Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

CNN asks: Is Dane Cook Funny?

1235»

Posts

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    ins0mniac wrote:
    Fact is, he's a talentless morong and anyone who likes him is a complete and total dumbass.

    I mean all he does is tell stories in a larger than life manner, with great enthusiasm. Stories that many - hundreds of thousands of millions of people - can relate to and find funny dare I say hysterical? I mean I know I could stand on stage in front of thousands and tell these same jokes and get the same reaction.

    I'm actually going to pose a question to all naysayers of Cook.

    If Cook is not actually a comedian and simply tells stories instead of cracking jokes..

    .. what is a joke?

    COMEDIANS DO NOT TELL JOKES ANYMORE.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • ins0mniacins0mniac Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Well then what the fuck is the issue here?

    You don't find him funny.

    GOOD FOR YOU! Don't fucking watch him! It's no different than having your own opinions about movies/music/books/TV.

    Keep your pompous, condescending opinions to yourself if you're going to group everyone who can appreciate the comedic stylings of one comedian as sheeple who are braindead, moronic douchebags.

    The End?

    X-Box Live Gamertag: Merciless319
  • TotenkruzTotenkruz Registered User
    edited November 2006
    celery77 wrote:
    Totenkruz wrote:
    In short:
    Dane Cook. You love him. Or you detest him. The end.
    You know, there's a whole thread about why this is a weak position. I wish you would have read it.
    Perhaps, for in all honesty, sitting on the fence is an extremely weak in terms for an arguement. But in some cases, sitting on the rails is all you can do. There is no real side in this because it isn't at all based on what is right and what is wrong, but on preference.

    Laharl-Shoop-copy.jpg
    Yes, I played (and still play occasionally) Baldur's Gate II and yes, I love it dearly like a fond reminiscence of my youth to this very day. "Gots you a problems wif it?"
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    ins0mniac wrote:
    Well then what the fuck is the issue here?

    You don't find him funny.

    GOOD FOR YOU! Don't fucking watch him! It's no different than having your own opinions about movies/music/books/TV.

    Keep your pompous, condescending opinions to yourself if you're going to group everyone who can appreciate the comedic stylings of one comedian as sheeple who are braindead, moronic douchebags.

    The End?

    thanks for this post dude, I missed it when it was posted on every other page.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • Hendrix_GodHendrix_God Registered User
    edited November 2006
    ins0mniac wrote:
    Fact is, he's a talentless morong and anyone who likes him is a complete and total dumbass.

    I mean all he does is tell stories in a larger than life manner, with great enthusiasm. Stories that many - hundreds of thousands of millions of people - can relate to and find funny dare I say hysterical? I mean I know I could stand on stage in front of thousands and tell these same jokes and get the same reaction.

    I'm actually going to pose a question to all naysayers of Cook.

    If Cook is not actually a comedian and simply tells stories instead of cracking jokes..

    .. what is a joke?

    eh...Dane cook is a story teller. Story telling can have it's humor too. I mean, just because he doesn't tell jokes doesn't mean he's not a comedian, at least to me. I always thought of a comedian as a person who finds funny things(puns, gags, and other silly nonsense) out of a situation. Maybe to us, we are walking through Walgreens, having a normal shopping venture. But as for Dane cook, he finds a funny way to make it more interesting. like "What is it about Walgreens that makes you wanna steal."

    'When the power of love conquers the love of power then the world will know peace.'
    -Jimi Hendrix
  • TankHammerTankHammer Extreme Ghostbuster Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Jesus is this thing still going!? Christ guys!

    Some people still find Dane Cook funny for some reason, I used to and now I don't. Most of you have probably gone through the same thing so you're compensating for your hindsight by hating on him EXTRA hard here.

    Is this discussion even remotely worth your time?

    4icmw.jpg TankHammer | huWRIjA.png Dear Satan | 2zivq6q.jpg
    yUApdW3.jpg
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Jesus is this thing still going!? Christ guys!

    Some people still find Dane Cook funny for some reason, I used to and now I don't. Most of you have probably gone through the same thing so you're compensating for your hindsight by hating on him EXTRA hard here.

    Is this discussion even remotely worth your time?
    Is it really that hard for you people to see that the larger point that is being made is that comedy is a legitimate art form that can be appropriately analyzed and critiqued like many other legitimate art forms? And therefore we can say while Dane Cook's humor may appeal to some, it is unsophisticated and simple? Just like many people heartily enjoy popular TV shows, music, and literature which most people with "taste" would agree is simplistic in comparison to other works of art in the same field?

    Simply because you can't grasp the greater depths of what goes into making a joke doesn't make our discussion of Dane Cook's humor any less valid.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • BlackDog85BlackDog85 Registered User
    edited November 2006
    kenoyer130 wrote:
    You ever see Last Comic Standing where they first start finding the people for the show? Some of the worst comedians ever, and what they all have in common is lack of timing and energy. You can have a bunch of different comedians tell the same joke, and the masters will get you to crack up. Look at Robin Williams, he seems to recycle the same tired material but he tells it with such energy and enjoyment you enjoy it. That being said, while I love Dana Cook's albums, the last HBO special was very lame. Way to much sexual non funny humor and not enough story telling like his 10 minute bit about cutting in line at Walgreens.

    Agreed, that special was pretty lame, his previous stuff was much better.

    My brother actually met Cook after a show once; I might ask him if he really got a vibe of his personality from talking to him.

    As for the post before about different kinds of comedians, how some are "in on the joke", how some play characters; you're not wrong.

    However, all we're pointing out here are different methods of performance. On the one hand, you have people like Rodney Dangerfield, who do play that character, and do it beautifully. It takes boatloads of talent to do that, as, along with coming up with material, you need to keep that persona up for your entire act, which takes an enormous amount of dedication and effort.

    But what is it that Cook does? It's performance, as well, but of a different kind. Look at Robin Williams, as a comedian, not a Juilliard-trained screen actor; is that some kind of character he's playing? Based on hearing him speak off stage, I'd say no; that's just him "with the volume turned up." In a way, it IS playing a character, but it's a caricature of yourself.

    Is it any less legitimate? Fuck no, it isn't. It's a different method, it's a different approach, a different technique, and, if it succeeds in getting the proper response from the audience, in this case, laughter, then it really should be entirely acceptable. If some people can play caricatures of themselves and elicit those kinds of responses, then God bless; they have a gift most people don't have, and they're using it.

    Again, I'm not using this to totally defend Cook; I liked some of his earlier material, but his well has seemingly run dry in the last couple of years, and that's too bad.

    KeithBeKnives.png
    Wii Code: 5700 4466 3616 6981 (PM if y'all add me)
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    eh...Dane cook is a story teller. Story telling can have it's humor too. I mean, just because he doesn't tell jokes doesn't mean he's not a comedian, at least to me. I always thought of a comedian as a person who finds funny things(puns, gags, and other silly nonsense) out of a situation. Maybe to us, we are walking through Walgreens, having a normal shopping venture. But as for Dane cook, he finds a funny way to make it more interesting. like "What is it about Walgreens that makes you wanna steal."
    There are definitely different approaches to jokes, but I don't see Cook's material as having much nuance besides "wackiness." In particular I remember the one bit which, if I recall correctly, he ended the CD I was listening to on -- one where he goes into a Burger King and swaps "Chief" "Ace" "Killer" (or whatever) in a back and forth battle between him and the guy behind the counter. There's no joke there besides wackiness and his delivery, it plays off nothing, it's just a random, bizarre situation which taps into speech tics which are uncommon among his audience. That's it. That's the whole 2 minute bit or whatever.

    This is how most of his jokes worked in the performance I was listening to. There was no word play, no parody or satire, no real commentary on anything, just empty "randomness" and good delivery. That is why I don't like him and think his jokes are unsophisticated.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • BlackDog85BlackDog85 Registered User
    edited November 2006
    celery77 wrote:
    Jesus is this thing still going!? Christ guys!

    Some people still find Dane Cook funny for some reason, I used to and now I don't. Most of you have probably gone through the same thing so you're compensating for your hindsight by hating on him EXTRA hard here.

    Is this discussion even remotely worth your time?
    Is it really that hard for you people to see that the larger point that is being made is that comedy is a legitimate art form that can be appropriately analyzed and critiqued like many other legitimate art forms? And therefore we can say while Dane Cook's humor may appeal to some, it is unsophisticated and simple? Just like many people heartily enjoy popular TV shows, music, and literature which most people with "taste" would agree is simplistic in comparison to other works of art in the same field?

    Simply because you can't grasp the greater depths of what goes into making a joke doesn't make our discussion of Dane Cook's humor any less valid.

    I don't think anyone's saying comedy can't be looked at that way, but I think the inherent problem is that we're looking at an art form where so much of what's "good or bad" is distinguished only by what is an instant, almost reflexive reaction in most people: laughing.

    If we're talking about a performance on stage or in film, that's the kind of thing you have time to digest; you watch the whole performance, and, over the course of two hours, your mind can analyze the writing, your emotions can be pulled at, be it successfully or unsuccessfully, etc. Point is, there's a huge, sometimes hours-long build up of getting you to the point where you feel the emotion the director/actor/writer/etc. wants you to feel. Thing is, if you feel engaged, then the product succeeded; if not, it failed.

    Comedy is much more instantaneous than that, and there's no audience that will be willing to sit down for a comedy show and listen to an hour of build to eventually get to the punchline. That doesn't make comedy any less of an artform, it makes it a different one, and one that really can't be analyzed entirely the same way we analyze any other performance field. It's very unique, and should be treated as such.

    KeithBeKnives.png
    Wii Code: 5700 4466 3616 6981 (PM if y'all add me)
  • Hendrix_GodHendrix_God Registered User
    edited November 2006
    celery77 wrote:
    eh...Dane cook is a story teller. Story telling can have it's humor too. I mean, just because he doesn't tell jokes doesn't mean he's not a comedian, at least to me. I always thought of a comedian as a person who finds funny things(puns, gags, and other silly nonsense) out of a situation. Maybe to us, we are walking through Walgreens, having a normal shopping venture. But as for Dane cook, he finds a funny way to make it more interesting. like "What is it about Walgreens that makes you wanna steal."
    There are definitely different approaches to jokes, but I don't see Cook's material as having much nuance besides "wackiness." In particular I remember the one bit which, if I recall correctly, he ended the CD I was listening to on -- one where he goes into a Burger King and swaps "Chief" "Ace" "Killer" (or whatever) in a back and forth battle between him and the guy behind the counter. There's no joke there besides wackiness and his delivery, it plays off nothing, it's just a random, bizarre situation which taps into speech tics which are uncommon among his audience. That's it. That's the whole 2 minute bit or whatever.

    This is how most of his jokes worked in the performance I was listening to. There was no word play, no parody or satire, no real commentary on anything, just empty "randomness" and good delivery. That is why I don't like him and think his jokes are unsophisticated.

    True. His randomness doesn't make much sense, but the fact that he has made this whole silly argument out of nothing just makes me laugh. He has this whole "fight" with this guy over what...ketchup! It's completely over-exaggerating, but it still gets to me. That coupled with his never-ending energy to deliver it so enthusiastically, makes it outrageous, absurb, and laughable to me.

    'When the power of love conquers the love of power then the world will know peace.'
    -Jimi Hendrix
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    BlackDog85 wrote:
    But what is it that Cook does? It's performance, as well, but of a different kind. Look at Robin Williams, as a comedian, not a Juilliard-trained screen actor; is that some kind of character he's playing? Based on hearing him speak off stage, I'd say no; that's just him "with the volume turned up." In a way, it IS playing a character, but it's a caricature of yourself.

    Is it any less legitimate? Fuck no, it isn't. It's a different method, it's a different approach, a different technique, and, if it succeeds in getting the proper response from the audience, in this case, laughter, then it really should be entirely acceptable. If some people can play caricatures of themselves and elicit those kinds of responses, then God bless; they have a gift most people don't have, and they're using it.
    I don't disagree with this at all, but that's I still think it's less sophisticated than a comedian who has multiple layers of meaning at work at the same time. Yeah, lots of comedians just play caricatures of themselves, and it's not a bad thing at all. Lots of them also display more structured setup-punchline structures than Cook, which is why people like to pick on Cook, but whatever.

    I also think Robin Williams is painfully unfunny, although he at least has more of what I would call a repertoire than Dane Cook.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • BlackDog85BlackDog85 Registered User
    edited November 2006
    celery77 wrote:
    BlackDog85 wrote:
    But what is it that Cook does? It's performance, as well, but of a different kind. Look at Robin Williams, as a comedian, not a Juilliard-trained screen actor; is that some kind of character he's playing? Based on hearing him speak off stage, I'd say no; that's just him "with the volume turned up." In a way, it IS playing a character, but it's a caricature of yourself.

    Is it any less legitimate? Fuck no, it isn't. It's a different method, it's a different approach, a different technique, and, if it succeeds in getting the proper response from the audience, in this case, laughter, then it really should be entirely acceptable. If some people can play caricatures of themselves and elicit those kinds of responses, then God bless; they have a gift most people don't have, and they're using it.
    I don't disagree with this at all, but that's I still think it's less sophisticated than a comedian who has multiple layers of meaning at work at the same time. Yeah, lots of comedians just play caricatures of themselves, and it's not a bad thing at all. Lots of them also display more structured setup-punchline structures than Cook, which is why people like to pick on Cook, but whatever.

    I also think Robin Williams is painfully unfunny, although he at least has more of what I would call a repertoire than Dane Cook.

    That's fair, as it's your opinion. I'm just arguing against the posts that try to say that his performance style is somehow less valid, just because it's not the same as what others do.

    Less layered, certainly, but less valid, I don't buy.

    KeithBeKnives.png
    Wii Code: 5700 4466 3616 6981 (PM if y'all add me)
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    celery77 wrote:
    BlackDog85 wrote:
    But what is it that Cook does? It's performance, as well, but of a different kind. Look at Robin Williams, as a comedian, not a Juilliard-trained screen actor; is that some kind of character he's playing? Based on hearing him speak off stage, I'd say no; that's just him "with the volume turned up." In a way, it IS playing a character, but it's a caricature of yourself.

    Is it any less legitimate? Fuck no, it isn't. It's a different method, it's a different approach, a different technique, and, if it succeeds in getting the proper response from the audience, in this case, laughter, then it really should be entirely acceptable. If some people can play caricatures of themselves and elicit those kinds of responses, then God bless; they have a gift most people don't have, and they're using it.
    I don't disagree with this at all, but that's I still think it's less sophisticated than a comedian who has multiple layers of meaning at work at the same time. Yeah, lots of comedians just play caricatures of themselves, and it's not a bad thing at all. Lots of them also display more structured setup-punchline structures than Cook, which is why people like to pick on Cook, but whatever.

    I also think Robin Williams is painfully unfunny, although he at least has more of what I would call a repertoire than Dane Cook.

    Could you give an example of a comedian with "multiple layers of meaning" in their jokes/stories? Because I can't think of any current comedians that're actually funny, who do anything but tell stories (be they true or not) often about entirely mundane things, spiced up enough to be funny...either that, or they just make observational jokes, which, while funny, are almost never something we haven't already noticed ourselves.

  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    True. His randomness doesn't make much sense, but the fact that he has made this whole silly argument out of nothing just makes me laugh. He has this whole "fight" with this guy over what...ketchup! It's completely over-exaggerating, but it still gets to me. That coupled with his never-ending energy to deliver it so enthusiastically, makes it outrageous, absurb, and laughable to me.
    Right, that's how the joke works. It's absurdist, random humor, which isn't my cup of tea, and frankly I think is pretty simple compared to other jokes (see: why I also hate the Family Guy).

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • Hendrix_GodHendrix_God Registered User
    edited November 2006
    celery77 wrote:
    True. His randomness doesn't make much sense, but the fact that he has made this whole silly argument out of nothing just makes me laugh. He has this whole "fight" with this guy over what...ketchup! It's completely over-exaggerating, but it still gets to me. That coupled with his never-ending energy to deliver it so enthusiastically, makes it outrageous, absurb, and laughable to me.
    Right, that's how the joke works. It's absurdist, random humor, which isn't my cup of tea, and frankly I think is pretty simple compared to other jokes (see: why I also hate the Family Guy).

    ah, then i agree. Absurdist humor does have a level of lesser thought, but its who the audience is that it can be funny or unfunny. For some apparent reason, i think Mitch Hedberg is either extremely philosophical or extremely absurdist. Everytime i listen to him I think, is there something more to these puns...the answer is usually no, but hey, maybe i'm missing something.

    'When the power of love conquers the love of power then the world will know peace.'
    -Jimi Hendrix
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Could you give an example of a comedian with "multiple layers of meaning" in their jokes/stories? Because I can't think of any current comedians that're actually funny, who do anything but tell stories (be they true or not) often about entirely mundane things, spiced up enough to be funny...either that, or they just make observational jokes, which, while funny, are almost never something we haven't already noticed ourselves.
    Well, in my previous post about Mitch Hedberg and Rodney Dangerfield I pointed out how part of the joke is the character they're playing. So it's not just the joke they tell, but who's telling it. This is where you get the "you just can't retell Hedberg jokes" feeling, and not just because of his delivery. Even if you deliver it exactly the same, unless you are dressed up like a weird stoner hippy and have repeatedly established yourself as a weird stoner hippy for quite some time, it just doesn't work.

    Also there's the comedians like David Cross who works social commentary into (some) of his jokes, poking fun at the Bush government or religious conservatives. This has more meaning to me than "a funny scene at BK" because it also provides some social commentary. I feel similarly about Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, and Dave Chappelle, among others. It's not just a joke, but a joke with some teeth.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    celery77 wrote:
    Could you give an example of a comedian with "multiple layers of meaning" in their jokes/stories? Because I can't think of any current comedians that're actually funny, who do anything but tell stories (be they true or not) often about entirely mundane things, spiced up enough to be funny...either that, or they just make observational jokes, which, while funny, are almost never something we haven't already noticed ourselves.
    Well, in my previous post about Mitch Hedberg and Rodney Dangerfield I pointed out how part of the joke is the character they're playing. So it's not just the joke they tell, but who's telling it. This is where you get the "you just can't retell Hedberg jokes" feeling, and not just because of his delivery. Even if you deliver it exactly the same, unless you are dressed up like a weird stoner hippy and have repeatedly established yourself as a weird stoner hippy for quite some time, it just doesn't work.

    Also there's the comedians like David Cross who works social commentary into (some) of his jokes, poking fun at the Bush government or religious conservatives. This has more meaning to me than "a funny scene at BK" because it also provides some social commentary. I feel similarly about Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, and Dave Chappelle, among others. It's not just a joke, but a joke with some teeth.

    I dunno, I guess I just feel like the social commentary thing is so fucking common that it doesn't really strike me as any more complex than Dane's stories. Regarding Chappelle and Rock (I haven't heard much Pryor), I feel like they're doing the same thing Cook does, they tell stories (true, or embellished for humor), it just happens that their stories often involve racist things happening to them, giving them more of a "deep" feel.

    edit: I should add, I'm not saying any of those guys suck, I find them to be very entertaining as well, I just don't know that I'd say what they're doing is somehow deeper or more complex than what Dane Cook does.

  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Okey, first things first, is Dave Cook funny? I don't find him to be terribly funny, yet he is funnier than most people.
    Does his method of being funny invalidate his funny? No, i mean what the hell qualifies as a joke? If i tell a story and then comment on it, is that comment a joke? I mean is there some sort of golden rule of comedy that a stand up artist has to get up on a stage and tell jokes, by some fixed standard, and that there are set criteria to judge their "funny"? I mean the amount of bullshit in that statement is pretty absurd.
    Going with the beer/wine analogy it's a bit like having an article asking "Is budwiser(cook) good?" Well some people like it, meh.

    As for the difference between chappelle and Cook Chappelle, it atleast seems, tries to adress some issues of racism, but the problem is Chappelle sort of contributes to the problem, and his way of dealing with it might not be perfect. I don't think a comedian has to try and get some message across to be good, I can respect a comedian more if they have a message i condome (Colbert/Stewart) and sure that adds some funny for me, but it's not better than some classic monty python sketches that don't really have any meaning.
    Philosophy football, how would you describe the funny in that? part from the absurdity of philosophers facing off in a football match there are also a number of Philosophy "in jokes" in that sketch, but really they don't strive for some higher purpose, and most people will find it pretty funny.

    Just deviding comedy into groups and saying "these people like this, and these people like that" is pretty stupid, and so is the argument that "Just because it has been around longer it has to be better", not everyone enjoys classical music, and the people that do are often the same people that drink tea with their pinky pointing straight out because some king has fucking reumatism, I guess I don't think they are very critical of tradition.

    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Hendrix_GodHendrix_God Registered User
    edited November 2006
    I can tell you what is a sad-form of comedy.

    Puppet Improv Comedy.

    I watched this show on TBS called Puppet it up *te heh heh* and all I could say afterwards is, my god, what a sad example of improv and puppets. This unholy matrimony of felt and random situations should never be viewed by anyone of anykind in anyway...doing it anyhow.

    'When the power of love conquers the love of power then the world will know peace.'
    -Jimi Hendrix
  • UndefinedMonkeyUndefinedMonkey Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Cook doesn't really strike me as a very technical comedian. He gets up and talks (or screams), and then sits back down again. While he's capable of saying funny things (his "you will laugh, you, you will cry, and you will take a painful shit" joke makes me chuckle), he doesn't have a great grasp of the technical side of things.

    Carlin often talks about the meter of comedy. He writes every joke as a poem, paying careful attention to rhythm and sound. He's a comedy min/maxer. Take his "why don't football players ever blame God for bad plays" routine, for example. There's a huge difference between saying "God made me fall on my ass", and "the Good Lord tripped me up behind the line of scrimmage." Certainly, the idea of God intentionally making someone fall over on a football field is funny, but the second version sounds infinitely funnier because of the intentionally elevated language, meter, and just plain old funny sounding words. Cook is good at coming up with funny situations, but seems to be incapable of adding that final layer of polish.

    Henry Rollins' comic style is very similar to Cook's (in much the same way as the Beatles' style closely mimics the Monkees), but there's a world of difference between the two. I've seen Henry live, and he's an absolute riot. He told a story about getting food poisoning on the Trans-Siberian express, and the whole audience was in tears. This was due, in no small part, to him creating The Voice, which warned him of violent impending gastric distress, and his horrible worry that The People's Bathroom in his car would be occupied, forcing him to direct a horizontal stream of vomit through the narrow slot on The People's Wire Mesh Garbage Recepticle before cracking his head open and passing out in The People's Corridor. It's a funny life story with no real punchline, but Henry greatly improved it by attaching overly official-sounding Soviet names for mundane items, and intentionally exaggerating the violence of the ensuing vomit.

    I guess what I'm saying is... it's impossible to criticise Cook based on his choice of material (a new and exciting and not-at-all overdone concept in this thread!), but we can definitely criticise his technique. I have a feeling that Dane Cook will be a phenominally funny man once he realizes that the words that make up a joke are just as important as the idea of the joke itself.

    This space intentionally left blank.
  • AmphetamineAmphetamine Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Dane Cook, to me, was funny before I actually started exploring stand up and found a crapload of other comics way funnier and more talented than he could ever be. In that way, he's sort of a gateway comedian- you'll listen to him and be interested and find other, better stuff. Once I found those other comedians (Lewis Black, Stephen Wright, Robin Williams, Woody Allen), Dane Cook wasn't even remotely funny to me anymore.

  • Hendrix_GodHendrix_God Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Cook doesn't really strike me as a very technical comedian. He gets up and talks (or screams), and then sits back down again. While he's capable of saying funny things (his "you will laugh, you, you will cry, and you will take a painful shit" joke makes me chuckle), he doesn't have a great grasp of the technical side of things.

    Carlin often talks about the meter of comedy. He writes every joke as a poem, paying careful attention to rhythm and sound. He's a comedy min/maxer. Take his "why don't football players ever blame God for bad plays" routine, for example. There's a huge difference between saying "God made me fall on my ass", and "the Good Lord tripped me up behind the line of scrimmage." Certainly, the idea of God intentionally making someone fall over on a football field is funny, but the second version sounds infinitely funnier because of the intentionally elevated language, meter, and just plain old funny sounding words. Cook is good at coming up with funny situations, but seems to be incapable of adding that final layer of polish.

    Henry Rollins' comic style is very similar to Cook's (in much the same way as the Beatles' style closely mimics the Monkees), but there's a world of difference between the two. I've seen Henry live, and he's an absolute riot. He told a story about getting food poisoning on the Trans-Siberian express, and the whole audience was in tears. This was due, in no small part, to him creating The Voice, which warned him of violent impending gastric distress, and his horrible worry that The People's Bathroom in his car would be occupied, forcing him to direct a horizontal stream of vomit through the narrow slot on The People's Wire Mesh Garbage Recepticle before cracking his head open and passing out in The People's Corridor. It's a funny life story with no real punchline, but Henry greatly improved it by attaching overly official-sounding Soviet names for mundane items, and intentionally exaggerating the violence of the ensuing vomit.

    I guess what I'm saying is... it's impossible to criticise Cook based on his choice of material (a new and exciting and not-at-all overdone concept in this thread!), but we can definitely criticise his technique. I have a feeling that Dane Cook will be a phenominally funny man once he realizes that the words that make up a joke are just as important as the idea of the joke itself.

    I'm drawn to Cook as a...well...addiction. I want to hear something funny and can rip my spleen open with laughter. I know Carlin's A #1 or B#2 but
    comedians like him have a tendency to build something up, then let it fall flat on their asses.

    Now Chris Rock, Richard Pryor, and Carlin are excluded, as are some others, but alot of comedians like them have a tendency to have the sappiest, used material that you've heard from other comedians. "I just got married" gags usually play into bad sex, female intuition remarks, and god forbid, the toilet seat up line.
    You watch comedy central, see average comedians like Arj Barker, Bill Burr, Frank Caliendo, and Judy Gold ( mind you i watched a block over the past couple of days) telling material thats been used again and again.
    Now when someone energetic like Dane Cook comes along, most people who are bored of the "grey" comedians, tend to pay attention to colorful persona's like Cook.

    'When the power of love conquers the love of power then the world will know peace.'
    -Jimi Hendrix
  • WillyGilliganWillyGilligan Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I can tell you what is a sad-form of comedy.

    Puppet Improv Comedy.

    I watched this show on TBS called Puppet it up *te heh heh* and all I could say afterwards is, my god, what a sad example of improv and puppets. This unholy matrimony of felt and random situations should never be viewed by anyone of anykind in anyway...doing it anyhow.

    I watched Puppet up last night. I liked it, but I'm somewhat forgiving of the Jim Henson folks. I also don't know what 'good' improv is, since the most I've ever seen was Who's Line is it Anyway? I laughed, my wife (who treats most television with barest tolerance) laughed, I called it a good time waster.

  • VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Funny or not funny, why does CNN care? Just doesn't seem newsworthy to me.

  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Dane Cook is funny. Comedy doesn't have to be intelligent. A fair amount of his act is actually a form of observational comedy that people seem to love everywhere else, he just says it with great enthusiam and...verve.

    I don't think that Jack Black is terribly dissimilar to Dane Cook, but I don't see nearly the amount of rejection against his comedy. Is that because he has fewer ZOMG fratboy fans?

    rodq.jpg
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Jack Black isn't stand up (that I've seen anyway) so I don't see how you can even begin to compare them.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • WerdnaWerdna Registered User
    edited December 2006
    celery77 wrote:
    celery answers: No.

    edit: nature of comedy -- way too broad, extremely dependent on a number of factors. Whatever those factors are, Dane Cook does not know how to wield them. He is all delivery and no joke, plus he sucks.

    He seems more of a Tony Robbins kind of guy for dumb male heterosexuals.

1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.