Standard of films comedy today.

RocketRaccoon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Just so I know, we’re you talking about him doing the same jokes with different working or brand new jokes?

He can do whatever he likes. I hope he offends the entire human race, every gender, every sexual orientation, the lot.

droidman123

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Can you give me an example of a good, non pc, comedy movie released in the last 5 years?

Check out klown (klovn) norwegian comedy,close to the bone in every aspect and imo an extremely funny movie,but not the type of movie that would ever be made in hollywood

El_Duderino 09

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

He can do whatever he likes. I hope he offends the entire human race, every gender, every sexual orientation, the lot.

Edgy.

I’d probably hope he’s funny

RocketRaccoon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Edgy.

I’d probably hope he’s funny

I've no doubt he'll be funny, I also have no doubt he'll ramp up the controversy and Chapelles recent show will be like watching a Bill Cosby gig in comparison. Win-win.

El_Duderino 09

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I've no doubt he'll be funny, I also have no doubt he'll ramp up the controversy and Chapelles recent show will be like watching a Bill Cosby gig in comparison. Win-win.

Ok. Tell that to the people whinging about the PC brigade stopping good comedy from being made.

A few posts ago you said they would be killed by the media for doing a show like their 70s and 80s shows. Now you’re sure they’re going to do it.

RocketRaccoon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Tell that to the people whinging about the PC brigade stopping good comedy from being made.

A few posts ago you said they would be killed by the media for doing a show like their 70s and 80s shows. Now you’re sure they’re going to do it.

Because Eddie Murphy has proven time and time again, he doesn't care what the media and press have to say about him.

paleoperson

Sonics2k wrote: »

Odds are when you were twenty, some forty year old was out there lamenting the quality of comedy, and possibly blaming PC culture. When that forty year old was twenty, you can be damn sure some forty year old was giving out about the quality of movies.

Rubbish.

El_Duderino 09

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Because Eddie Murphy has proven time and time again, he doesn't care what the media and press have to say about him.

Ah, this is a different argument again. Earlier the PC brigade were stopping these comedies from being made. Now you’re suggesting the media might say things the comedy makers wouldn't like. That’s a bit tame in comparison to them being prevented from making those jokes.

I think you might be disappointed. I doubt Murphy’s jokes We’re that controversial when he made them. If you’re waiting for Murphy to make a load of “f@ggots can’t look at my arse while I’m on stage” jokes, then you might be disappointed. That’s old hat.

El_Duderino 09

paleoperson wrote: »

Rubbish.

That’s exactly how it works. Do you think your grandad’s generation thought the culture was going in the right direction when you were young?

It’s such an old trope I thought everyone understood that “they don’t make’m like they used to” was something that everyone knew about. It’s been going on forever. Things change all the time and old people say things are changing for the worse.

Credited to Socrates :The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Sounds like a boring joke back to be honest, either back then or now. You are sure you're talking about 'humour' here, right? Offensive or otherwise?

His 2 stand up films are widely regarded as the best stand ups of all time. Yes, very humorous.

And you chose that "joke" to illustrate your point...?

El_Duderino 09

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And you chose that "joke" to illustrate your point...?

Gay jokes like “uuh, aren’t f@ggots funny when they mince about” aren’t really funny anymore. That’s not cutting edge humour. It was cutting edge back in the 70-80 and kinda the, 90 when gay people started being more open and the gay rights movement gained momentum.

Gay jokes are old hat now. If Murphy came back doing mincing gay jokes, 40 years later, he’d be relying on his name recognition rather than his new material.

I liked Raw and the other one when I saw them first in about 2000. Watched it again a few years ago and got bored half an hour in. It’s not relevant anymore. That doesn’t take from its relevance to the time he wrote it, but it’s just a bit blunt now.

Gregor Samsa

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Because Eddie Murphy has proven time and time again, he doesn't care what the media and press have to say about him.

None of them care what the media and press say about them. But they all (including Eddie) care about what their audience thinks about them. No comedian is going to come out and make jokes that their audience doesn't find funny, no matter how cutting edge they are.

Jim Davidson and Roy Chubby Brown are still touring with their own brands of British blue humour that's straight from the 70s. They have their audiences, and neither the "PC brigade" nor the media has stopped them. They're certainly not as popular as they were, but that's because fewer people find them funny now. Fashions change.

Davidson's audience want and expect him to trade on the various topics he's been doing for decades, but if he stood up and started making uncomplimentary jokes about Brexit or British army squaddies, his audience wouldn't be impressed. He dropped his Chalky White character in 1977 - long before "PC gone mad" - because audiences just weren't finding it funny to hear a white guy do a bad West Indian accent any more.

The same concept is true of Eddie Murphy or any other comedian you care to mention.

El_Duderino 09

Listening to some Roy Chubby Brown on Spotify. It’s grand but I don’t really get it. Was the British blue comedy about a rejection of old values. Like where you couldn’t discuss loads of topics or swear in public. So they swear and talk about sex, and turn it up to 11.

Anyway, I don’t think PC is harming him. It just isn’t very current. I lived in Middlesbrough for a few years and the accent is distinctive. It’s not a very attractive accent but it probably adds to the act.

Sonics2k

paleoperson wrote: »

Rubbish.

Well it's not, it's quite literally this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGrfhsxxmdE

It's the classic argument isn't it, one generation will believe their media was funnier/better written etc than the next.

The Blues Brothers is arguably one of my favourite comedies, because it's something from my generation. I can show that same film to my kids and while it may get the occasional smile, they don't like it.

I was playing Meatloaf in the car yesterday and my daughter asked me to turn it down, which is practically a capital offence in my opinion, so she could put on some music. It was ****e.

El_Duderino 09

Sonics2k wrote: »

Well it's not, it's quite literally this.

It's the classic argument isn't it, one generation will believe their media was funnier/better written etc than the next.

The Blues Brothers is arguably one of my favourite comedies, because it's something from my generation. I can show that same film to my kids and while it may get the occasional smile, they don't like it.

I was playing Meatloaf in the car yesterday and my daughter asked me to turn it down, which is practically a capital offence in my opinion, so she could put on some music. It was ****e.

Couldn’t agree more. It’s a matter if sometimes acknowledging a distinction between what I like and what’s actually good. For example I’m looking forward to the new Rambo movie. No way I’m going to claim they’re great movies (even though they touch on really interesting topics) but I like them.

There are whole genres or shyte Christmas, horror and disaster movies that don’t claim to be good, they’re just fun and not up their own hole.

beejee

Things have always been the same and some people are no more "sensitive" or chastising than any other time in history?

No, definitely not. There is such a thing as objectivity, and to ignore the impact of social media on the hypersensitivity of some people these days is ludicrous.

There is a precedent, sure, but then there's the extreme bs going on today. You're only playing games with yourself if you pretend "it's always been this way".

dxhound2005

It has always been this way, but we will have to wait for another 20 years to see what will stand the test of time from our current output. Thousands of films and pop songs from the past are long forgotten. But a small number continue to be well regarded. This skews opinion into thinking that in general standards were higher before, when put against the deluge of material coming out every month now.

fryup

there hasn't been a decent spoof movie in years :cool:

"i am serious and don't call me Shirley"

El_Duderino 09

beejee wrote: »

...and to ignore the impact of social media on the hypersensitivity of some people these days is ludicrous.

There is a precedent, sure, but then there's the extreme bs going on today. You're only playing games with yourself if you pretend "it's always been this way".

Social media is a new way to express these views. There have always been people who say “you can’t joke about that” for whatever reason. Whether they’re right wing or left wing doesn’t really matter.

Comedy explores areas that haven’t been fully discussed yet in normal life. And there are always people who don’t want issues discussed in normal life.

Social media is just a new way for people to say “you can’t joke about that” but that’s all it is. Expressing that same sentiment isn’t new. Just the way it’s expressed through social media is new.

Gregor Samsa

beejee wrote: »

Things have always been the same and some people are no more "sensitive" or chastising than any other time in history?

No, definitely not. There is such a thing as objectivity, and to ignore the impact of social media on the hypersensitivity of some people these days is ludicrous.

There is a precedent, sure, but then there's the extreme bs going on today. You're only playing games with yourself if you pretend "it's always been this way".

1966, the Beatles faced protests in every city thought their final US tour because of Lennon's "more popular than Jesus" comment. Some Radio DJs refused to play their music, public record burning occurred. There's countless examples. The situation is no different to now, except the current crop of morally outraged people can do it from the comfort of their phone, rather than have to physically turn up at a rally.

beejee

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Social media is a new way to express these views. There have always been people who say “you can’t joke about that” for whatever reason. Whether they’re right wing or left wing doesn’t really matter.

Comedy explores areas that haven’t been fully discussed yet in normal life. And there are always people who don’t want issues discussed in normal life.

Social media is just a new way for people to say “you can’t joke about that” but that’s all it is. Expressing that same sentiment isn’t new. Just the way it’s expressed through social media is new.

Nah, man. It's not just the same. It's amplified beyond anything previously, not even remotely close.

I can stub my toe and theoretically inform most of planet earth about it. Babies crying about their feelings has become an entire culture, a way of life, connected 24/7, each baby boosting the signal. Who can keep track of the competitive outrage? The colour Red has antagonistic, institutionalised history used as a weapon of the patriarchy to intimidate circus clowns in Cambodia. Please retweet this unless youre a disgusting animal.

The effect is nothing like some geezer in a pub moaning about fish fingers in 1953.

Playing games pretending otherwise.

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

Nah, man. It's not just the same. It's amplified beyond anything previously, not even remotely close.

I can stub my toe and theoretically inform most of planet earth about it. Babies crying about their feelings has become an entire culture, a way of life, connected 24/7, each baby boosting the signal. Who can keep track of the competitive outrage? The colour Red has antagonistic, institutionalised history used as a weapon of the patriarchy to intimidate circus clowns in Cambodia. Please retweet this unless youre a disgusting animal.

The effect is nothing like some geezer in a pub moaning about fish fingers in 1953.

Playing games pretending otherwise.

But in the old days 20 million might tune into a TV programme in the UK, and radio was as popular before that. With so much diversification, it is difficult for anything to achieve such penetration now. Not much of what you are reading online will survive to have any impact.

Gregor Samsa

beejee wrote: »

The effect is nothing like some geezer in a pub moaning about fish fingers in 1953.

Playing games pretending otherwise.

In pre-twitter days, TV channels used to dedicate entire programmes to airing the outraged rants of indigent indignant letter writers. Newspaper letter pages the same.

In newspapers, there used to be threads spanning weeks as people argued back an forth via the letters page. Like, it's one thing sending a quick tweet on your phone saying you aren't happy about something then getting involved in an argument for an hour or so, but imagine sitting down and writing or typing out a letter, going to the post office to buy a stamp, posting it, waiting for the letter to be published in the paper, then a few days later seeing someone respond to you, then sitting down and writing another letter to respond. And so on. The level of dedication to complaining was much higher back then.

The attitude was always there, it's just the medium that's changed.

dxhound2005

Indeed, "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" has always been with us. I doubt that he (I always think of them as male) was indigent though:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgusted_of_Tunbridge_Wells

Gregor Samsa

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Indeed, "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" has always been with us. I doubt that he (I always think of them as male) was indigent though:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgusted_of_Tunbridge_Wells

Sir,

I refer to the use of the word "indigent" in a previous correspondence (23rd of October), by one "Gregor Samsa" who's name sounds suspiciously foreign. It is outrageous that the Queens's English is being mangled in such a way. Clearly the word should have been "indignant". In my day, one would be whipped with a rod for such a folly. Nowadays, the youth are practically commended for their ignorance, what with their spelling-checkers and automatic-typing telephones. We're going to hell on a handcart!

Yours, etc.

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

beejee

It's about effect, not principle.

A bullet and nuclear weapon operate on the same principle. They kill people.

But the effective difference is not simply numbers. While both may kill, the nuclear weapon also has untold implications, radiation, mutation, geopolitics etc

So, this hyper sensitivity is not like anything before in terms of effect. Principle and precedent, yes. Effect, no.

Not the same at all.

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

It's about effect, not principle.

A bullet and nuclear weapon operate on the same principle. They kill people.

But the effective difference is not simply numbers. While both may kill, the nuclear weapon also has untold implications, radiation, mutation, geopolitics etc

So, this hyper sensitivity is not like anything before in terms of effect. Principle and precedent, yes. Effect, no.

Not the same at all.

The majority of the world's population are not on any social media, so no effect on them. 99.9% of the stuff you are getting exercised about, will never appear before my eyes.

beejee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The majority of the world's population are not on any social media, so no effect on them. 99.9% of the stuff you are getting exercised about, will never appear before my eyes.

"As of June 2017, the world's population stands at 7.5 billion with 3.8 billion people using the internet. Active social media users account for 2.89 billion people, which is a penetration of 39%"

Unless you want to be pedantic, considering where you live as opposed to a nomadic tribe in the Sahara, you are indeed amongst a population of majority people using social media.

And the poisonous hyper-sensitivity driven through that narcissistic shoite is going before your eyes, and is having a concomitant effect upon society at large.

You may live on another planet, however, so, who knows!

El_Duderino 09

beejee wrote: »

Nah, man. It's not just the same. It's amplified beyond anything previously, not even remotely close.

I can stub my toe and theoretically inform most of planet earth about it. Babies crying about their feelings has become an entire culture, a way of life, connected 24/7, each baby boosting the signal. Who can keep track of the competitive outrage? The colour Red has antagonistic, institutionalised history used as a weapon of the patriarchy to intimidate circus clowns in Cambodia. Please retweet this unless youre a disgusting animal.

The effect is nothing like some geezer in a pub moaning about fish fingers in 1953.

Playing games pretending otherwise.

Social media gives the same message a bigger platform. The fact that people could organise to get out en masse, to burn Beatles merchandise, shows that the message isn’t new. Only the medium (social media) is new.

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

"As of June 2017, the world's population stands at 7.5 billion with 3.8 billion people using the internet. Active social media users account for 2.89 billion people, which is a penetration of 39%"

Unless you want to be pedantic, considering where you live as opposed to a nomadic tribe in the Sahara, you are indeed amongst a population of majority people using social media.

And the poisonous hyper-sensitivity driven through that narcissistic shoite is going before your eyes, and is having a concomitant effect upon society at large.

You may live on another planet, however, so, who knows!

But you and I can recognise this stuff as just so much fluff, here today gone tomorrow. It won't have any effect on the general population, who I credit with the same intelligence.