Absolutely, and that’s something that people like Condescending Robot and madmonk28 need to learn. But no, they think that if they don’t like it, no one should.
I agree that is a very silly position to take.
I don’t find him funny in the slightest but as someone who is a major fan of puppetry, I was excited to see someone bringing ventriloquism back… that is until I saw the lazy-racist puppets he uses and how he is CONSTANTLY moving is lips.
Don’t get me started on a ventriloquist putting out a comedy CD. :rolleyes:
While taste in art may be subjective, there is such a thing as bad art. Humor that relies on tired stereotypes is appealing to the lowest common denominator. Humor that does not challenge or that goes exactly where the audience is expecting it to go without any surprising detours is not good art. We live in an age when everyone’s opinion is equally valid. Sometimes you have to call shit what it is.
Well, I like Dunham, and I think his act is funny.
I never really considered whether he was a particularly good ventriloquist or not. The times I concentrated more on him doing the voices than the dummy, I noticed he moved his lips quite a bit, but for the most part, I really don’t notice.
When Jeff is talking, I look at him. When it is time for the dummy to talk, I look at the dummy to see what he is going to say. I don’t look then at the guy he is talking to, so I don’t notice the lip moving that much.
Limiting visible lip movement is not the essence of what makes a great ventriloquist, it’s how well he imparts the dummy with personality.
Yes.
IMO thats the real key. The two way conversation is good enough that you are able to suspend disbelief and think the dummy is actually another person.
A classic but fictional example:
But sometimes people just want to go and have a good time and a few laughs and not have need to over-analyze everything that comes out of the comedian’s mouth. Not everybody is always looking for this high-brow idealized idea of good art that you have. Which brings me back to my original premise, just because you think something is bad doesn’t mean everybody has to think it’s bad.
But I do agree there is such a thing as bad art, but that is just my opinion and I can’t expect everyone to agree.
Why would I want to do that?
Chose a comedian you love, send me his best clip and I will see if you are an inferior baboon or not.
Yes, because god knows the material itself can’t be any good. :dubious:
Sure, a lot of the comedy is physical, but it is for a lot of comedians as well. I have more than a few stand-up acts from Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, Lewis Black, Eddie Izzard, and others where they do…something on stage that’s probably highly amusing. All I hear is a brief bit of silence and then uproarious laughter. Ventriloquism is as much about the verbal interplay between the personalities as the physical manipulation. The puppet is little more than context for the voice and personality. Same for stand-up in general, really.
This is really why I find his usual acts, Walter, Peanut, and such, better than the stereotypes he trots out. The stereotypes are painfully so, no better than the cliched black comedian going ‘Black people go like this, white people go like this’. But he’s been doing Walter and Peanut for so long that they really are like extra performers on stage. You get the sense that he can improv with Peanut as naturally as he could do himself. It’s fun to watch, if not necessarily challenging or high-brow.
By the way, I’m so very sorry I like ventriloquism from Dunham and slapstick from the Three Stooges just as much as I like subtle wordplay from Eddie Izzard and intelligent observations from Lewis Black and Louis CK. Clearly if I just liked the cerebral humor, I’d be worthy, but because I like the cerebral and the goofy, I’m some kind of shitstain. I think that says more about madmonk’s quality of opinion than it does about me, really.
I think he’s a lousy ventriliquist, but a funny comedian.
I mean, you can thrash about as much as you want about how everything is relative and 2 Fast 2 Furious is objectively no better or worse than Citizen Kane and all that bullshit, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re singing the phrases of a fucking ventriloquist telling Mexican and Arab jokes that weren’t funny when he wrote them in 1978 to a room full of extras from Hee Haw. You’re an idiot if you like this. If that makes me an elitist than pass the crumpets, I guess.
On a stick!
Here’s a link of Jeff improving with Walter and Peanut. Very funny stuff.
“…and this one’s kind of fucked up.”
Seriously, why are you in this thread? We get it. You don’t like Jeffs comedy and we are all a bunch of retards. Your opinion is noted now please go the fuck away.
Who said anything about them objectively being equal? You’re arguing with yourself here. You can have a little ventriloquist dummy of A Person Who Likes Jeff Dunham and make it say whatever you feel you can argue against, but you’re missing the point of what actual posters are saying.
But hey, I’ll spell it out for you: just because I like low-brow as well as high-brow does not imply I believe they’re equal. It just means I like them both.
If this is all you can think to post in this thread, you should stop posting in it. You’re allowed to disparage Dunham, but your comments about people who like his comedy are over the top and insulting. Knock it off.
Singing the phrases?
ETA: Please note, Marley23’s “knock it off” post was not there when I posted. I did not intend this as a cheap shot.
No better? 2F2F is muuuuch better. Vroooom! There’s not even 1 car chase in Citizen Kane.
I like ventriloquism. It’s pretty neat.
I was very, very disappointed when I realized that, after watching 18 minutes of one of his specials, I hadn’t so much as cracked a smile the whole time.
It’s terribly unfunny. It’s also annoying for him to say something like “What’s with your hair?” while turning the dummy’s head and hearing the audience erupt into laughter and applause. What?
Otto and George. Now that’s a ventriloquist act that will at the very least get a chuckle out of me.