[Imladris]

What makes a difference between Shrek and what I've heard about parodies such as Bored of the Rings, movies such as Monty Python, that one parody of Star Wars that I don't remember the title of, is this:

Shrek makes fun of how unreal fairy tales are (honestly, what princess falls for an ogre -- basically it's telling you, "Hey! Looks don't matter you silly little girls!"). Parodies like that don't bug me because it's giving everything a dollop of reality.

I have never read Bored of the Rings, but the very name alone seems to be twisting what Tolkien wrote. To me, Tolkien's works has its faults, but it's noble and good, and there's not much to be made fun of...it's not stupid, is what I'm trying to say. And that's usually how I see parodies: twisting something that is good.

I'll use Monty Python and the Holy Grail as an example:

To me, it's making fun of the nobility of knights, twisting it into a caricature that is, in a word, stupid.

And I just don't see how that is good...

I guess these are my rules for parodies:

1. Make fun out of something that's stupid or blatantly unreal (the happy ever after fairy tales for example).
2. Make sure it's well done...