Society/Culture Is Comedy Dead?

[Engimal v3]

Was Louis CK the one who asked if someone minded him stroking himself and then didn't if they said no?

Monstrous

Yeah, weird that he gets lumped in with Weinstein, Spacey, etc. He did something weird, but not something awful.

 

[Chief]

No, it's not dead. There's just a lot of unfunny shit around masquerading as comedy and more social media apps for whiners to complain when a comedian tells a joke they don't like.

The unfunny people have been around forever, but they were usually in clubs working on their act.

Now with so much video produced, the pool has been shallow. In Australia it is shallow, I think, because we don't have the population.

But look back at "classic" Australian comedy from years past. D-Generation has not aged well at all. Fast Forward and the like as well. Just dumb stuff given TV hours to fill space cheaply. Shaun Micallef wasn't always hilarious. The survivors from those days are in their 50's (60's?) and hitting their straps now.

"Women aren't funny!" - But neither were the men when they started out.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

 

[Jbudds]

Went to Steve Martin and Martin Short last night. Thought it was fantastic. Its great to see a new act!

 

[Taylor]

In Australia it is shallow, I think, because we don't have the population.

Australian comedians would tell you that there is a very small group who work on almost everything who can destroy your career with a word to the employers.

This keeps the exposure to an approved group while the rest make do working smaller room tours.

The advent of technology has hugely increased exposure of the smaller players and it's not surprising that we are exporting a lot of talent that are finding far more success overseas than those who frequent television here, if you can read between the lines of what I'm saying.

 

[Chief]

Australian comedians would tell you that there is a very small group who work on almost everything who can destroy your career with a word to the employers.

This keeps the exposure to an approved group while the rest make do working smaller room tours.

The advent of technology has hugely increased exposure of the smaller players and it's not surprising that we are exporting a lot of talent that are finding far more success overseas than those who frequent television here, if you can read between the lines of what I'm saying.

There's not enough money to go around.

 

[Taylor]

There's not enough money to go around.

To put it more bluntly, if money is the measure of success in comedy then we are sending far more successful comedians overseas while popular comedians in Australia clog up the exposure here.

I'm basically saying that if the comedians we are saturated with here were good they too would be making their killing overseas like the ones they keep out of the spotlight here.

 

[ShanDog]

The unfunny people have been around forever, but they were usually in clubs working on their act.

Now with so much video produced, the pool has been shallow. In Australia it is shallow, I think, because we don't have the population.

But look back at "classic" Australian comedy from years past. D-Generation has not aged well at all. Fast Forward and the like as well. Just dumb stuff given TV hours to fill space cheaply. Shaun Micallef wasn't always hilarious. The survivors from those days are in their 50's (60's?) and hitting their straps now.

"Women aren't funny!" - But neither were the men when they started out.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

I was referring more to current fringe trends in comedy. Like the brilliant hot take a while ago about how comedy doesn't need to be funny.

There are plenty of excellent comics, writers, shows and publications that are funny. There's also plenty that isn't. It's all subjective anyway.

 

[Seeds]

In business and professional life, always pretend to be a Leftie.

The conservatives will still do business with you, as long as you deliver results.

The Left will actively try and destroy you if you are seen as an 'enemy.'

If you can't beat'em, invoice'em.

Ignore the above if you run the KKK or a Nazi gift shop.

Didnt all the conservatives threaten to never buy Harley davidson's again because they refused to buy into trumps anti trade war? Trump has also threatened similar companies on Twitter.

 

[Chief]

To put it more bluntly, if money is the measure of success in comedy then we are sending far more successful comedians overseas while popular comedians in Australia clog up the exposure here.

I'm basically saying that if the comedians we are saturated with here were good they too would be making their killing overseas like the ones they keep out of the spotlight here.

#metoo ?

 

[Chief]

I was referring more to current fringe trends in comedy. Like the brilliant hot take a while ago about how comedy doesn't need to be funny.

There are plenty of excellent comics, writers, shows and publications that are funny. There's also plenty that isn't. It's all subjective anyway.

I don't know how Sharon Tate gets work TBH.

 

[Mofra]

To put it more bluntly, if money is the measure of success in comedy then we are sending far more successful comedians overseas while popular comedians in Australia clog up the exposure here.

I'm basically saying that if the comedians we are saturated with here were good they too would be making their killing overseas like the ones they keep out of the spotlight here.

I know someone who was working professionally in the UK as a comedian, he's stopped since returning to Australia.
It's not just the smaller market, there is far less of a culture of going to comedy clubs in Australia. Outside of comedy festivals and fringe shows it's a really tough gig. I've worked with a lot of young comics over the years and for most of them the best they can hope for is a writing gig somewhere, and even that is very difficult to break into (you basically have to work for free for years before getting a paid position).

 

[Scotland]

The issue in a nutshell. People (white males, largely) having a whinge because different people are being allowed to share the spotlight. Here’s an idea, if you don’t like Hannah Gadsby, don’t watch her and shut the heck up.

I watch stand-up on an almost weekly basis, there’s plenty of great comedy out there. There’s plenty of politically incorrect stuff if that’s your bent. Comedy is far from dead.

I have no issue with Hannah Gadsby (she's OK in small doses, not my cup of tea for a full stand up gig but either are plenty of straight white male comedians) and this general approach. Don't like don't watch etc. I have seen Nikki Glaser's panel show on Comedy Central and it's OK so I watched her recent special on Netflix. An hour of the same material over and over, pass. Made Jim Jefferies look like he has a bow full of different strings by comparison. But (excepting this post) I'm not going to talk shit about it on the internet.

Slight tangent but what is mildly annoying is media outlets and critics trying to tell you what to like, tell you what is and isn't funny, tell you what is and isn't acceptable etc.

For example:

Hannah Gadsby: Nanette has 100% rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes and 22% from audiences.
Dave Chappelle: Sticks and Stones has 35% and 99%.
Amy Schumer: Growing has 79% and 4%. That's not a typo, 4%.
Ricky Gervais: Humanity has 43% and 88%.
Nikki Glaser: Bangin' doesn't have a critic rating yet but has a 42% audience score. If I was a betting man I would say the critics will give it 80%+.

There's a disconnect between what people like and what others want people to like. As Ben Affleck said 'the internet is a communication tool used the world over where people can come together to bitch about movies'. You could write the most glowing review of Game of Thrones S8 finale as a cinematic masterpiece but everyone knows it was trash, and 200,000 people rating it 4.2/10 on IMDB confirms as much.

The whole idea of a movie/music/food/whatever critic is they give an informed opinion and you use that (or don't) when making your own decision on what to see, listen to, eat etc. If that flog in the paper gave a restaurant 5 stars and 1,000 people on Google all went and said it was trash would you go there? Of course not. Film and media critics are right on that path. Shitting on Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais and pumping up Amy Schumer and Hannah Gadsby won't convince the masses.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Comedy is one of those entirely subjective things - it's a really rare talent that is universally acclaimed. It's like music - there are few artists or bands that are universally liked

I like my metal, I have a tolerant ear for a wider range of music but in my own collection its hard rock and heavy metal all the way! I know I live in a musical niche though. With skulls and chains and nearly naked women with a crudely-drawn inverted pentagram on each breast...

Back in 5

 

[Bigjobss]

I saw Dylan Moran last week, didn't die laughing but time flew and I smiled the whole way through.

 

[JackOutback]

I have no issue with Hannah Gadsby (she's OK in small doses, not my cup of tea for a full stand up gig but either are plenty of straight white male comedians) and this general approach. Don't like don't watch etc. I have seen Nikki Glaser's panel show on Comedy Central and it's OK so I watched her recent special on Netflix. An hour of the same material over and over, pass. Made Jim Jefferies look like he has a bow full of different strings by comparison. But (excepting this post) I'm not going to talk shit about it on the internet.

Slight tangent but what is mildly annoying is media outlets and critics trying to tell you what to like, tell you what is and isn't funny, tell you what is and isn't acceptable etc.

For example:

Hannah Gadsby: Nanette has 100% rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes and 22% from audiences.
Dave Chappelle: Sticks and Stones has 35% and 99%.
Amy Schumer: Growing has 79% and 4%. That's not a typo, 4%.
Ricky Gervais: Humanity has 43% and 88%.
Nikki Glaser: Bangin' doesn't have a critic rating yet but has a 42% audience score. If I was a betting man I would say the critics will give it 80%+.

There's a disconnect between what people like and what others want people to like. As Ben Affleck said 'the internet is a communication tool used the world over where people can come together to bitch about movies'. You could write the most glowing review of Game of Thrones S8 finale as a cinematic masterpiece but everyone knows it was trash, and 200,000 people rating it 4.2/10 on IMDB confirms as much.

The whole idea of a movie/music/food/whatever critic is they give an informed opinion and you use that (or don't) when making your own decision on what to see, listen to, eat etc. If that flog in the paper gave a restaurant 5 stars and 1,000 people on Google all went and said it was trash would you go there? Of course not. Film and media critics are right on that path. Shitting on Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais and pumping up Amy Schumer and Hannah Gadsby won't convince the masses.

There’s always been a disconnect between critics and audiences at the fringes. That’s why Roma wins Oscars and Fast and the Furious makes a billion dollars. People think critics exist to tell them what is good to watch on a Saturday night, critics think they are there to tell people what is good. Not always the same thing.

That said, they are far more in agreement than people think. Marvel movies are generally liked by critics and fans. Bland Terminator reboot largely ignored by both. And they are more often right than wrong on the fringes (Roma is a ‘better film’ than Paul Blart: Mall Cop, even if you enjoyed Paul Blart more...I mean, someone must have, it got a sequel).

But people want to talk more about the divides. And the divide is only going to get worse though because there are political agendas at play, more so from the fans’ side but also from some critics. Amy Schumer is regularly downvoted immediately and in large enough numbers to be suspicious (haven’t seen Growing but her previous special was terrible, imo, so not a defender of hers). Chapelle’s special is pretty good but not 99 per cent good. Ricky Gervais has never been a strong stand-up and I’d probably split the difference on those scores. As pointed out, comedy is subjective, it would be better if people stopped treating it like a contest. Watch what you like, listen to the critics you trust and leave everyone else the heck alone to enjoy what they want. Or have a discussion, listen to the other side and move on.

 

[bfff]

High quality stuff from a comedian I really like.

A good bit on Brexit from Stewart Lee, a sneering, politically correct member of the metropolitan liberal elite. Apt for this thread

 

[Scotland]

There’s always been a disconnect between critics and audiences at the fringes. That’s why Roma wins Oscars and Fast and the Furious makes a billion dollars. People think critics exist to tell them what is good to watch on a Saturday night, critics think they are there to tell people what is good. Not always the same thing.

That said, they are far more in agreement than people think. Marvel movies are generally liked by critics and fans. Bland Terminator reboot largely ignored by both. And they are more often right than wrong on the fringes (Roma is a ‘better film’ than Paul Blart: Mall Cop, even if you enjoyed Paul Blart more...I mean, someone must have, it got a sequel).

I would agree if critics are giving someone like Kevin Hart average reviews and audiences likewise or better/worse but that's not really how it is going down. FWIW his special 'What Now?' which I haven't seen got 75% and 58% which to me sounds about right. He's relatively inoffensive and hugely popular. Not really someone I would rush to see but his popularity in the US doesn't surprise me. Critics aren't saying 'Kevin Hart is alright, pretty funny but not as clever/edgy as this new guy/girl you've never heard of', they are canning anyone who doesn't fit within a narrow band. Reviews are more a function of topics than quality.

Something being good doesn't necessarily correlate to commercial success, and something being commercially successful doesn't make it good. Star Wars: The Last Jedi grossed $1.3b and is terrible. It's a function of franchise value as much as anything. Any Avengers/Marvel/whatever movie is guaranteed to gross hundreds of millions even if terrible.

But people want to talk more about the divides. And the divide is only going to get worse though because there are political agendas at play, more so from the fans’ side but also from some critics. Amy Schumer is regularly downvoted immediately and in large enough numbers to be suspicious (haven’t seen Growing but her previous special was terrible, imo, so not a defender of hers). Chapelle’s special is pretty good but not 99 per cent good. Ricky Gervais has never been a strong stand-up and I’d probably split the difference on those scores. As pointed out, comedy is subjective, it would be better if people stopped treating it like a contest. Watch what you like, listen to the critics you trust and leave everyone else the heck alone to enjoy what they want. Or have a discussion, listen to the other side and move on.

You are spot on here. Dave Chappelle's special was absolutely 'upvoted' in response to critics shitting on it. Is it worth 99%? You wouldn't have thought so, but then Nanette isn't worth 100% either. Is it worth 22%? I doubt that too. Tell people what they don't like is great or what they do like is terrible and there will be a clicky clicky response.

Chappelle and Gervais aren't really being judged on how good their specials are, they are being judged because they aren't toeing the line the critics want them to WRT content. I Am Cait S1 got 86% from critics and 33% from fans. Haven't seen it but any spin off from the Kardashian machine is absolutely not on my radar. Trashy reality TV centred around a trans woman gets glowing praise, stand-up which mocks her among other things is immediately put in the 'nope cannot be funny, end of' basket.

It's more an observation than an actual annoyance but it would be nice if there were more critics who would sit down and judge things on merit rather than agenda.

 

[armpit]

1. Even on a thread about comedy you get the haters. Bless their little cotton bedrocks as the funniest pretend transgender would say.
2. Thanks for the Stewart Lee vids. I watched the osama bin laden one he did too. I laughed his daring.

 

[JackOutback]

I would agree if critics are giving someone like Kevin Hart average reviews and audiences likewise or better/worse but that's not really how it is going down. FWIW his special 'What Now?' which I haven't seen got 75% and 58% which to me sounds about right. He's relatively inoffensive and hugely popular. Not really someone I would rush to see but his popularity in the US doesn't surprise me. Critics aren't saying 'Kevin Hart is alright, pretty funny but not as clever/edgy as this new guy/girl you've never heard of', they are canning anyone who doesn't fit within a narrow band. Reviews are more a function of topics than quality.

Something being good doesn't necessarily correlate to commercial success, and something being commercially successful doesn't make it good. Star Wars: The Last Jedi grossed $1.3b and is terrible. It's a function of franchise value as much as anything. Any Avengers/Marvel/whatever movie is guaranteed to gross hundreds of millions even if terrible.



You are spot on here. Dave Chappelle's special was absolutely 'upvoted' in response to critics shitting on it. Is it worth 99%? You wouldn't have thought so, but then Nanette isn't worth 100% either. Is it worth 22%? I doubt that too. Tell people what they don't like is great or what they do like is terrible and there will be a clicky clicky response.

Chappelle and Gervais aren't really being judged on how good their specials are, they are being judged because they aren't toeing the line the critics want them to WRT content. I Am Cait S1 got 86% from critics and 33% from fans. Haven't seen it but any spin off from the Kardashian machine is absolutely not on my radar. Trashy reality TV centred around a trans woman gets glowing praise, stand-up which mocks her among other things is immediately put in the 'nope cannot be funny, end of' basket.

It's more an observation than an actual annoyance but it would be nice if there were more critics who would sit down and judge things on merit rather than agenda.

Nanette was quietly winning awards around the world long before it dropped on Netflix and blew a few minds. It’s absolutely critic bait in the same way that indie movie no one watches is. It disects the art of comedy itself, has a lot to say on important social issue and is something new and original. A 100 percent positive rating on RT (which is simply saying all rate it above 6/10, not that it is a 100 percent masterpiece) doesn’t actually surprise me. This one just happened to take off in mainstream circles as well though.

 

[its free real estate]

white males, largely

self parodying.

 

[Scotland]

Nanette was quietly winning awards around the world long before it dropped on Netflix and blew a few minds. It’s absolutely critic bait in the same way that indie movie no one watches is. It disects the art of comedy itself, has a lot to say on important social issue and is something new and original. A 100 percent positive rating on RT (which is simply saying all rate it above 6/10, not that it is a 100 percent masterpiece) doesn’t actually surprise me. This one just happened to take off in mainstream circles as well though.

I'm not sure critical acclaim from the same critics I am errr, critical of, validates or invalidates my opinion. Hannah Gadsby won a couple of awards that Sam Simmons won prior. She's comfortably funnier than he is.

Nanette got 100% and 9.2/10 on average. So no one hated it and most people gave it 9/10+. Given it got 8.2/10 on IMDB that's overrating it slightly compared to audiences. No enormous discrepancy there.

By the same token Dave Chappelle's 35% simply means 2/3 of critics hated it and therefore rated it lower than 6/10. With an average of 5.69/10 overall then realistically the people who didn't give it a 6 gave it about a 4-5/10 on average. That's pretty solid disapproval. Well short of IMDB 8.5/10. IMDB ratings aren't people rage clicking in response to critics they hate like Rotten Tomatoes.

Same for Ricky Gervais who got at least one 2.5/10. Not sure the overall score but obviously well below IMDB 7.9/10 given the pass/fail rating. If your take away from watching Humanity is that it's 2.5/10 then you should take up another profession. Any comedy routine that I watch that isn't really my cup of tea but has audiences in stitches I'll respect. 2.5/10 is Wendy Harmer hosting the Logies territory.

Anyway, comedy is alive and well on social media. Betoota Advocate in a solid run of form.

 

[JackOutback]

I'm not sure critical acclaim from the same critics I am errr, critical of, validates or invalidates my opinion. Hannah Gadsby won a couple of awards that Sam Simmons won prior. She's comfortably funnier than he is.

Nanette got 100% and 9.2/10 on average. So no one hated it and most people gave it 9/10+. Given it got 8.2/10 on IMDB that's overrating it slightly compared to audiences. No enormous discrepancy there.

By the same token Dave Chappelle's 35% simply means 2/3 of critics hated it and therefore rated it lower than 6/10. With an average of 5.69/10 overall then realistically the people who didn't give it a 6 gave it about a 4-5/10 on average. That's pretty solid disapproval. Well short of IMDB 8.5/10. IMDB ratings aren't people rage clicking in response to critics they hate like Rotten Tomatoes.

Same for Ricky Gervais who got at least one 2.5/10. Not sure the overall score but obviously well below IMDB 7.9/10 given the pass/fail rating. If your take away from watching Humanity is that it's 2.5/10 then you should take up another profession. Any comedy routine that I watch that isn't really my cup of tea but has audiences in stitches I'll respect. 2.5/10 is Wendy Harmer hosting the Logies territory.

Anyway, comedy is alive and well on social media. Betoota Advocate in a solid run of form.

I was simply pointing out that Nanette ticked a lot of critical boxes that have nothing to do with agendas, and was gaining approval long before it became a lightning rod for mainstream discussion. Citizen Kane, All About Eve, the Bride of Frankenstein all have 100 per cent on RT and no one accuses critics of pushing a social agenda in rating them so highly. I just think accusing critics of praising Nanette to push some social agenda only plays into all or nothing political debate we seem to be having about anything perceived as ‘left’ or ‘right’.

 

[Scotland]

I was simply pointing out that Nanette ticked a lot of critical boxes that have nothing to do with agendas, and was gaining approval long before it became a lightning rod for mainstream discussion. Citizen Kane, All About Eve, the Bride of Frankenstein all have 100 per cent on RT and no one accuses critics of pushing a social agenda in rating them so highly. I just think accusing critics of praising Nanette to push some social agenda only plays into all or nothing political debate we seem to be having about anything perceived as ‘left’ or ‘right’.

It's just one example. Ciitzen Kane has an audience rating of 90%, All About Eve 94%, The Bride Of Frankenstein 87%. Schindler's List has a pair of 97s. Sometimes everyone is on the same page.

Nanette is pretty highly rated on IMDB, I have nothing against it and it's on my list of Netflix things to watch. I'm just highlighting shows with huge discrepancies between critics and audiences one way or the other. I hope it's better than Nikki Glaser or Amy Schumer talking about their sex lives for an hour but I know whether it is or it isn't they'll all get positive reviews.

My point is that critics have set a narrow band of what is 'in' and what isn't. Reviews aren't a reflection of the quality of work, just of whether or not the work ticks the right boxes. Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais didn't stop being funny, and they certainly didn't just start being politically incorrect. You could produce something unfunny that audiences are meh about and as long as it touches on the right topics you'll get critical praise.

 

[JackOutback]

It's just one example. Ciitzen Kane has an audience rating of 90%, All About Eve 94%, The Bride Of Frankenstein 87%. Schindler's List has a pair of 97s. Sometimes everyone is on the same page.

Nanette is pretty highly rated on IMDB, I have nothing against it and it's on my list of Netflix things to watch. I'm just highlighting shows with huge discrepancies between critics and audiences one way or the other. I hope it's better than Nikki Glaser or Amy Schumer talking about their sex lives for an hour but I know whether it is or it isn't they'll all get positive reviews.

My point is that critics have set a narrow band of what is 'in' and what isn't. Reviews aren't a reflection of the quality of work, just of whether or not the work ticks the right boxes. Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais didn't stop being funny, and they certainly didn't just start being politically incorrect. You could produce something unfunny that audiences are meh about and as long as it touches on the right topics you'll get critical praise.

Chapelle didn’t stop being funny, as such, but his trans jokes are pretty lazy. They go for the cheap laugh and he gets them. Someone with a more critical eye, though, can spot the laziness. I still think his show overall was good, the first show that kicked off the controversy was actually very good and didn’t deserve the flak it got. But he’s doubled down and got a little lazy.

Gervais is similar. You say they didn’t stop being funny, but a lot of the comedians complaining about PC are older and richer, two things that make people more resistant to change. There’s not much funny about things staying the same. Someone like Seinfeld just comes across as dated. Someone like Gervais tries harder to shock as if shocking is automatically funny.

Patton Oswalt talked about some of this when asked about any jokes he regrets. He said he confused laziness with edginess and went for the cheap laugh.

I agree critics have a narrow band of what’s good, I just don’t think it’s driven by what’s ‘in’ or some social agenda. I think it’s people mistaking snobbery for something else.

 

[sideswipe]

The unfunny people have been around forever, but they were usually in clubs working on their act.

Now with so much video produced, the pool has been shallow. In Australia it is shallow, I think, because we don't have the population.

But look back at "classic" Australian comedy from years past. D-Generation has not aged well at all. Fast Forward and the like as well. Just dumb stuff given TV hours to fill space cheaply. Shaun Micallef wasn't always hilarious. The survivors from those days are in their 50's (60's?) and hitting their straps now.

"Women aren't funny!" - But neither were the men when they started out.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

Except for Kingswood Country. That will never grow old as we grow old.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app