DAVE CHAPPELLE: Critics versus Audience review

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Rotten Tomatoes has the critics review of his latest special at a 30% rating, whereas the audience rating is 99%.

That is a serious disconnect between what SJW journalists think and what regular people actually think.

Is it that people with extremely liberal views get a massive platform to shout from, meanwhile most people can see the BS for what it is?


It's also not just the Rotten Tomatoes critic ratings, a simple Google of Dave Chappelle Sticks and Stones will bring up a boat load of commentary against him.

Overheal

Manipulable data. I don’t know why people put stock in review aggregates like rotten tomatoes, especially in recent years where it’s been subject to ‘bombing campaigns’ via social media. Captain Marvel springs to mind. Besides there are plenty of examples where critics panned something that went on to be a cult classic. I wouldn’t rate Sticks and Stones a 9/10 myself, it was good, I laughed, but it wasn’t a watershed for Chappelle or for standup or anything.

James Brown

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Rotten Tomatoes has the critics review of his latest special at a 30% rating, whereas the audience rating is 99%.

That is a serious disconnect between what SJW journalists think and what regular people actually think.

Is it that people with extremely liberal views get a massive platform to shout from, meanwhile most people can see the BS for what it is?


It's also not just the Rotten Tomatoes critic ratings, a simple Google of Dave Chappelle Sticks and Stones will bring up a boat load of commentary against him.

You're assuming a lot. And despite the smiley faces, you seem triggered.
I think the anti anything they don't like conspiracy snow flakes like yourself are off the mark here
It's a private website. They obviously didn't find it funny. And IMO it was far from his best but had great moments. That's it really.

Also of 10 Rotten Tomatoes reviewers, 3 liked it, 7 didn't. Hardly a #justiceforjuicey level event.

This is the second time this has been raised on boards. It's a review site, I don't think there's an agenda and if there were they are making a balls of it by posting the Audience counts in favour.

Overheal

If its only out of 10 critic scores that is just low sampling.

biko

Glowing reviews in general media
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/08/29/dave-chappelle-just-might-save-america/

greencap

I dont get how Chappelle has become some kind of political thing now.

Whats the next random thing to become a political dildo?

biko

biko wrote: »

Glowing reviews in general media
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/08/29/dave-chappelle-just-might-save-america/

Breitbart as "general media"? A far-right organisation is not the most reputable source for balanced & objective views.

p1akuw47h5r3it

greencap wrote: »

I dont get how Chappelle has become some kind of political thing now.

Whats the next random thing to become a political dildo?

Everything in America is political. Comedy, sports, the arts, toilets, schools etc etc.

It's why so many are against the importation of American-esque politics into Ireland/Europe.

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

Breitbart as "general media"? A far-right organisation is not the most reputable source for balanced & objective views.

I don't know where you heard that. Brietbart is on the same side as Vice and Guardian.

biko

biko wrote: »

I don't know where you heard that. Brietbart is on the same side as Vice and Guardian.

Come off it. Breitbart & the Guardian are poles apart ideologically.

Back on topic, I think too much weight is given to a few haughty critics affronted by a respected comedian giving political correctness both barrels.

biko

Overheal wrote: »

I wouldn’t rate Sticks and Stones a 9/10 myself, it was good, I laughed, but it wasn’t a watershed for Chappelle or for standup or anything.

I agree, it's not his best work or anything but still funny and still very Chappelle.
Like George Carlin it's almost more social commentary than comedy.

interactive

The illiberal Left are in a twist over this.
Laughing like blinking and your heart beating is something that you have no control over, it just happens, so when Dave Chappelle tells a joke that is not PC and does not conform to the SJW world view the illiberal Left see first hand the public laugh at the truth of it.
This is unacceptable , group think is the way of the Left, dissent is not allowed, hence the outrage.

Realt Dearg Sec

interactive wrote: »

The illiberal Left are in a twist over this.
Laughing like blinking and your heart beating is something that you have no control over, it just happens, so when Dave Chappelle tells a joke that is not PC and does not conform to the SJW world view the illiberal Left see first hand the public laugh at the truth of it.
This is unacceptable , group think is the way of the Left, dissent is not allowed, hence the outrage.

The irony here is that your post is just a random jumble of right wing cliches picked up from various conservative media and passed off as independent thought.

interactive

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

The irony here is that your post is just a random jumble of right wing cliches picked up from various conservative media and passed off as independent thought.

Hahahahahahahahahahahah
Hahahahahahahahha
The Illiberal left make me laugh, they make all of us classic liberals laugh, hahahahahahahahahahah

Realt Dearg Sec

interactive wrote: »

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

The irony here is that your post is just a random jumble of right wing cliches picked up from various conservative media and passed off as independent thought.

Hahahahahahahahahahahah
Hahahahahahahahha
The Illiberal left make me laugh, they make all of us classic liberals laugh, hahahahahahahahahahah

Is this the part where you want someone to question the term "classic liberals", and then you lecture me on the topic by copying from another article you kind of half understood from a right wing source? Is everything you say just a quotation?

thenightman

biko wrote: »

Glowing reviews in general media
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/08/29/dave-chappelle-just-might-save-america/

Breitbart is 'general media?' similar to how An Phoblacht was 'general media' during the troubles.



Bloody hell, talk about being in denial.

interactive

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Is this the part where you want someone to question the term "classic liberals", and then you lecture me on the topic by copying from another article you kind of half understood from a right wing source? Is everything you say just a quotation?

Hahahahahah
1. Denial and isolation;
2. Anger;
3. Bargaining; 4. Depression;
5. Acceptance
You are at stage 1 bleeding into 2
In a few years time, God willing you will come to your senses and realise you where totally wrong.
After you time with the insane Illiberal Left, Us classic liberals will welcome you back into the fold.

Realt Dearg Sec

You've lost me. What am I denying?

interactive

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

You've lost me. What am I denying?

Isolation!
you will soon enter Anger

Realt Dearg Sec

interactive wrote: »

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

You've lost me. What am I denying?

Isolation!
you will soon enter Anger

No I'm still at total bafflement.

interactive

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

No I'm still at total bafflement.

Better to keep your mouth shut and be taught a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

Realt Dearg Sec

interactive wrote: »

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

No I'm still at total bafflement.

Better to keep your mouth shut and be taught a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

*Thought

Ironicname

interactive wrote:

Better to keep your mouth shut and be taught a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

Oh dear.

careless sherpa

biko wrote: »

I agree, it's not his best work or anything but still funny and still very Chappelle.
Like George Carlin it's almost more social commentary than comedy.

I like most of chappelles stuff but his latest offering felt pretty flat. Leaving aside the controversy it was a pale imitation of his earlier routines. Even the audience seemed pretty lacklustre although maybe they felt awkward. The laughing at himself and walking to the back of the set while the audience barely made a sound seemed like a bizarre atmosphere

pjohnson

Didnt "audience" reviews also have some movies reviewed at 0% before they were ever even released?

Only a right dolt would use them as any proof of anything :pac:

biko

pjohnson wrote: »

Only a right dolt would use them as any proof of anything :pac:

Oh, I wouldn't be so harsh. The general media seems to think it's good.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-rotten-tomatoes-a-reliable-source-for-movie-reviews_b_59000a34e4b06feec8ac91c6

pjohnson

biko wrote: »

Oh, I wouldn't be so harsh. The general media seems to think it's good.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-rotten-tomatoes-a-reliable-source-for-movie-reviews_b_59000a34e4b06feec8ac91c6

At least you've moved on from breibart but thats critics feedback your one seems on about. Whatever about actual critics the audience scores are generally rubbish.

biko

All media is general media.
A certain media outlet might look far right to someone who is far left.


Did you know Huffpost was founded by Andrew Breitbart? Probably not.

batgoat

interactive wrote: »

Isolation!
you will soon enter Anger

Since there's already an existing Chapelle thread, it's pretty clear that the left aren't that outraged. Most views are that it just isn't that good. No outrage, just plain old meh.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

batgoat wrote: »

Since there's already an existing Chapelle thread, it's pretty clear that the left aren't that outraged. Most views are that it just isn't that good. No outrage, just plain old meh.

Not that good?

It has gotten great reviews by anyone who isn't a SJW. Imdb has it at 8.6 out of 10 currently. You would struggle to find a funnier hour of comedy released this year, that does not qualify as 'meh'.

alchemist33

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Rotten Tomatoes has the critics review of his latest special at a 30% rating, whereas the audience rating is 99%.

That is a serious disconnect between what SJW journalists think and what regular people actually think.

Is it that people with extremely liberal views get a massive platform to shout from, meanwhile most people can see the BS for what it is?


It's also not just the Rotten Tomatoes critic ratings, a simple Google of Dave Chappelle Sticks and Stones will bring up a boat load of commentary against him.

The oddest thing here is a 99% audience score. That's Hussein-era Iraq figures.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

alchemist33 wrote: »

The oddest thing here is a 99% audience score. That's Hussein-era Iraq figures.

Sure. But I'm much more inclined to believe the Hussein-era figures are coming from the critics. I mean a 25% approval rating for a comedy special seems clearly like an ideological score.

There's no way you can be a fan of comedy and come up with a 25% score. The 99% audience score might partially be explained by the push back. But it's easily an 8 out of 10 special (although I personally would give it a 10).

Venom

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Not that good?

It has gotten great reviews by anyone who isn't a SJW. Imdb has it at 8.6 out of 10 currently. You would struggle to find a funnier hour of comedy released this year, that does not qualify as 'meh'.

Watched it last night and thought it was pretty entertaining overall and no way deserving of the stupidly low critic score but having not seen a lot of Chappelle's prior stuff, I can't comment on the dip in quality a large amount of the more negative comments refer to regarding this special. I do feel the 99% user rating has a large element of sticking it to the "critics" and a 6 or 7 out of 10 would be a fair rating as Dave's running to the back of the stage so much got old fast and some of the jokes needed way more work.

The Kang

The white saviours don't like it when a black person deviates from the script.

batgoat

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Not that good?

It has gotten great reviews by anyone who isn't a SJW. Imdb has it at 8.6 out of 10 currently. You would struggle to find a funnier hour of comedy released this year, that does not qualify as 'meh'.

And you do realise critical consensus often doesn't mirror audiences? The general criticism over the show is that it's nowhere near Chappele at his best. You are perfectly free to disagree with it but saying that everyone who criticises it is a SJW is a bit sad tbh.

And bizarrely this outrage at critics seems to be becoming more and more common. If you enjoy something that's fine but it doesn't mean everyone will.

donegal_man

Critic reviews coming from critics. Audience reviews coming from Dave Chappelle's audience who I'd guess are people who already like Dave Chappelle.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

batgoat wrote: »

And you do realise critical consensus often doesn't mirror audiences? The general criticism over the show is that it's nowhere near Chappele at his best. You are perfectly free to disagree with it but saying that everyone who criticises it is a SJW is a bit sad tbh.

And bizarrely this outrage at critics seems to be becoming more and more common. If you enjoy something that's fine but it doesn't mean everyone will.

You literally said "Most views are that it just isn't that good. No outrage, just plain old meh."

That's patently nonsense.

The Kang

Check out his stance on abortion:

'If you can kill the little motha****a I can at least abandon him. My money my choice!'

Haha!

batgoat

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

You literally said "Most views are that it just isn't that good. No outrage, just plain old meh."

That's patently nonsense.

By most views, I was referring to the mixed to negative ones from the thread. In relation to the SJW angle, his shows in 2017 were acclaimed and had plenty of controversial material, the same critics/publications. Do you view the national review as a publication for sjws out of interest?

Silentcorner

alchemist33 wrote: »

The oddest thing here is a 99% audience score. That's Hussein-era Iraq figures.

Rotten Tomatoes recorded the critics score for Nannette, the "comedy special" from Hannah Gatsby, a 100% rating...


It was the worst performance I have ever witnessed, it was essentially an hour long rant on how horrible men are....it was self indulgent and the performer struggled to contain her emotions onstage in front of her audience..."it reinvented comedy"...one moran reported!

Silentcorner

Wait until Joker hits the screens....

B0jangles

Silentcorner wrote: »

Rotten Tomatoes gave Nannette, the "comedy special" from Hannah Gatsby, a 100% rating...


It was the worst performance I have ever witnessed, it was essentially an hour long rant on how horrible men are....it was self indulgent and the performer struggled to contain her emotions onstage in front of her audience..."it reinvented comedy"...one moran reported!

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't give any ratings itself - all it does is aggregate professional reviews and audience reviews to give a rough guide to how something was received.


A mediocre film could get a score of 70% if seven critics say it was pretty good and three say it was a bit bleh. An incredibly controversial film could get exactly the same score because seven critics said it is a work of genius and three said it is absolute dross.


A score of 100% isn't saying something is perfect, its saying that 100% of the professional reviews were reasonably positive.

batgoat

Silentcorner wrote: »

Wait until Joker hits the screens....

Eh, currently at 85% on RT. Some commentary has raised concerns about it appealing incels(and potential copycat attacks) but that's a reasonable concern. But in general superb reviews and plenty of Oscar buzz being generated by critics... So it's more disproving the SJW's evil plot.

This is really as if you guys are the ones trying to be perpetually offended.

B0jangles wrote: »

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't give any ratings itself - all it does is aggregate professional reviews and audience reviews to give a rough guide to how something was received.


A mediocre film could get a score of 70% if seven critics say it was pretty good and three say it was a bit bleh. An incredibly controversial film could get exactly the same score because seven critics said it is a work of genius and three said it is absolute dross.


A score of 100% isn't saying something is perfect, its saying that 100% of the professional reviews were reasonably positive.

Yes I dunno how this aspect has been missed.. Like I don't think many people actually believe marvel films are the best films ever made but most of them tend to be in the high 80s... It just means they're generally positively reviewed.

Silentcorner

batgoat wrote: »

Eh, currently at 85% on RT. Some commentary has raised concerns about it appealing incels(and potential copycat attacks) but that's a reasonable concern. But in general superb reviews and plenty of Oscar buzz being generated by critics... So it's more disproving the SJW's evil plot.

This is really as if you guys are the ones trying to be perpetually offended.

We are talking about movies here...it's farcical this is even an issue....my point is how ridiculous things are getting that these critic score's and audience scores are so far apart, I used to go by Rotten Tomatoes when deciding what movie to watch but that avenue is no longer trustworthy....I mean, that is its point isn't it??

thenightman

biko wrote: »

All media is general media.
A certain media outlet might look far right to someone who is far left.


Did you know Huffpost was founded by Andrew Breitbart? Probably not.

The Guardian, Irish Times, NYT, Washington Post, Daily Mail, Sunday Times etc are general media and are consumed by a wide range of people in society. To claim Breitbart is in the same category as the above just shows you up for the far right fantasist that you are, in fact it actually shows you are in denial about being such, which is even sadder.

Silentcorner

thenightman wrote: »

The Guardian, Irish Times, NYT, Washington Post, Daily Mail, Sunday Times etc are general media and are consumed by a wide range of people in society. To claim Breitbart is in the same category as the above just shows you up for the far right fantasist that you are, in fact it actually shows you are in denial about being such, which is even sadder.

All those outlets are in the gutter, just like Breitbart, The Sun, Fox...it's mad some people can't see it...they are all as bad as one another, driven by emotive opinion pieces and hyperbole...

batgoat

Silentcorner wrote: »

We are talking abut movies here...it's farcical this is even an issue....my point is how ridiculous things are getting that these critic score's and audience scores are so far apart, I used to go by Rotten Tomatoes when deciding what movie to watch but that avenue is no longer trustworthy....I mean, that is its point isn't it??

I think you're making it into an issue. Generally I put a grain of salt into a rotten score. Critics and audiences opinions have often diverged and it's not a sudden occurrence. Sure half of the cult classics were critically panned when they came out.

And by your very own logic, the "Joker" film should not have have been so critically acclaimed with critics. Cause there is a hugely controversial aspect.

Rotten Tomatoes merely reflects the critics response. So I'm not sure how you could be outraged at a platform over that.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

What's even supposed to be the "trigged the libs and that's why they're panning it?" bit in the latest bit? Jussie Smollett?

All I've seen is people sh1teing on about how offended other people are, not anyone saying they're offended.

There was some provocative trans stuff in his first special, it was nowhere near as panned.

He's being graded on a curve against himself. He's nowhere near what he was in the day, hes not as good as he was at the start of this Netflix comeback. There's nothing wrong with making funny, well constructed jokes about potentially offensive subjects, or doing so in an irascible, provocative way. See: Jim Jeffries, Frankie Boyle, Bill Burr, and Chapelle himself.

But this was lazy, cynical, largely unfunny stuff, especially by his own standards. Liking humour on principle because it sets out to be offensive regardless of whether it's funny or not is pretty retarded, turning around and accusing your political opposites of taking an ideological position on it is taking the piss altogether though.

Like, can someone tell us what they think was the funniest joke from this set? What really got you giggling to the extent that this deserves 100%?

batgoat

Just to point out, the national review of all things loved his 2017 shows. Panned this one. The right wing National Review are now SJW's?

Silentcorner

batgoat wrote: »

I think you're making it into an issue. Generally I put a grain of salt into a rotten score. Critics and audiences opinions have often diverged and it's not a sudden occurrence. Sure half of the cult classics were critically panned when they came out.

And by your very own logic, the "Joker" film should not have have been so critically acclaimed with critics. Cause there is a hugely controversial aspect.

Rotten Tomatoes merely reflects the critics response. So I'm not sure how you could be outraged at a platform over that.

So...there is no divisive culturally narrative anywhere...it's all just like it always was, nothing to see here.


Just because you keep on repeating the word outrage, don't make it so...


I am on this thread, because the disparity between Critics score's for two separate comedy specials, one by Dave Chappelle, a man who has earned iconic status in one of the most difficult art forms in mainstream culture, received a 30% rating...


And a completely talentless "comedian" who had what came close to an emotional breakdown on stage during a self indulgent rant got a 100%...


Comedy is a tough game, not for the fainthearted, and a vital part of our culture...comedy critics should be rewarding talent not vanity.

I accept I made a mistake about Joker.

batgoat

Silentcorner wrote: »

So...there is no divisive culturally narrative anywhere...it's all just like it always was, nothing to see here.


Just because you keep on repeating the word outrage, don't make it so...


I am on this thread, because the disparity between Critics score's for two separate comedy specials, one by Dave Chappelle, a man who has earned iconic status in one of the most difficult art forms in mainstream culture, received a 30% rating...


And a completely talentless "comedian" who had what came close to an emotional breakdown on stage during a self indulgent rant got a 100%...


Comedy is a tough game, not for the fainthearted, and a vital part of our culture...comedy critics should be rewarding talent not vanity.

I accept I made a mistake about Joker.

And his 2017 show were positively reviewed by the same critics, it was also controversial. So I think you are making a mountain out of absolutely nothing. Best of luck!