Sarah and I just finished watching the second season of Extras, in which The Office’s Ricky Gervais repeatedly derides his sitcom as getting laughs out of funny wigs and catchphrases. This seems to be the essence of Will Ferrell’s entire career. In the history of movies, has there ever been an actor who milked a single premise so blatantly? Anchorman, Talladega Nights, Blades of Glory, and now Semi-Pro: all movies that are built on the idea that Will Farrell as a loser who thinks he’s a winner is really, really funny.

I should footnote this by saying I actually thought Talladega Nights was really, really funny. But we’re talking theoretics here. And the theoretics tell us that Will Farrell has an incredible amount of chutzpah for continuing to force this single-character-driven one-note premise on the comedy world. Here’s a partial list, off the top of my head, of other movies in this same realm: Dodgeball, Balls of Fury, Walk Hard, Hot Rod, Zoolander, and Owen Wilson’s upcoming Drillbit Taylor. They’re all movies about a single ridiculous-looking and acting character who looks and acts ridiculous and eventually wins some completely irrelevant battle and gets the nondescript female lead to appreciate him for the bumbling asshole he is.

It makes me wonder if we will ever see a comic performer or writer who is interested in stretching beyond the easy laugh. I’m not talking about going dramatic … everyone takes a stab at that. I think Jim Carrey is a really unfunny person who is sometimes great in dramatic roles. I’m saying, why would these guys use their substantial box office power to create the same movie over and over again? Is it strictly about money? Or do they think these movies are deeper than they are? Do they have any interest in creating something a little bit different? I would think they’d have enough money … so what do they possibly get from churning out forgettable movies that follow the same template? Thinking about it leads me to believe that Will Farrell, Ben Stiller, et al are either A) not very bright or B) the enemies of culture.

The reason I started writing this had nothing to do with making a case for Will Farrell as evil, however. (Sidenote: I just learned that Semi-Pro is set in my hometown of Flint, Michigan. I’m sure they did this because Flint is an instant punchline. I would doubt Semi-Pro really examines the misguided corporate policies that led to Flint’s downfall, but I digress.) The reason I started writing this is because I am obsessed with bad taglines, and Semi-Pro has two of the worst I’ve ever heard: The Greatest Fro on Earth and Putting the Funk into the Dunk.

The first one sucks because all it advertises is the aforementioned funny wig. Who would ever go see a movie strictly because the lead character has an afro? Plus, it’s a pun on “The Greatest Show on Earth,” which is the tagline for the circus. Is this movie about the circus?

The second one rhymes, at least, but what’s with the awkward wording? I would think “They Put the Funk in the Dunk” is a lot more obvious than “Putting the Funk into the Dunk.” The awkwardness of this wording leads me to believe that there was a real meeting about how the copywriter was going to approach this. I would imagine he showed up carrying a notepad with the only thing he could think of to say about this one-joke movie: “They Put the Funk in the Dunk.” The studio executives looked at the line and thought deeply. “Now, if we say ‘they put‘ the funk in the dunk, it implies that the funk has previously been placed inside this dunk. Who would want to see that movie? I look at that poster and I say, ‘The funk is already in the dunk? Count me out!’ On the other hand, if I see that they are actively ‘putting‘ the funk in the dunk throughout the course of the movie, I have my tickets in hand. I know that I will see these guys putting that funk where it belongs. That’s better. Much, much better. You can go now.

“WAIT! STOP! This still doesn’t sit right with me. It’s the word ‘in’. If they’re putting their funk in the dunk, it would imply they used up all their funk in the process of dunking the ball, which, ya’ know, they put the funk in, they do their dunk, and then there’s nothing left to see. No sir; I’ll tell you what these guys did. These guys took all that sweet funk, they bundled it up, and they transferred the funk from themselves, mind you, which is where the funk will be before the dunk takes place (and presumably, immediately thereafter), and into the dunk, their valuable funk essence filling the dunk and breathing precious, life-giving funk into it, then whooshing back into their bodies making them more powerful, virile, and yes, funky with each beautiful dunk. Now that’s a movie I want to see.”

The more I think about it, and the more I savor its bizarre specificity, I am willing to bet that this tagline was actually more pondered over than the film script itself.