Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Recommended Posts

I don't think it's easy-humour, if it was then other people would have enjoyed the same success as him commercially and critically.

 

See the Golden Globes Awards, fucking brilliant.

 

I think people hate him because it all seems so easy, but it's his delivery and manner of delivery, that's the selling point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's easy-humour, if it was then other people would have enjoyed the same success as him commercially and critically.

 

See the Golden Globes Awards, fucking brilliant.

 

I think people hate him because it all seems so easy, but it's his delivery and manner of delivery, that's the selling point.

 

Is this being ironic?

 

He was jeered off and came back on stage an hour later after a telling off, with much more audience friendly material.

 

[YOUTUBE]tdiIMm_Ilyo&feature=fvwrel[/YOUTUBE]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's easy-humour, if it was then other people would have enjoyed the same success as him commercially and critically.

 

See the Golden Globes Awards, fucking brilliant.

 

I think people hate him because it all seems so easy, but it's his delivery and manner of delivery, that's the selling point.

 

Wrong.

 

The likes of Jerry Sadowitz, Bill Hicks, Brendon Burns, Jim Jeffries and Doug Stanhope do "offensive" humour at a far higher level than Gervais could ever hope to reach in a million fucking years.

 

His success - commercially - is down to MOR mongs who don't know any fucking better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they're probably good friends. Doesn't really make any fucking difference to the point I'm making about Gervais and his brand of comedy.

 

It's low-brow, easy humour based around mocking disabled people. A bit like Frankie Boyle. Comedy for people who think they're a bit edgy. But aren't.

 

Gervais pisses on Frankie Boyle in the talent stakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong.

 

The likes of Jerry Sadowitz, Bill Hicks, Brendon Burns, Jim Jeffries and Doug Stanhope do "offensive" humour at a far higher level than Gervais could ever hope to reach in a million fucking years.

 

His success - commercially - is down to MOR mongs who don't know any fucking better.

 

Not very often that this happens, but I agree with every word you've just said, especially Stanhope, who I'm not so sure if it is an act, he's fucking unhinged.

 

[YOUTUBE]MAVyiJ1SINE[/YOUTUBE]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck The Jews is a classic routine.

 

I'm not sure about "unhinged" as he is clearly touched by genius, but I would say that he has probably done a LOT of drugs and drinking in his time.

 

By unhinged I mean it's not measured. Someone like Boyle you'd imagine sits and writes his routines to the letter expressly to antagonise, Stanhope seems to have a rough idea about what he's going to talk about and then just goes with and see where it leads, he doesn't seem to have any boundries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He recently claimed that his stand-up routine and widely-reviled US award show car-crash are all an "act". A nasty, egotistical persona that he adopted in the face of sudden and amazing success.

 

But it's horseshit. His stand-up persona has been exactly the same for 15 years. And how much of it is an act?

 

I loved The Office. I enjoyed the bits of Extras I did see. Some of his stand-up is OK, even if he isn't actually very good at stand-up.

 

But one has to wonder about the sheer amount of comedy that he derives from the misfortune of others. The weak. The disabled. The mentally subnormal. The poor. People who live in different cultures and talk different languages.

 

His hilarious routines about the starving people of Africa (which he's been doing on and off for over a decade)

 

Sitcoms about dwarfs. Because dwarfism is just funny isn't it?

 

Routines and sketches and situations about wheelchairs, blind people, deaf people, black people, fat people, religious people.

 

He may argue it's about how we react to uncomfortable situations or ideas.

 

But this "mong" incident shows what he really likes doing is mocking people less fortunate, or indeed just different, to himself.

 

I was thinking of the politics & Animals tours he did years ago which i quite liked. Everything else he has done is shit in my opinion.

 

I also quite like Frankie Boyle, although he does go a too far sometimes.

 

All comedy to some degree is at the expense of others or pointing out the differences between people, either everything is off limits or nothing is, there can be no middle ground, despite the fact that some may be considered poor taste from an individual point of view.

 

The problem in modern day society is people getting offended on behalf of other people.

 

Jim Jefferies does a brilliant set regarding him hosting an event for SCOPE as he treated them all the same as everyone else, i.e. ripe for the piss taking. So much so he is 'Spaz approved'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By unhinged I mean it's not measured. Someone like Boyle you'd imagine sits and writes his routines to the letter expressly to antagonise, Stanhope seems to have a rough idea about what he's going to talk about and then just goes with and see where it leads, he doesn't seem to have any boundries.

 

I'm pretty sure he wrote "Fuck The Jews" because he was accused of anti-semitism in a review of some other show he did.

 

So obviously, Doug felt this was the best possible response to alleviate the situation....

 

He's a very, very funny man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically what everyone seems to be saying is this 'If I like a comedian he can say what he likes, so long as I like him'?

 

I like Ricky Gervais, I find him funny and I like his stand up, even though he is clearly not a very good stand up as such. Mongs is used differently, as is Retard. Richard Herring, whom I know nothing about, was only really saying he thought Gervais was wrong but that he had the right to say it.

 

His Susanne Boyle gag was very close to the bone, but I don't think he was genuinely setting out to cause offence to those who are disabled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure he wrote "Fuck The Jews" because he was accused of anti-semitism in a review of some other show he did.

 

So obviously, Doug felt this was the best possible response to alleviate the situation....

 

He's a very, very funny man.

 

We're talking at cross purposes.

 

He did write that as a reaction, but the details will change during each act because he just goes with it and fires off on tangents when the whim takes him.

 

He's probably the best out there at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking at cross purposes.

 

He did write that as a reaction, but the details will change during each act because he just goes with it and fires off on tangents when the whim takes him.

 

He's probably the best out there at the moment.

 

We're not really. I know what you meant.

 

I'm just convinced that most comedians have pretty well-structured routines, even if we're not supposed to think that they do.

 

Either way, he's brutally funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amusingly, it would seem that Stanhope has also attracted the ire of some disabled charities, for comments he made about a child with Down's Syndrome on Richard Bacon's BBC radio show.

 

Note, if you will, the diffference in responses to each accusation.

 

Gervais:

"The modern use of the word mong means 'dopey' or 'ignorant'," said Gervais in a statement. "It's even in modern slang and urban dictionaries.

Well done everyone who pointed out that Mong USED to be a derogatory term for DS [Down's Syndrome], Gay USED to mean happy. Words change. Get over it"

 

Stanhope:

"If I were to dissect that piece of comedy, I could make very defensible points; that I was actually making satire of the personal attacks in political campaigns, or commenting on the attempts by some Republicans to bring god into politics, or any number of lesser arguments but the truth is that it was just flat-out shock humor meant to appeal to the most base part of my own personal sense of awful humor

 

Do you see why you suck shit? You see why you are far more deserving of the moniker "retarded?"

 

I don't care if you come after me for things that I've said. You can obviously see that I don't give a fuck. Going after a presenter and the network for having a guest who once said something years ago that was vaguely alluded to? You are a cabal of cowards and self-important dim-wits and the authorities who you run to for muscle should be the same people that deem you unfit to care for those you purport to be defending.

 

In short, you are not fit to protect the retarded.

 

Oh... and go fuck yourself in the head. I'm pretty drunk and bored with yelling at the stone walls that are your minds"

 

This is why Gervais is a mong, and Stanhope is not a mong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not very often that this happens, but I agree with every word you've just said, especially Stanhope, who I'm not so sure if it is an act, he's fucking unhinged.

 

[YOUTUBE]MAVyiJ1SINE[/YOUTUBE]

 

Thought that was really boring.

If I want angry done well then I'll go elsewhere. Angry is a pretty lazy comedy style though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Gervais, but he's right on this one. He's just really unfunny whilst being right.

 

But he's not, though.

 

He's already said that he's using "mong" to essentially mean "idiot". Like he's using an adapted, modern version of the word that has nothing to do with "mongoloid" or "Down's Syndrome".

 

But he's a lying cunt.

 

He was first called out over it after describing Susan Boyle as follows:

 

"Well, she’s a mong, isn’t she? She looks like a mong, doesn’t she?"

 

So let's not kid ourselves. He's saying she looks a bit Downsy. A bit mongy. A bit like a mong. And that's that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

I'm saying he's right insofar as it can be used as to mean 'idiot', not that he's used it in that sense every time he has used it. I'm sure he used it both ways plenty of times. I don't particularly care which way he uses it, he's still dramatically unfunny. I think that's the important message here: He's an overrated shitbag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
It doesn't matter if what he says is funny or not.

 

It really matters to me.

 

He still over-exaggerates his laugh and grins like a loon regardless.

 

Oh aye, he's a gurning, laughing fool, that boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...