|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Amazing what passes for comedy these days! - 9/2/2008 12:16:47 AM
|
|
|
ObviousLee
Posts: 206
Joined: 6/15/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: angie4God
If you wanna know how far and extreme and how low comedy is getting these days just tune into Comedy Central. Which is why I normally don't watch it. Just some of the commercials make me  . So I knew what I might be in for when I decided to tune in for this special.
They had been running a commercial for a special of a roast for Bob Saget - the dad on Full House. I use to watch Full House - guilty as charged  So I was interested to see what this roasting would be like. I only caught the last few comics including Cloris Leachman, Gilbert Gottfried and and Sarah Silverman..that was enough for me  There was just waaay to much vulgarity and sexually racy humor! Some of these so called jokes were just way to over the top. Serioiusly is this what passes for humor these days? I used to love stand up comedy but it's gotten too crazy! Rape and murder is supposed to be funny?!?!  I know the context they were trynig to make. Since he always plays the goody goody straight man. They try to put him in an over the top kind of light. But it's just not funny. I guess people laugh cause they don't want to be seen as prudes and stuffed shirts so the comics keep going. It's just sad. I've actually seen routines where people don't really laugh or kinda give that nervous laugh and the comic will call em' out like "aww come on you know it's true" or "you kow you've done it" something like that. It's no wonder they can continually come out with these kinds of movies and shows. I really like stand up comedy too. Oh well. Just turn it off and order a couple of Christian Comedy DVDs I guess and pray Jesus comes very soon.
Overall, I agree with you.
As far as your comment on sickening commercials, there's certain networks I know not to watch and eat at the same time (Spike, Comedy Central, etc.). We've been robbed of the pleasure of eating and watching TV at the same time (thus rendering the original idea of the TV Dinner meaningless). What is generally considered rude to mention at the dinner table is given full visuals on the tube. I've noticed that people are less considerate in general conversation as to whether something might be offensive in a disgusting, appetite losing manner. There's this horrible comment now thats popular, that references regurgitation in the mouth. I can't see the remotest humor in it.
And yes, there are things used in general comedic humor that should never be considered anywhere in the same vicinity with humor (rape, terminally-ill children, handi-capped individuals, etc.). I had seen a video roast of William Shatner which involved the main crew members of the original Star Trek series done by Lisa Lampanelli. The smartest person by far was Leonard Nimoy. Basically, he didn't show up.
_____________________________
The buck stops here!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Amazing what pases for comedy these days! - 9/2/2008 12:29:47 AM
|
|
|
ObviousLee
Posts: 206
Joined: 6/15/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BeachLover99
I agree that the SNL of days past was much better than what is being shown today. The actors just had great chemistry.
But I digress: it IS amazing what passes for comedy today. I mean, look at a show like The Honeymooners. No sexual references. No cussing. Just good CLEAN fun. Same with I Love Lucy and other shows of the 50's and 60's. Remember Lucy and Ricky even had twin beds. Things that make you say, "Hmmm...!"
Those older shows you mentioned are far funnier IMO than what passes as comedy today. I have to admit though, to myself the relative cleanliness is not so much an issue. Many of them just used far superior methods of humor and talent. Many of the Brit-coms that do not have that wholesome cleanliness are far superior to todays American comedies as well.
In comparing SNL to Monty Python's Flying Circus, we can clearly see this superiority. Even though there's a difference in their comedic genre (set characters against revolving and guest characters, etc.), I use the comparison because they both have a similar type of artsy cult following. For one, because SNL uses various guests in their skits, they often use very non-funny individuals (John Travolta, Rob Lowe, Geena Davis, etc.), and try to squeeze humor out of them which produces boring skits.
_____________________________
The buck stops here!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Amazing what pases for comedy these days! - 9/2/2008 8:30:53 AM
|
|
|
uncabeeil
Posts: 5782
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Joisey. Got a problem wit dat?
Status: offline
|
quote:
In comparing SNL to Monty Python's Flying Circus, we can clearly see this superiority. Of which? SNL may have used heavy innuendo at times, but Python was infamous for their shots of bare chested women and various butt shots. Not to mention using words that were considered vulgar in Britain, but not here. And I'd say a good 50% of Python's skits fell flat, too. Know what I mean, nudge-nudge?
_____________________________
Pretty leaves are falling down,
Green, orange, yellow and brown.
Here comes one colored red,
It landed on my head.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Amazing what pases for comedy these days! - 9/2/2008 4:33:01 PM
|
|
|
ObviousLee
Posts: 206
Joined: 6/15/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: uncabeeil
quote:
In comparing SNL to Monty Python's Flying Circus, we can clearly see this superiority. Of which? SNL may have used heavy innuendo at times, but Python was infamous for their shots of bare chested women and various butt shots. Not to mention using words that were considered vulgar in Britain, but not here. And I'd say a good 50% of Python's skits fell flat, too. Know what I mean, nudge-nudge?
Oh I fully understand that Monty Python was heavy into the risque side of humor. That was actually my point. The humor is certainly not edifying. But the quality of the humor for humors sake was groundbreaking for future brit-coms, and quite excellent in it's own right.
As far as falling flat 50% of the time? While they fell flat at times (no one's perfect), I think 50% is doing some tremendous stretching. Maybe we can round it out to about 10% (although I'd prefer 5). Even when they fell flat they moved along into another skit quite gracefully. In fact, the scenario of moving one skit into a cartoon, and then into a whole other skit was remarkable in itself. And again I feel inclined to point to the fact that SNL often will use very non-funny people (unless you think the likes of George Foreman and the Rock are talented comedians). SNL had it's apparent heyday in their beginning stages (is it even on anymore?). Their very best went on to much higher ground by utilizing their talents in movies (Eddie Murphy, Steve Martin, etc.). The stable cast of Monty Python, although going on to other projects; never graduated into something "better". This was not because movies like "A Fish Named Wanda" were not worthwhile projects.
_____________________________
The buck stops here!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Amazing what pases for comedy these days! - 9/5/2008 7:50:43 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 380
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ObviousLee
In comparing SNL to Monty Python's Flying Circus, we can clearly see this superiority. Even though there's a difference in their comedic genre (set characters against revolving and guest characters, etc.), I use the comparison because they both have a similar type of artsy cult following. For one, because SNL uses various guests in their skits, they often use very non-funny individuals (John Travolta, Rob Lowe, Geena Davis, etc.), and try to squeeze humor out of them which produces boring skits.
Gotta agree here. Even though it was risque humor, Python was BRILLIANT (did you ever see 'Deja Vu' or 'Minister of Silly Walks'? - Who thinks up stuff like that?!) If you want to see a clean Brit comedy with Python-esque humor, get ahold of 'Fawlty Towers'. John Cleese at his best.
_____________________________
Any of this gettin' through to you, son?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Amazing what pases for comedy these days! - 9/6/2008 6:02:12 PM
|
|
|
ObviousLee
Posts: 206
Joined: 6/15/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
quote:
ORIGINAL: ObviousLee
In comparing SNL to Monty Python's Flying Circus, we can clearly see this superiority. Even though there's a difference in their comedic genre (set characters against revolving and guest characters, etc.), I use the comparison because they both have a similar type of artsy cult following. For one, because SNL uses various guests in their skits, they often use very non-funny individuals (John Travolta, Rob Lowe, Geena Davis, etc.), and try to squeeze humor out of them which produces boring skits.
Gotta agree here. Even though it was risque humor, Python was BRILLIANT (did you ever see 'Deja Vu' or 'Minister of Silly Walks'? - Who thinks up stuff like that?!) If you want to see a clean Brit comedy with Python-esque humor, get ahold of 'Fawlty Towers'. John Cleese at his best.
Yes! Those are classic MP skits indeed! And I love Fawlty Towers! Manuel the waiter as well as Mr. Fawlty is a riot!!!
_____________________________
The buck stops here!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
