DAVE CHAPPELLE: Critics versus Audience review

Realt Dearg Sec

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

batgoat wrote: »

And the National Review is a SJW associated publication? News to me!

You're the only one mentioning that publication.

That's exactly his point though. The right wing posters have a narrative that the bad reviews are driven by leftist ideology rather than artistic merit. The NR panned it as well, but that kind of upsets the story, so it doesn't get mentioned.

Personally I thought some of it was funny, particularly the part about buying the gun. The LGBTQ thing just didn't hit in my opinion, it was just a clutter of unoriginal jokes and the awful Chinese guy in a black body analogy... There was some hypocrisy about his whole f****t/n***** bit but the payoff joke on that was funny so who cares.

Not sure why people are complaining about him laughing and walking to the back of the stage, he always did that, and he always challenged his audience, whether from the left or right. Just some of the jokes were flat, others as good as ever, and generally his delivery will always carry him a long way anyway. It did seem like he was "punching down" a lot, in my opinion, considering how much more prescient his comedy used to be, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is whether it's funny. Personally I have a feeling the night they recorded was just a bad night. It happens to every comic.

batgoat

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

You're the only one mentioning that publication.

They're one of the terrible reviews that resulted in the rotten rating. The same reviewer has previously praised his shows. Same for pretty much all the reviewers. So you've made it into a SJW but the reality is, reviewers had legit criticisms.

alchemist33

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

That's exactly his point though. The right wing posters have a narrative that the bad reviews are driven by leftist ideology rather than artistic merit. The NR panned it as well, but that kind of upsets the story, so it doesn't get mentioned.

Personally I thought some of it was funny, particularly the part about buying the gun. The LGBTQ thing just didn't hit in my opinion, it was just a clutter of unoriginal jokes and the awful Chinese guy in a black body analogy... There was some hypocrisy about his whole f****t/n***** bit but the payoff joke on that was funny so who cares.

Not sure why people are complaining about him laughing and walking to the back of the stage, he always did that, and he always challenged his audience, whether from the left or right. Just some of the jokes were flat, others as good as ever, and generally his delivery will always carry him a long way anyway. It did seem like he was "punching down" a lot, in my opinion, considering how much more prescient his comedy used to be, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is whether it's funny. Personally I have a feeling the night they recorded was just a bad night. It happens to every comic.

As if set up to illustrate how subjective comedy is, I thought the Alphabet People segment one of the best, and the f*****/n***** payoff one of the least funniest parts! Overall I thought it started poorly with some parts designed to offend whilst unfunny, but got some good laughs in the second half. It was okay, a 6/10 for me.

BDI

Fairly good, not Eddie Murphy good but good.
7.5 out of ten. One of the memorable stand up shows.
Was never really a big fan of chapels before this one, thought he was fairly average with a couple of good skits.

It’s great that Netflix allowed a comedian say what they wanted instead of asking him not to be offensive.

Silentcorner

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

That's exactly his point though. The right wing posters have a narrative that the bad reviews are driven by leftist ideology rather than artistic merit. The NR panned it as well, but that kind of upsets the story, so it doesn't get mentioned.

Personally I thought some of it was funny, particularly the part about buying the gun. The LGBTQ thing just didn't hit in my opinion, it was just a clutter of unoriginal jokes and the awful Chinese guy in a black body analogy... There was some hypocrisy about his whole f****t/n***** bit but the payoff joke on that was funny so who cares.

Not sure why people are complaining about him laughing and walking to the back of the stage, he always did that, and he always challenged his audience, whether from the left or right. Just some of the jokes were flat, others as good as ever, and generally his delivery will always carry him a long way anyway. It did seem like he was "punching down" a lot, in my opinion, considering how much more prescient his comedy used to be, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is whether it's funny. Personally I have a feeling the night they recorded was just a bad night. It happens to every comic.

Would you listen to yourself!!!



What the f##k do "right wingers" have to do with a comedy special, that you either found funny or not, this thread is about the disparity between critics score and audience score, a disparity that is becoming evident more and more often.


We are witnessing a divided public discourse everywhere, this is about comedy...stop buying into it!!!

batgoat

Silentcorner wrote: »

Would you listen to yourself!!!



What the f##k do "right wingers" have to do with a comedy special, that you either found funny or not, this thread is about the disparity between critics score and audience score, a disparity that is becoming evident more and more often.


We are witnessing a divided public discourse everywhere, this is about comedy...stop buying into it!!!

You're very aggressive over the fact he got bad reviews, I'd say get over it.

Silentcorner

batgoat wrote: »

You're very aggressive over the fact he got bad reviews, I'd say get over it.

Do you honestly believe that repeatedly claiming I am outraged/aggressive it will make it so...you have an issue with whatever opinion I express, read back over the thread, I have clearly hit a raw nerve, I didn't mean to...maybe you shouldn't be getting worked up about it.

Silentcorner

batgoat wrote: »

You're very aggressive over the fact he got bad reviews, I'd say get over it.

Right wingers or left wingers have no place in comedy reviews.

batgoat

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that repeatedly claiming I am outraged/aggressive it will make it so...you have an issue with whatever opinion I express, read back over the thread, I have clearly hit a raw nerve, I didn't mean to...maybe you shouldn't be getting worked up about it.

You are though, you're outraged that critics are negative about the show. The thread was entirely about politicising it by referencing SJW's intermittently. But all sides of the spectrum didn't think it was great.. The conspiracy by critics indicate they simply didn't think it was great. Which is reasonable.

Silentcorner

batgoat wrote: »

You are though, you're outraged that critics are negative about the show. The thread was entirely about politicising it by referencing SJW's intermittently. But all sides of the spectrum didn't think it was great.. The conspiracy by critics indicate they simply didn't think it was great. Which is reasonable.

Are you drunk?


I wasn't mad about the show....what I am intrigued by is the disparity between the reviews of this show, and the reviews of "Nanette" by Hannah Gatsby last year, and the continuing disparity between critics score and audience score for a lot a movies/tv shows...you do realise that this thread is about that very topic.


And just because you keep twisting my words to fill whatever narrative is going on in that little head of yours doesn't make you right....read back over my contributions to this thread, you are not going to bully me off this thread by undermining me in this fashion.

batgoat

I said you were outraged by critic's reviews... Seems reasonable as a summary.

Sweetemotion

Silentcorner wrote: »

And just because you keep twisting my words to fill whatever narrative is going on in that little head of yours .

You'd be better of ignoring that poster Silent. Most sane people know what you mean.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

My review of the show. Hit n miss. Justice for juicey - very funny. Louis CK unfunny and apologetic. . MJ - more shocking than funny but I laughed.

I didn’t find the white opioid stuff funny either but that’s my white privilege talking, perhaps.

So probably unfresh for me.

alchemist33

Silentcorner wrote: »

Would you listen to yourself!!!



What the f##k do "right wingers" have to do with a comedy special, that you either found funny or not, this thread is about the disparity between critics score and audience score, a disparity that is becoming evident more and more often.


We are witnessing a divided public discourse everywhere, this is about comedy...stop buying into it!!!

Actually, the OP is about liberals and SJWs. That's why that poster brought right wingers into it. Of course, critics v punters opinions is a valid discussion too.

p1akuw47h5r3it

batgoat wrote: »

I said you were outraged by critic's reviews... Seems reasonable as a summary.

Not to a reasonable person it isn't. He is questioning why there seems to be a disparity between what critics think of a piece of work and what audiences think. He doesn't seem outraged at all.

biko

There is, and has always been, disparity between what critics think and what audiences think.
Sometime they see eye to eye, but more often not.
http://pretentious-o-meter.co.uk/

batgoat

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Not to a reasonable person it isn't. He is questioning why there seems to be a disparity between what critics think of a piece of work and what audiences think. He doesn't seem outraged at all.

And significant disparities between critics and audiences are a brand new thing? They really aren't. In this particular instance the same critics who reviewed his previous shows positively have stated they simply didn't view this to be very funny. Should critics simply hold the exact same views as audiences? A fair few posters on this and the other one had the exact same criticisms about the show.


He does seem a tad outraged tbh, when you're resorting to calling a poster drunk for addressing what the thread has focused on... He was very invested in the rotten tomato ratings system apparently. All ruined.

biko wrote: »

There is, and has always been, disparity between what critics think and what audiences think.
Sometime they see eye to eye, but more often not.
http://pretentious-o-meter.co.uk/

I do think it's more in the case of film, if you watch a lot of films. You just become really discerning and the more unusual a film is, the more enjoyable it is. But that meter rates fury road as pretentious... Audiences and critics loved it....

Ironicname

batgoat wrote:

I said you were outraged by critic's reviews... Seems reasonable as a summary.

batgoat wrote:

He does seem a tad outraged tbh, when you're resorting to calling a poster drunk for addressing what the thread has focused on... He was very invested in the rotten tomato ratings system apparently. All ruined.

He really doesn't.

The reason he called you drunk was because for some unknown reason, you are choosing to bait him in order to get him agitated so he will respond aggressively and you can say "see, you are outraged".

The poster is not coming across as outraged, but you are coming across as a bit of a dick

Eric Cartman

I really think the world needs to dosregard rotton tomatoes, its the same site that banned bad reviews of that crap women ghostbusters film and blank panther which was meh.

Interesting to see them turn against a black guy though......

p1akuw47h5r3it

batgoat wrote: »

And significant disparities between critics and audiences are a brand new thing? They really aren't. In this particular instance the same critics who reviewed his previous shows positively have stated they simply didn't view this to be very funny. Should critics simply hold the exact same views as audiences? A fair few posters on this and the other one had the exact same criticisms about the show.

He does seem a tad outraged tbh, when you're resorting to calling a poster drunk for addressing what the thread has focused on... He was very invested in the rotten tomato ratings system apparently. All ruined.

No they aren't. I was going to say as much in my OP but just wasn't arsed tbh:pac:. The discrepancy with Dave Chapelle's show does seem quite large however. Regardless the poster doesn't come across as outraged. I believe you were just trying to set them up as so.

Ironicname

Ironicname wrote:

The poster is not coming across as outraged, but you are coming across as a bit of a dick

For clarity, I am not calling you any names or giving abuse, I'm just stating that in my opinion, your last few posts to that particular user are making you seem to be something you may not be.

Dyr

batgoat wrote: »

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.

Whats the hugely controversial aspect?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Bambi wrote: »

Whats the hugely controversial aspect?

Doesn’t it accept and fetish male violence?

There are such takes on the inter web.

Vote4Napoleon

Silentcorner wrote:

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...

Not totally true, they're driven by clickbait and ad revenue as much as anything

batgoat

Bambi wrote: »

Whats the hugely controversial aspect?

The concern that incels are gonna end up treating the character as a hero. I say this as a person who is rather psyched for the film btw. It's no bad thing to have a controversial film btw. There's every expectation that it's gonna be even controversial even in terms of how DC fans receive it tbh. Sounds great though.

Dyr

batgoat wrote: »

The concern that incels are gonna end up treating the character as a hero. I say this as a person who is rather psyched for the film btw. It's no bad thing to have a controversial film btw. There's every expectation that it's gonna be even controversial even in terms of how DC fans receive it tbh. Sounds great though.

I'm not sure that purse clutching by weirdos really counts as controversy these days

Realt Dearg Sec

Silentcorner wrote: »

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

That's exactly his point though. The right wing posters have a narrative that the bad reviews are driven by leftist ideology rather than artistic merit. The NR panned it as well, but that kind of upsets the story, so it doesn't get mentioned.

Personally I thought some of it was funny, particularly the part about buying the gun. The LGBTQ thing just didn't hit in my opinion, it was just a clutter of unoriginal jokes and the awful Chinese guy in a black body analogy... There was some hypocrisy about his whole f****t/n***** bit but the payoff joke on that was funny so who cares.

Not sure why people are complaining about him laughing and walking to the back of the stage, he always did that, and he always challenged his audience, whether from the left or right. Just some of the jokes were flat, others as good as ever, and generally his delivery will always carry him a long way anyway. It did seem like he was "punching down" a lot, in my opinion, considering how much more prescient his comedy used to be, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is whether it's funny. Personally I have a feeling the night they recorded was just a bad night. It happens to every comic.

Would you listen to yourself!!!



What the f##k do "right wingers" have to do with a comedy special, that you either found funny or not, this thread is about the disparity between critics score and audience score, a disparity that is becoming evident more and more often.


We are witnessing a divided public discourse everywhere, this is about comedy...stop buying into it!!!

If you read the OP, with all its talk of sjws etc etc, it's pretty disingenuous to claim that i am politicising the thread. The whole point of the thread was to make a political point. Claiming otherwise is just playing silly buggers.

Realt Dearg Sec

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.

Silent corner do you think this post is guilty of buying into a divided public discourse? If you really think there answer is no, then there is really no reasoning with you.

Silentcorner

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

If you read the OP, with all its talk of sjws etc etc, it's pretty disingenuous to claim that i am politicising the thread. The whole point of the thread was to make a political point. Claiming otherwise is just playing silly buggers.

The critics, facilitated by RT, have politicised movie reviews, we can all see it, I have noticed it, the OP recognises it, more and more people are seeing this nonsense for what it is....it does not mean you have to buy into it...


Bringing "right wingers" into a conversation about comedy reviews is nuts...and yes, I also believe that it is coming from this SJW/Outrage Culture which is imposing it's toxic presence everywhere these days...a lot of people are losing any kind of tolerance for these morons who are merely simple folk buying into a modern day hysteria movement!


A movie review site is meant to be just that...not a platform for ideology.

Realt Dearg Sec

Right so you're allowed politicise it but I'm not.