Teh alberta stuffz made me l0lz

coughoverratedcough

>> ^solecist:
coughoverratedcough


cougheveryonesaysthatwhenacomicgetsbigcough

>> ^Payback:

>> ^solecist:
coughoverratedcough

cougheveryonesaysthatwhenacomicgetsbigcough


coughwhatifyouweresayingitwhenhewasn'tbigtoo?cough

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Payback:
>> ^solecist:
coughoverratedcough

cougheveryonesaysthatwhenacomicgetsbigcough

coughwhatifyouweresayingitwhenhewasn'tbigtoo?cough


coughifhewasn'tbighecouldn'tbeoverratedcough

coughoverratedcough


That description doesn't really make sense for a comic. I mean, if people think he's funny... then.. uh, that's it: he is funny. It's like saying "strawberry" is overrated (ie. "You think strawberries taste good, but they don't"). There is no funny (or flavor) standard that we can objectively compare him to and find out that he's not as funny as people think.

He is exactly as funny as people think he is. That's the only definition we can have for funny.

To be clear, lots of things can be overrated. People can think a boxer is great, but then find out he wasn't so good when he fights better opposition. People might think a plan is good, then it fails. People might rate a car's fuel efficiency too high, when we know it's lower. Lots of things have objective ways to test that can be contrasted against people's perceptions.

But if some new comedian comes along and is funnier (and I imagine most people think someone is funnier than Jimmy already - I think David Mitchell is funnier), that doesn't make Jimmy less funny or mean it was wrong to think Jimmy was very funny. If you found him very funny (and lots of people do), then nothing can change that. If you rewatch Jimmy in later years and find him less funny, even that doesn't make him less funny now. Funny isn't a universal truth - it is extremely subjective and constantly changing.

There's lots of things that many people like and I don't. This doesn't make me cooler than everyone, and it doesn't make the thing they like "overrated". It means I like different things.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Payback:
>> ^solecist:
coughoverratedcough

cougheveryonesaysthatwhenacomicgetsbigcough

coughwhatifyouweresayingitwhenhewasn'tbigtoo?cough

coughifhewasn'tbighecouldn'tbeoverratedcough


coughhecouldi'mimplyingthatheisn'tfunnyatallsoevenwhenhewasn'tratedhighlyhewasstilloverratedcough

Also, guy above me's crazeh. People rate him highly, but the guy doesn't rate him as highly as everyone else. Hence guy calls him over rated. Fair enough i'd say!

He uses that same joke in every location. I don't know why he picked Alberta. Probably just asked the cabbie what part of Canada he didn't like. If he really wanted a reaction, he should have said Quebec. That would have got the audience going the way he likes it.

There's a lot of coughing going on around here. Anyone need some cough syrup?

>> ^messenger:

He uses that same joke in every location. I don't know why he picked Alberta. Probably just asked the cabbie what part of Canada he didn't like. If he really wanted a reaction, he should have said Quebec. That would have got the audience going the way he likes it.


coughiagreecough


Oh shit, now I'm in a rut.


Cough.

That is bullshit!

Strawberries are not overrated.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jimmy, carr, tatoo, just for laughs, 2010' to 'jimmy, carr, tattoo, just for laughs, 2010' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jimmy, carr, tattoo, just for laughs, 2010' to 'jimmy carr, tattoo, just for laughs, 2010' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^jmzero:

coughoverratedcough

That description doesn't really make sense for a comic. I mean, if people think he's funny... then.. uh, that's it: he is funny. It's like saying "strawberry" is overrated (ie. "You think strawberries taste good, but they don't"). There is no funny (or flavor) standard that we can objectively compare him to and find out that he's not as funny as people think.
He is exactly as funny as people think he is. That's the only definition we can have for funny.
To be clear, lots of things can be overrated. People can think a boxer is great, but then find out he wasn't so good when he fights better opposition. People might think a plan is good, then it fails. People might rate a car's fuel efficiency too high, when we know it's lower. Lots of things have objective ways to test that can be contrasted against people's perceptions.
But if some new comedian comes along and is funnier (and I imagine most people think someone is funnier than Jimmy already - I think David Mitchell is funnier), that doesn't make Jimmy less funny or mean it was wrong to think Jimmy was very funny. If you found him very funny (and lots of people do), then nothing can change that. If you rewatch Jimmy in later years and find him less funny, even that doesn't make him less funny now. Funny isn't a universal truth - it is extremely subjective and constantly changing.
There's lots of things that many people like and I don't. This doesn't make me cooler than everyone, and it doesn't make the thing they like "overrated". It means I like different things.


you forgot to cough.

I think Jimmy Carr is great. The problem is, any comedian who puts out as much content as he does is bound to have some bad material from time to time. Carr pretty much has a new set every year, whereas other comedians like Chris Rock or Louis CK waits ~4 years between specials.

These jokes suck because he's shoehorning the premise so that the punchline may fit. He does that often, however, usually the end result is a good enough product where most of us forgive him. Usually it just gives his comedy a "quirky" feel.

>> ^mentality:

I think Jimmy Carr is great. The problem is, any comedian who puts out as much content as he does is bound to have some bad material from time to time. Carr pretty much has a new set every year, whereas other comedians like Chris Rock or Louis CK waits ~4 years between specials.


Louis CK starts from scratch every time he releases a special. And he opens every show with the strong stuff from previous shows and then work on the new material. This forces him to have sharp new material.

Plus he comes out with material every ~2 years:
- Jun 2007 - Dec 2008 ~ 1.5 years
- Dec 2008 - Jan 2011 ~ 2 years

That's on top of him writing and producing his own show.

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^mentality:
I think Jimmy Carr is great. The problem is, any comedian who puts out as much content as he does is bound to have some bad material from time to time. Carr pretty much has a new set every year, whereas other comedians like Chris Rock or Louis CK waits ~4 years between specials.

Louis CK starts from scratch every time he releases a special. And he opens every show with the strong stuff from previous shows and then work on the new material. This forces him to have sharp new material.
Plus he comes out with material every ~2 years:
- Jun 2007 - Dec 2008 ~ 1.5 years
- Dec 2008 - Jan 2011 ~ 2 years
That's on top of him writing and producing his own show.


Jimmy Carr:

Comedian 5 November 2007 Live at London's Bloomsbury Theatre
In Concert 3 November 2008 Live at London's Bloomsbury Theatre
Telling Jokes 2 November 2009 Live at London's Bloomsbury Theatre

All of which are new material, and all of which are fantastic. As much as I am a fan of CK, I have to say a few of Carr's shows were better. And while this particular sift is weak, you can find clips of CK's that are pretty weak also. And that goes for pretty much every comedian.

And IMO, while CK's shows contain hilarious bits, I don't think either of them were very good as a show.