yeah, that was terrible.

Needed more spinning panning camera, more shots focussing on the sweaty women and more bayhem in general.

Bay may be an ass, but he does have a style. It's a crap style, but it's a style.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Michael-Bay-What-is-Bayhem

WONDER WOMAN (Michael Bay Style) has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine on that post.

Michael Bay - What is Bayhem? has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

They are such pains in the arse... I used to live in an area that was in the city, but basically forested, the coons one time, open the door, ran across the kitchen and pulled a huge bag of cat food outside. These were some big coons; the possums were assholes too.

I haven't seen a coon in years across the Bay, until a couple of nights ago I heard some weird snarling in front of me in my backyard, I thought one of the cats had gone mental, put on my phone light and there was coon snarling at me two feet away - as it had it's ET fingers on some old nachos that used to be in the trash.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

Man being police in a fervently capitalist individualist society awash with firearms just seems like a really bad choice in life. There are clear blue bays in latin america that need fishermen, european cities that need aoustic guitar players..

It sounds like a bunch of Videosift regulars are from the SF bay area. I grew up in SJ, worked at NASA/Ames for a few years, had friends at Berkeley and IBM research and Cisco and Apple and... yeah, small world.

Your video, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, And The Bay Area Explained, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 55 Badge!

Does anyone say Marin or Berkeley the way he does? How do you get Berkeley wrong? I can't imagine he's from the area or even heard anyone say those names before.

Also Id personally define Silicon Valley as Most of Santa Clara County(not all). Palo Alto to San Jose. I don't think of it as including the cities of Milpitas, Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Although, i think of it this way due to when it was first being used and the area in encompassed at that time. It's probably been ever changing depending on how the tech areas expand.

Wiki describes it "Geographically, it encompasses all of the Santa Clara Valley, the southern half of the San Francisco Peninsula, and southern portions of the East Bay. It includes parts or most of Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, and Alameda County."

Very interesting (to probably nobody except me): this video sounds like it's narrated by a native, but I think it's not. He pronounces Marin County like "MAIR-in", but everyone I've ever met in and around the SF Bay Area says "mah-RIN". Like my mom who was born there. Also: "berk-eh-ley"? It's pronounced "berk-ley"!

/rant

*promote keeping it groovy bay-bee

I've noticed even sharkier tactics employed in the Bay Area - such as a company called Breeze where people lease the car from them and pay @ $200.00/week to Breeze to use the car as a Uber or Lyft driver.

For some reason people refuse to look at the math. I think I was that way when I was in my early twenties so I get it but it's scary; once the drivers figure out that they aren't going to be able to make ends meet they will be in a bind with Breeze who won't accept the car back unless it's absolutely in perfect condition...

I think I read that both Uber & Lyft are trying to go for the "no credit" crowd in loaning cars out to pump up their exploited workforce.

Beware. Capitalist fucks at work.

You don't think that Trump won't make an unfair system even worse? Do you know what kind of scam operations he runs? Read up on Trump University, and if you don't think a mind like his won't immediately start eroding the as of yet intact elements of our government, then I have a bridge in the bay area to sell you. Not to mention that Scalia is not my definition of 'bright' by any standard. Bloviating quasi intellectual douchenozzle, sure, but not exactly a contributor to constitutional scholarship.

Hillary will be a boring drag; an uninspired and predictable apparatchik, but not remotely as harmful as the narcissistic psychopathy that's absofuckinglutely going to get us into severe confrontations around the globe that a Trump administration would bring.

Think about it. Yesterday the Russians put out a sabre-rattling presser about a US destroyer in the Black Sea (its international waters). Under Obama or Clinton, I can be pretty confident that any ruffled feathers will be smoothed and that things won't escalate. With Trump, if he has a bad morning because the viagra didn't kick in on time, or Ivana talks back or whatever, god knows what his decisions would be.

Michael Bay will hit his peak when he makes a film composed completely of single frame cuts. When they're selling buckets of Ritalin in the lobby, instead of popcorn, you'll know he's achieved his magnum opus.

I dunno. I mean, it looks like it's better than the first one because at least it's picking the cartoon version of TMNT and sticking with it, but it still has that Michael Bay 'style' where they tell the CGI team to just go fucking nuts and to hell with composition or editing, shot to shot cohesion and basically realism and believability in general. Put tons of shiny CGI shit on the screen moving around really fast and call it action.

So... the 7-12 year old male demographic will probably like it. I guess that's okay. That's who the cartoon appealed to.