at least Cracked-level subtext.

When you say that something is shit, it might help your argument just a tiny bit if you give any small specific example of why it's shit. All you've done is say that it's shit and then list parts that you liked, and then said the rest is crap. Well, if all the rest is crap, you can certainly find plenty of examples, so if you could just specifically list the top 10 or 20 examples of crappy scenes or jokes that failed, maybe we'd have something to talk about.

Also, strange to insult quoting Monty Python while recommending Blazing Saddles. Blazing Saddles and Holy Grail, which I think is the most quoted Monty Python movie, have very similar approaches in their endings.

Mel Brooks has always had the humor of a 10 year old. Nothing is funnier than a fart joke to him. It can be amusing for a while, but it always wears out before the end of the movie.

I'll watch it, of course, but I'm not expecting a home run.

My kid watches it continuously, and they and I find it hilarious.

And yes, people do roll their eyes at my Monty Python quotes.