|
Fargin Icehole posted:Can i just say that Louis C.K is still funny though Piss off, you dullard
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
Fargin Icehole posted:Can i just say that Louis C.K is still funny though I'm really interested to know what context you think would suddenly make his jokes not be horribly mean-spirited and offensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
I found a video of Louis CK's set, and boy, it's a real knee-slapper. 100% hahalarious! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kx6-NzLpf0
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
Wait, how was the Parkland bit “taken out of context?” The set-up and punchline are clearly laid out in the recording. Like was the context that it was being workshopped for a closed doors NRA event?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Wait, how was the Parkland bit “taken out of context?” The set-up and punchline are clearly laid out in the recording. Like was the context that it was being workshopped for a closed doors NRA event? worse: Staten Islanders
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Wait, how was the Parkland bit “taken out of context?” The set-up and punchline are clearly laid out in the recording. Like was the context that it was being workshopped for a closed doors NRA event? Louis CK is probably an idiot and his recent scandals have dried up his material. Hence “uh... fat kids in mass shootings(?)! gently caress those kids, amirite?” God I hope hecklers escalate from verbal barbs to flat out throwing throwing beer bottles at him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
The parkland thing was just so mean spirited too. Have offensive, shocking humour but I mean you are picking out real life high profile children with names who survived one of their classmates murdering a bunch of their other classmates. Even in a generalised “haha shooting victims” joke you aren’t getting specific
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
It’s not mean if you think they’re hitler. (Which Republicans believe)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 05:44
|
|
|
I thought the Parkland stuff was not entirely different from what he's said before. And I have no doubt that at least that CK could turn it into a good bit. But I think a big part of why he used to resonate with people was because he would take some horrible truth and spring something out of it. In the process he would shine a light on awful parts of himself, or on the audience (I don't think he would've got as popular as he did if there wasn't a deal of recognition from the audience). I get that the Bootlegged set was a work in progress and I don't think anyone should really be judged on something that's clearly unfinished, but that dimension to his work isn't there any more. Its nothing but meanness and spite. He wants to attack someone, but he clearly can't attack the people he wants to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 12:09
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I'm really interested to know what context you think would suddenly make his jokes not be horribly mean-spirited and offensive. The context of making comedy? It's all an act, a performance. It's just jokes you write, that you think might be funny. But you don't know if they're funny. You have to present them to audiences, and see if they laugh. If they do, you can keep honing the jokes. If they don't, you retool them or drop them entirely. It's not uncommon for comedians to not want bootlegs of their performances to be out there, because it's a work in progress. That's a normal process, but he's not really being judged for being a comedian, he's been judged because people want to believe that comedy is a window to the soul. People accepted, for years, that what they were seeing when they saw Louis CK perform was his unfiltered ID. It never was, it was just an act. It's always an act. The amusing thing is that, while accepting that in this case it was just an act, people still want to believe in this 'window to the soul.' So now because Louis CK did a few bad jokes + we know he "is bad," then My god, his new set shows what he's really like! That's the real soul of Louis!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 12:28
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:The context of making comedy? You don't need the quotation marks, he is straight up a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 12:34
|
|
|
I think its safe to assume that Louis' work is going to be aimed at a new audience. If the "SJWs" hate him now then surely he can just do a full turn and go straight for the chuds and tell them what they want to hear. All the while complaining about PC culture etc etc. He has no interest whatsoever in learning or growing from this whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:The context of making comedy? The only surprising thing about this pants-on-head loving stupid take is that you're the second person I know who's tried to defend Louis CK making racist and transphobic jokes in between telling mass shooting survivors to go away by saying "He's just workshopping it!" Here's a hint for you: if someone thinks about making a racist joke and only decides to get rid of it because it's not testing well, he might be a racist!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
Comedians do workshop edgy jokes and I have no doubt even the most beloved comedians did these little shows and said horrific things to test out the limits. However the difference is those comedians do these sneak shows for that reason and this is literally all  has. So that argument doesn’t hold much if any water.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Here's a hint for you: if someone thinks about making a racist joke and only decides to get rid of it because it's not testing well, he might be a racist! Did I say anywhere that he's not a racist, or that you are not allowed to think he's a racist, or something of the sort? His material, and his appearances on radio shows and whatnot, have always had a large amount of questionable things. Plenty more things that could have gotten people up in arms about racism. People chose to interpret it differently because the role he filled in their heads was Their Imaginary Funny Friend Louis. There was even a post in this thread, not too many pages behind, that is someone legitimately being like "I don't get it, how could I have missed that the Bad Man was Bad while listening to his act before?" This need to tie the worth of the art/entertainment/performance to the worth of the human is perverse. It also ends up devaluing the criticism of the actual bad things they've done and makes it look like a shallow attempt to validate prior taste. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jan 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:The context of making comedy? He could have chosen to say something else other than those lovely things but he didn't. He made a deliberate decision to say those things and then stood in front of an audience and delivered that material. Whether or not it's a "window to his soul" or whether he genuinely believed them or was just throwing it out there to get a laugh is irrelevant and trying to frame the discussion in those terms or dismiss other people's opinions because you assume that's what they're talking about is obscuring the issue. We can never actually know what a person believes in their soul of souls so our only recourse is to judge them on their actions, and we can very very definitely say that Louis' actions in this instance were very lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
quote:So now because Louis CK did a few bad jokes + we know he "is bad," Nah, dude, we know he’s bad because he masturbated in front of women in situations where actual consent wasn’t possible, and then slandered any of them who spoke out about it. His jokes don’t loving matter. You guys should hear Cosby’s new set it’s hilarious!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
Louis' material nose-diving in quality beneath Andrew Dice Clay territory is just icing on the cake. I really do wish Louis got the help he needed, took the steps he needed to take, and owned up to doing bad things over a period of years, instead of stewing in an undisclosed location and probably just bouncing off his old comedy club friends who would likely still support him if he announced he was a neo-Nazi this whole time. But he didn't, so why lose any energy over it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
The Parkland stuff is just bizarre because like...the only people who "are really thinking that" about those kids are the chudlords. Like, no, I don't think we'd be better off if they just got drunk and had sex; I hope the youth of America kills us all for ruining the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
I’m sure on some lizard brain level CK takes unbridge with the Parkland kids because “he’s under fire every day.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Regardless of Louis being a creepy sex pest who tried to ruin women’s careers who told the truth about him, like he’s a huge comedian. Doing “secret” gigs? Of course they’re gonna get loving taped. Even without the notoriety of his “comeback” He was happy with all the money and power he got from fake, and heroically used it to jack off in front of unwilling women. Now suddenly the one thing fame shouldn’t touch is the sanctity of him workshopping school shooting victim jokes? gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Comedians can complain all they want, but this has been the status quo for a long time now, well over 10 years. Anyone thinking they can workshop potentially offensive material without it getting out to the wider public is a moron after Michael Richard's 2006 incident. Being a stand-up who makes a living skirting the edge of being offensive is risky business and it always has been. It's always been easier to work little clubs with dirty material, and harder to actually go anywhere and make it big with that same dirty material. Whereas the Jerry Seinfelds of the world may have a harder time killing in the clubs with all the drunks, but it's an act that's portable and if you succeed with it like Seinfeld did there's no ceiling because you'll be able to rake in corporate money. So these are career decisions that comedians historically have always made, social media has intensified it but I don't see it as some major paradigm shift.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
How long does it take to redeem yourself? Is it per crime? Can you skip it taking a long time if you donate enough money to the right women’s groups? Which talk shows buy you more respect? Do you need Ellen or The View specifically to forgive you? Do you need a full on Barbara Walter’s “I’m sorry” interview? Is their ever a point where you can go back to work?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:How long does it take to redeem yourself? Is it per crime? Can you skip it taking a long time if you donate enough money to the right women’s groups? Much like all other aspects of being a performer and public figure, there are never going to be set rules that are totally consistent for these things and I think it's unrealistic to expect there would be. Are enough of the people who previously paid to watch you perform still willing to do so? Yes? Well then you still have a career. The rest of it takes care of itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Own your mistakes and express legit remorse. Don’t claim you’re going to “do some listening,” go radio silent for almost a year and then come back on the scene with transphobic and victim-shaming material. Don’t offer a non-apology apology on social media and declare you are done talking about the subject on your terms. A celebrity is only a celebrity because other people lift them to that status. If CK or Kevin Hart want to gently caress around in clubs to “get back to work,” that’s fine. Doesn’t mean people just have to accept them back with open arms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Comedians can complain all they want, but this has been the status quo for a long time now, well over 10 years. Anyone thinking they can workshop potentially offensive material without it getting out to the wider public is a moron after Michael Richard's 2006 incident. I saw someone today who pointed out a lyric from They Might Be Giants that actually fits this situation really well: "Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding." In the case of the song, it's about your buddy's racist friend trying to blame being drunk for saying racist poo poo. If someone says something racist or transphobic or anything like that, they're not a normal non-bigoted dude who's workshopping jokes because those people wouldn't find that funny. Louis CK makes jokes about Asians having tiny penises and trans people being crazy because he thinks things like that are okay to say and believe, and he thinks the idea of an Asian man secretly being a woman with a giant clitoris who procreates using math (this is the actual joke he made) is relatable and funny. If he removes those jokes from his set because of backlash, it's the same as a kid who only stops breaking the rules because he keeps getting caught instead of knowing why it was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Do what James Gunn did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:How long does it take to redeem yourself? Is it per crime? Can you skip it taking a long time if you donate enough money to the right women’s groups? Make people believe that you’ve legitimately changed for the better and wouldn’t start victimizing people again the minute you’re given the opportunity. And not just out of fear of consequences this time. Does anyone really trust that, if Louis C.K was magically given back his entire career, prestige, and reputation, that he wouldn’t start sexually harassing women again? Do you feel confident in that assessment? Do the others in his industry feel confident in that assessment? CelticPredator posted:Do what James Gunn did. Lousy example, because he didn’t really do anything I’d call morally wrong to begin with, he got wrecked by a smear campaign then his career started recovering in direct proportion to people no longer believing that he’s a pedophile. Him apologizing might have helped things along, but “told a dozen gross edgelord jokes 10 years ago” was never really going to fall below Disney or any other company’s moral standards for employability. Disney just really hates bad PR. Basebf555 posted:Much like all other aspects of being a performer and public figure, there are never going to be set rules that are totally consistent for these things and I think it's unrealistic to expect there would be. To some degree in comedy, yeah, but for most everything else there’s some pretty big gatekeepers that a person needs to get by. Louis C.K. can still do comedy clubs, but at least for now he’s completely barred from television or the movie business. I have zero doubt that there’s a significant number of people who would still pay to watch Kevin Spacey act, but nobody of any significance is going to hire him because the number of people who would turn against any studio that would hire him dwarfs that number of people who’d be happy to watch him perform. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Make people believe that you’ve legitimately changed for the better and wouldn’t start victimizing people again the minute you’re given the opportunity. And not just out of fear of consequences this time. Honestly, the fact that after a year of allegedly reflecting on his behaviour, he came back with "gently caress school shooting survivors" and "Me Asian chingy chongy wing wang wong" bullshit tells us all we need to know. gently caress that loving gently caress. Sucrose posted:Lousy example, because he didn’t really do anything I’d call morally wrong to begin with, he got wrecked by a smear campaign then his career started recovering in direct proportion to people no longer believing that he’s a pedophile. Him apologizing might have helped things along, but “told a dozen gross edgelord jokes 10 years ago” was never really going to fall below Disney or any other company’s moral standards for employability. Disney just really hates bad PR. And Disney's pusillanimous response, ironically, created more bad PR and a win for Warner Bros. and DC. Gunn is writing and will likely direct the next Suicide Squad movie (say what you will about the 2016 film, it was still incredibly profitable), so he's in a fairly enviable position. Sucrose posted:I have zero doubt that there’s a significant number of people who would still pay to watch Kevin Spacey act, but nobody of any significance is going to hire him because the number of people who would turn against any studio that would hire him dwarfs that number of people who’d be happy to watch him perform. It's the Chris Benoit effect. What they did when the cameras were gone will always taint whatever they were in, and there will be times where some things uttered by the characters they portray, or others on-screen will just hit a little too close to home. edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:And Disney's pusillanimous response, ironically, created more bad PR and a win for Warner Bros. and DC. Gunn is writing and will likely direct the next Suicide Squad movie (say what you will about the 2016 film, it was still incredibly profitable), so he's in a fairly enviable position. WB could hire Gunn because after a few months the media and anyone paying attention to the story realized that the accusations against him had no actual substance, so at that point almost nobody cared. Again, his apology might have helped, but it was really due to the allegations against him evaporating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:WB could hire Gunn because after a few months the media and anyone paying attention to the story realized that the accusations against him had no actual substance, so at that point almost nobody cared. Again, his apology might have helped, but it was really due to the allegations against him evaporating. Sure, but Disney didn't help themselves by digging their heels in as the bad press about those involved being furious, especially Dave Bautista - who has been one of the best parts of both films, and they've potentially squandered one of the most profitable franchises they had within the MCU.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Sure, but Disney didn't help themselves by digging their heels in as the bad press about those involved being furious, especially Dave Bautista - who has been one of the best parts of both films, and they've potentially squandered one of the most profitable franchises they had within the MCU. Nah, Disney is so powerful that they could end up cancelling Guardians of the Galaxy 3 outright and not even feel the loss. One director and one actor (and a few bummed out other actors) are pretty much insignificant. Thems the breaks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
Just on the 'workshopping material' thing, one of the first things I saw Louis CK do, many years ago, was him clearly working some very edgy material, seeing what stuck. It was all edgelord poo poo that is genuinely nasty in retrospect, but, despite that, they're well constructed jokes. He understood how to set up the joke, switch direction and catch the audience off guard. He took the joke somewhere. This new stuff is just 'here is the set up, and here is the conclusion, exactly as you anticipated it'Sucrose posted:Nah, Disney is so powerful that they could end up cancelling Guardians of the Galaxy 3 outright and not even feel the loss. One director and one actor (and a few bummed out other actors) are pretty much insignificant. Thems the breaks. If that's the case, why bother making any movies at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:If that's the case, why bother making any movies at all? They need to make movies in general, it's just that they're big enough to drop one franchise and not feel it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
Guardians of the Galaxy is a franchise that basically only a ha full of people gave two shits about before Chris Pratt and Vin Diesel blew it up super hard, axing it after two extremely successful films is fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Guardians of the Galaxy is a franchise that basically only a ha full of people gave two shits about before Chris Pratt and Vin Diesel blew it up super hard, axing it after two extremely successful films is fine. That's really not what usually happens. When you have two films, and the second one makes more than the first, and you sell a shitload of toys off of it, you don't suddenly go 'well, that's the end of that' unless something forces you to. It's leaving money on the table.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
Right, that’s the point, Disney has enough money that leaving money on the table is fine if they think the PR hit would be worse in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Right, that’s the point, Disney has enough money that leaving money on the table is fine if they think the PR hit would be worse in the long run. And the PR Hit they're taking is one from making a snap judgement, kowtowing to a nazi, and pissing off their talent. It's a bad call. The fact that they can absorb it does not make it a good one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:That's really not what usually happens. When you have two films, and the second one makes more than the first, and you sell a shitload of toys off of it, you don't suddenly go 'well, that's the end of that' unless something forces you to. It's leaving money on the table. Again, it’s Disney. Any other studio would probably have been freaking the gently caress out, but Disney is so powerful that they could indefinitely shelve a movie expected to pull in $800+ million at the global box office and not even break a sweat. One Marvel movie can easily be replaced with another Marvel movie. All hail The Mouse. That said, I would almost guarantee that Disney execs didn’t expect that firing Gunn like that would implode the entire movie, or they would have taken more than 12 hours to think about it. This was one of those situations where I’d love to hear some inside dirt on, but which will almost certainly never be talked about publically. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
I find the question of how these men redeem themselves to be disingenuous. Because it implies folks are actually worried about how men like Louis CK are going to take care of their children and keep a roof over their heads. The reality is that people are concerned for their own consumption not the actual creator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 04:06
|
|