It’s ok. Sometimes we’re right, sometimes we’re wrong—and a mass of words won’t change that.
Good to know you realized how incorrect you were about this.
Excuse me, but I’m getting word that.... GORDON’S ALIVE!?!
Not as far as audiences in those near-empty theaters were concerned.

I just looked the movie up on Wikipedia, and according to this quote from Lorenzo Semple Jr. the humorous approach was intentional. He disagreed with that approach later on, but that doesn't change the fact that the it was meant to be funny.
That's Wikipedia. I'm referring to interviews from the production materials from the period, where he went into detail about what his role was, what he believed should be the direction of the script (Raymond's work)--and it was not what was released. He realized the natural value of Raymond's creation. Semple was already trying to distance himself from the film thanks to the thick-layered buffoonery from DeLaurentis.
I never said it was a parody, I said it was campy. It wasn't a full on comedy, but it's pretty clear just watching the movie that it was not taking itself at all seriously.
There's a distinct difference between screwing something up so much that its laughed at for all the wrong reasons (e.g., FG, the entire Ed Wood catalog, etc.) and camp in at its best sense.