i found monty python to be more of a stepping stone to better stuff, like peter cook or spike milligan(who python was admittedly a sad ripoff of anyway). i can still watch python and enjoy much of it for what it is, but it's not the sort of thing that i can really watch with frequency. i'm really talking about the tv show too, because i find the first two movies almost entirely unwatchable now.

yeah, i completely agree with the stepping stone thing, i guess that is what i was trying to get at with the 8th grade thing but i just hadn't gotten my thoughts together on it.  and yeah, i can't enjoy the movies at all anymore.

i'm trying to even think of what monty python sketches i find funny anymore and at the moment the only thing coming to mind is this which isn't even a sketch it's just a weird short gag

anyway, i watched Pp. pretty good movie and surprisingly sincere at times, but they really didn't have the content for a full movie. instead of just being an ok movie, it could have been a tremendous short film. there was about 15 minutes of really great stuff and an hour and change of this fluff that didn't really contribute to what the movie was about. it was excellent for what it was, though, and was a bit more engaging than i had expected it to be.

here's how you make a special-effects driven film btw

did you mean to type up? because thats pretty much how i felt about it when i saw it when it came out. i saw it cos my gf really wanted to go, and i was expecting another bolt or whatever but was pleasantly surprised. it did seem kinda spaced out at times, but the fact i cared about the movie at all means it was 100000x better than most recent pixar movies

also that short movie was awesome. dare i say i want........ MORE?? but no it was really good. i really liked the music tbh.

here's how you make a special-effects driven film btw

holy fuck holy fuck my brother showed this to me years and years ago and i had only vague memories of it but i always wanted to find it again and never could because i didn't remember enough about it and i couldn't remember the name either you are the best dude

so yeah, phase stuff. tim and eric are absolutely like that, to an even greater extent. i can still watch python for a few minutes every once in a long while, but i can't watch tim and eric at all anymore. it's really dumb stuff and once the effect the weirdness has on you wears off, there isn't any reason to continue watching. there's a lot of humor like that really, but tim and eric are really glaring examples of it.

just wanna stick my middle finger in here:

I can see your point with some of tim and eric. There is too much of the lazy kind of weirdness they do in their stuff, but I definitely don't think that all of tim and eric is dumb. I dunno if listing examples is the best way to go about arguing this but the cinco brothers + jim and derrick episodes are both great pretty much all the way through, the office romance clips, most of the cinco product ads - i don't know that you can even call that stuff weird. it's pretty straightforward satire of corporate phonies and rapists. there is some stuff which is probably a bit less easy to defend, like richard dunn's segments. i really like them, though. alot!

it isn't as if there is nothing behind tim and eric. they aren't solely random-monging dickheads. i suspect eric wareheim is a hipster prick, but i like that tim heidecker a whole lot. also, i've found quite alot of good stuff through tim and eric, like neil hamburger and the room. neil hamburger has made me laugh probably the hardest in my whole life!

i mean if we're going to cut tim and eric out of the good stuff because they occasionally spend a 5 minute sketch doing nothing but slapping sloppy joes together while making faces then what's left

what's left

people say these things about tim and eric and I just disagree! this is why I hate when people I generally like talk about their philosophies on humor because it's mostly garbage. it's taste but also I have no idea why you would think eric is a hipster prick

phase stuff?? more like neil hamburger and brother theodore because once you get what they're doing it's pretty bland and straightforward, particularly with neil. but I don't think this makes them bad comedians and I'm just being a curmudgeon

but also I have no idea why you would think eric is a hipster prick

i don't know if i meant that, but it was just an aside.

and what things about tim and eric? that they are good or that they stink? i don't have a philosophy on humour but there is an easy difference between humour with a point to it and stuff that doesn't. it doesn't say anything about whether it's funny or not, obviously, i was just saying i think tim and eric are more than dumb adult-swim comedians.

i think a lot of their stuff would be better if it was more subtle. i hate the added sounds and added homoerotic etceteras

about tim and 'rick being unfunny. I don't think all of it is pure gold or anything but I know they're just doing whatever they want. and I don't agree with growing out of t/e. stuff like meet that dad only has a short life but that definitely doesn't apply to most of their bits. people who think the whole show is just tim and eric being weird and making faces are usually missing something. Jazz is a good example of this, no one likes jazz

but thats humor for you

the only funny show that people love and I go out of my way to make fun of is Curb but that's for other reasons (HBO, Quality Show, Intellgent Comedy marketing)

just wanna stick my middle finger in here:

I can see your point with some of tim and eric. There is too much of the lazy kind of weirdness they do in their stuff, but I definitely don't think that all of tim and eric is dumb. I dunno if listing examples is the best way to go about arguing this but the cinco brothers + jim and derrick episodes are both great pretty much all the way through, the office romance clips, most of the cinco product ads - i don't know that you can even call that stuff weird. it's pretty straightforward satire of corporate phonies and rapists. there is some stuff which is probably a bit less easy to defend, like richard dunn's segments. i really like them, though. alot!

it isn't as if there is nothing behind tim and eric. they aren't solely random-monging dickheads.

you know, i'd really have difficulty calling tim and eric legitimate satirists, which is kinda what you're suggesting here. i kinda connected with them at first because i liked how the show is like this big parody of what television is, but i don't really think there's much more to what they do than that in that program, and once that general comedic concept wore out, i couldn't find a whole lot to like in the show apart from the occasional quality guest performance(and i'm really talking about john c. reilly). it's really just this string of strange and awkward television parodies, and you pretty much know what you're going to get from every show, even if the settings are relatively different. that's kinda the point of the show i guess, but i think the concept isn't really strong enough to last several seasons. i'd liken it to a joke that lasts too long, but that's kinda their forte. the same could be said for tom goes to the mayor, i think, but i've found there's even less substance there.

i really don't think tim and eric's work should be read into very far as some sort of legitimate satire or statement, if only because awkwardness is one of their key areas of focus. i'm not really sure what i'm supposed to gain from their constant setting up painfully awkward situations, particularly with the reality that they went far out of their way to get guys like david liebe hart and james quall who really do not appear to be stable, well-balanced people. at first i felt like it was embracing these awkward sectors of humanity, which i found to be a pretty charming idea, but the more i watched the show the more it felt really exploitative. you really are meant to laugh AT these people, not WITH them, and something honestly feels very cruel about that. it's possible i've read too far into this, but i can't shake the feeling that they're just making fun of these totally crazy, albeit pretty likable, individuals because they CAN and guys like hart and quall are desperate enough for steady pay and publicity to do it. i don't think this is a totally absurd way to perceive the show either, since they do just throw these guys on stage to allow them to be as totally fucking insane as they can possibly be. like hart is clearly a pretty disturbed individual, and they allow him on-stage to basically showcase how disturbed he is, but would it really be fundamentally different if they had someone with downs syndrome or something come out on the show and entertain us by acting foolishly? nothing hart says is EVER funny or worthwhile, and we're only ever laughing at the fact that he's deranged and not terribly far from being institutionalized. probably more than the literal structure of the show, this is what finally turned me off to tim and eric, because i don't think it's a particularly mature way to organize some sort of creative effort. it strikes me as awfully cruel to set up a show that honestly advocates the ridicule of its performers.

also part of my issue with the whole thing is that i don't really think tim or eric are particularly engaging or talented performers. sure, they have pretty creative and unique comedy minds, and are skilled comedy writers to a point, but i don't really think there's a whole lot of natural talent or versatility in there with their on-screen performances. i think there's a reason why john c. reilly completely and totally overruns the show every time he appears on screen. he's a really outstanding comedic(and dramatic) performer and has the skills to bring the conceptual framework of the show to life, but i can't really say that about the sheer performance qualities of tim or eric. this is a somewhat intangible element that's hard to quantify, but it's exceedingly rare that i find the way they perform sketches particularly humorous in their own right; if anything, the humor will invariably come from the concept behind the actions and not the actions themselves. there is the occasional exception to this(i thought casey was pretty inventive), but i think this can be said about pretty much every area of the show where they do the major bulk of the performances. for my money, i think the show would actually be better if they got skilled comedic performers to fill in the roles that they would otherwise occupy themselves.

really all that's left is the sheer weirdness of their work, which i guess is pretty charming for the most part, but there's too much stuff of limited or negative value in their work for me to really call it some comedic mainstay and not some sort of trend or phase humor. they lack rather heavily in substance and performance sophistication, so i have a truly difficult time imagining that they'll continue being major comedians twenty years from now unless they really refine and perfect the way they go about their business.

the fact of the matter is that they ARE significantly less substantial than monty python and ARE dramatically poorer performers than those involved in monty python, and DO truly pale in comparison to how unique monty python was then and continues to be now. monty python is remembered to a point, but widely recognized as juvenile and sophomoric humor. how, exactly, is tim and eric any different?

i mean if we're going to cut tim and eric out of the good stuff because they occasionally spend a 5 minute sketch doing nothing but slapping sloppy joes together while making faces then what's left

what's left

probably not a lot, but that in itself doesn't make them any more worth anybody's time.

phase stuff?? more like neil hamburger and brother theodore because once you get what they're doing it's pretty bland and straightforward, particularly with neil. but I don't think this makes them bad comedians and I'm just being a curmudgeon

lol are you actually trying to antagonize me because i called your favorite comedians phase humor? sorry but i just don't think they're that talented or worthwhile!

either way, i can't really disagree about neil hamburger. i am admittedly going through a NEIL HAMBURGER PHASE because i am pretty miserable and get a kick out of the idea behind the character and the performance itself. it'll probably wear off soon.

i DO disagree about theodore, but that comes slightly from the fact that his work attempted to do things that no creative person has attempted to do for hundreds of years. you'd need to go back to the 1600s and dig through renaissance drama to find people doing black comedy like that. that's the sort of thing i appreciate, but i don't necessarily expect others to. still, outside of that, i really would be inclined to argue that his rather fiercely unique perspective of the world and comedy do give him more lasting appeal outside of a couple cheap giggles. it's one thing being silly and wacky for no good reason, but another thing entirely when you're able to infuse so many painful and illuminating life experiences into an effective comedy routine.

did you mean to type up? because thats pretty much how i felt about it when i saw it when it came out. i saw it cos my gf really wanted to go, and i was expecting another bolt or whatever but was pleasantly surprised. it did seem kinda spaced out at times, but the fact i cared about the movie at all means it was 100000x better than most recent pixar movies

also that short movie was awesome. dare i say i want........ MORE?? but no it was really good. i really liked the music tbh.

i guess this is what quality art is

so honest and so true that even people who have disagreed on many things will agree on what it made them feel.

EDIT: yeah i did mean to type up. i don't know how the hell i missed that.

i'm not really sure what i'm supposed to gain from their constant setting up painfully awkward situations, particularly with the reality that they went far out of their way to get guys like david liebe hart and james quall who really do not appear to be stable, well-balanced people. at first i felt like it was embracing these awkward sectors of humanity, which i found to be a pretty charming idea, but the more i watched the show the more it felt really exploitative. you really are meant to laugh AT these people, not WITH them, and something honestly feels very cruel about that. it's possible i've read too far into this, but i can't shake the feeling that they're just making fun of these totally crazy, albeit pretty likable, individuals because they CAN and guys like hart and quall are desperate enough for steady pay and publicity to do it.

i think i agree with this. i've only started realizing it recently, and i guess i have been trying to give them the benefit of the doubt at every turn. like you said, thinking that they were embracing weird people rather than making fun of them but i have been rewatching some things and seen some new clips which really just seem like they are making fun of david liebe hart. i watched this a few days ago:


and this was the first time i'd been annoyed at them and thought they were acting like assholes because david liebe hart seems to be earnestly asking them to sit down and talk and they just keep on going with their joke which isn't really that funny anyway. this clip just seems mean, and i don't like it.

they have talked about this in interviews and they try to justify it with the embracing weirdos aspect, and for a while i just accepted all that.

AVC: Is there any part of you that's uncomfortable putting these people on TV?

TH: We're very careful not to cross a line, and the line's impossible to see. We have to find these moments that make them loveable and funny at the same time. But we're not pointing our fingers and cackling at them.

EW: A lot of people that are on our show, the only reason they work is because of how sincere they are about what they're doing. David Liebe Hart is really into singing these songs about hellos and goodbyes on other planets, and how these other planets work, and I think that comes across. We don't want to abuse anybody. Tim and I, when we started out, knew that we weren't into really cruel comedy, making fun of people.

TH: Eric and I don't put ourselves on a pedestal, either. We're happy to go down and be as ridiculous as anybody else. We're not Johnny Knoxville or Ashton Kutcher, sitting up top and laughing at the people on our show. We're as ridiculous as everybody else.

EW: These people are part of our world now. David Liebe Hart stops by the office once a week, so does Richard Dunn. They've integrated into everything we do now. They're part of this community.

that was good enough for me for a while, because what they say here seems to be the exact right way to take the show. but, like with the clip above, i am begining to see things that make me think there is a bit of bullshit in that. in that interview they talk alot about this exact thing - http://www.avclub.com/articles/tim-eric,14174/

i think saying these strange performers are only doing this because they are desperate for a paycheck is a bit much - david liebe hart, james quall and richard dunn all clearly love going on tv + tour and getting all this attention. i don't think they are entirely victims, i mean come on. HOWEVER, it's just got to be true that 90% of the people who watch tim and eric are just thinking 'lol what a retard. this guy's aretrarded retard' every time one of them come on the screen.

i'll be back

so i can see how you could get to the position of just not liking tim and eric but i don't think it's the lack of skill they have that'll get you there. you say a few times about how it's when the joke of tv stops being funny that the show gets boring but i don't see how that's a fact. the show is about bad entertainment, and there are two sides to that: the assholes who make bad entertainment cynically, and the innocent people who make it earnestly. the first side you can always laugh at because fuck those guys they deserve everything that's coming to them, but the second half makes you feel guilty and probably rightly so.

maybe i'm avoiding a conclusion here now, but there's more to the show than just being awkward i think. have you seen the episodes jim and derrick and the brothers cinco? i think those two episodes are where the mark is dead on. those episodes aren't just about awkwardness, they're about personalities and cynicism and all kinds of things you see on TV that need to be made fun of. i don't think there's really any use to saying 'yeah okay, MTV is bad - great joke guys. real clever' because that's just being a curmudgeon.

back to the other thing, though. this issue of laughing with or at people is something that has been on my mind alot lately.


I first saw this movie last year alone with one person and we both sat and laughed and just had an excellent time. It's a really, really badly made movie by a guy with a very weird, superficial way of looking at life. The acting in the film is awful and Tommy Wiseau's is absolutely wacky on top. Anyway, for a while I was thinking this is definitely one of my favourite movies because I had such an excellent time watching it and thinking about it afterwards.

So last month I went to see a screening of it in london. I'd heard the screenings were great fun and everyone went wild at them. It was true that the audience was really lively, and people got up and ran around and basically got involved in the whole thing so it was a bit of a spectacle. There was a problem though - the audience was mean. They were pointing and laughing at all the wrong things, and didn't really seem to like it for the same reasons I do. There is a character in the movie who everyone keeps insisting is beautiful, and people just kept shouting out things about how she was ugly and fat. People were saying things like retard and all this. People were too busy with their sarcasm to enjoy all the best bits, it seemed like.

Anyway I was thinking about it later and wondering if I was just one of those people except I used a word other than retard because I've got better sense and I don't think that is why I like the film. I just really enjoyed it. I don't know - that there are people like Tommy Wiseau who get to make movies and just put such a crazy mess up on screen is funny and nice and it's a great time to watch this movie. The fans might be annoying, but I don't think Tommy Wiseau is a victim here.

So, I don't know. I am at the point of trying to decide if you can laugh at these people and let them in on it at the same time. It feels right, feels like I can! but i just don't know if i can justify it to myself yet.

i think i agree with this. i've only started realizing it recently, and i guess i have been trying to give them the benefit of the doubt at every turn. like you said, thinking that they were embracing weird people rather than making fun of them but i have been rewatching some things and seen some new clips which really just seem like they are making fun of david liebe hart. i watched this a few days ago:

and this was the first time i'd been annoyed at them and thought they were acting like assholes because david liebe hart seems to be earnestly asking them to sit down and talk and they just keep on going with their joke which isn't really that funny anyway. this clip just seems mean, and i don't like it.

i've never seen this before. yeah, that's pretty terrible
hart is really just a prop here, which isn't totally out of line with how he's used throughout the show.

one thing interesting did catch me about their interview, which was this:

"David Liebe Hart stops by the office once a week, so does Richard Dunn. They've integrated into everything we do now. They're part of this community."

i have a difficult time believing that they have really integrated these guys into their "creative community" in any sort of tangible way. these guys are appropriate for what awesome show aims to be, but if the plug was suddenly pulled on the show, these guys would be back out on the street. it's ridiculous that they would call them serious collaborators when they're clearly just there for freak appeal. i'd be completely blown away(and impressed with their sincerity) if they seriously integrated guys like quall, dunn, and hart into later projects that aren't like the awesome show.

i think saying these strange performers are only doing this because they are desperate for a paycheck is a bit much - david liebe hart, james quall and richard dunn all clearly love going on tv + tour and getting all this attention. i don't think they are entirely victims, i mean come on. HOWEVER, it's just got to be true that 90% of the people who watch tim and eric are just thinking 'lol what a retard. this guy's aretrarded retard' every time one of them come on the screen.

i don't know if i'd necessarily call them victims, because they are reaching a level of success that they wouldn't have reached otherwise, but yeah like you said at the end this isn't some scenario where they're really championing these people or making them look particularly creative or accountable. these people were chosen because they are ridiculous, and the show does nothing but illuminate that. if that wasn't all they particularly wanted from them, you'd see them in sketches, playing characters and generally doing things outside of their real-life personas. but as it stands, they just have them there being generally bizarre and ridiculous without any sort of greater function in the show.

so i can see how you could get to the position of just not liking tim and eric but i don't think it's the lack of skill they have that'll get you there. you say a few times about how it's when the joke of tv stops being funny that the show gets boring but i don't see how that's a fact. the show is about bad entertainment, and there are two sides to that: the assholes who make bad entertainment cynically, and the innocent people who make it earnestly. the first side you can always laugh at because fuck those guys they deserve everything that's coming to them...

well my main point is that this isn't really substance at all. it kinda peripherally was for a little while, but it's a really narrow subject matter and there's nothing really being said or conveyed. it's just all these mock shows and advertisements, and the fact that it's literally inspired by something that exists in reality doesn't automatically make it substantial. i feel that in going out of their way to make fun of something insignificant, they have ultimately become as insignificant as the things they are parodying.

maybe i'm avoiding a conclusion here now, but there's more to the show than just being awkward i think. have you seen the episodes jim and derrick and the brothers cinco? i think those two episodes are where the mark is dead on. those episodes aren't just about awkwardness, they're about personalities and cynicism and all kinds of things you see on TV that need to be made fun of.

i don't think they need to be made fun of at such an absurd length. i mean, cinco jokes are in virtually every episode, and i really GOT THE POINT rather early on. how many bullshit fake cinco commercials are there? didn't you kinda GET THE POINT after the first one? when you pump a subject matter for comedy for such an incredible amount of time, you aren't really making some sort of larger commentary on it, you're just trying to tell a joke. if it IS their goal to be intellectually substantial through the awesome show(which i seriously doubt) then they're just exceedingly bad at doing it. they really just pick on the television bottom feeders that only the most foolish people honestly take seriously. if they were HONESTLY committed to criticizing the fundamental flaws with television and media, untalented performers, thinly-veiled pyramid schemes, and shady companies would be the LAST THING to devote significant amounts of time to. there are unbelievably bigger fish to fry in the media sea, yet i don't see them even sniff in that direction.

i don't think there's really any use to saying 'yeah okay, MTV is bad - great joke guys. real clever' because that's just being a curmudgeon.

i don't think it's quite that simple. like i said, i enjoyed the joke for a while and generally acknowledged its pertinence. in general, i feel season one was a bit more honest(could have been the newness of it though) but it really went downhill from there. the whole thing struck me as a whole lot more senselessly mean spirited towards these awkward people(cast members included) and beyond that it was really just the same flimsy television standards that they were criticizing over and over again with virtually no regard to how much they were basically telling the same joke over and over.

really for me the big difference from show to show ARE the sketches that are just deliberately awkward and, personally, i don't really care for those an awful lot because lately it just seems that the big idea behind them is that awkward people are intrinsically disgusting.

back to the other thing, though. this issue of laughing with or at people is something that has been on my mind alot lately.

I first saw this movie last year alone with one person and we both sat and laughed and just had an excellent time. It's a really, really badly made movie by a guy with a very weird, superficial way of looking at life. The acting in the film is awful and Tommy Wiseau's is absolutely wacky on top. Anyway, for a while I was thinking this is definitely one of my favourite movies because I had such an excellent time watching it and thinking about it afterwards.

So last month I went to see a screening of it in london. I'd heard the screenings were great fun and everyone went wild at them. It was true that the audience was really lively, and people got up and ran around and basically got involved in the whole thing so it was a bit of a spectacle. There was a problem though - the audience was mean. They were pointing and laughing at all the wrong things, and didn't really seem to like it for the same reasons I do. There is a character in the movie who everyone keeps insisting is beautiful, and people just kept shouting out things about how she was ugly and fat. People were saying things like retard and all this. People were too busy with their sarcasm to enjoy all the best bits, it seemed like.

Anyway I was thinking about it later and wondering if I was just one of those people except I used a word other than retard because I've got better sense and I don't think that is why I like the film. I just really enjoyed it. I don't know - that there are people like Tommy Wiseau who get to make movies and just put such a crazy mess up on screen is funny and nice and it's a great time to watch this movie. The fans might be annoying, but I don't think Tommy Wiseau is a victim here.

So, I don't know. I am at the point of trying to decide if you can laugh at these people and let them in on it at the same time. It feels right, feels like I can! but i just don't know if i can justify it to myself yet.

yeah, i really despise people that say shit like that. i don't think i would be able to sit through a movie with that kind of stuff going on.

i dunno, i have difficulty laughing at somebody who is honest. it's one thing laughing at two-faced politicians or bigots or people with profoundly fucked up priorities, but laughing at people who are honestly doing something that they care about is something that i don't usually laugh about. i find david liebe hart oddly fascinating, simply because he's a profoundly ridiculous human being, but i wouldn't call watching him a humorous experience, and i don't remember ever laughing at him. i don't know much about this movie the room, but it just seems more sad than anything else, like the guy is just calling it a dark comedy because he finally realized that it wasn't any good. it's kinda the same reason why i never found shit like plan 9 from outer space funny either. i just feel bad for the guy.

the exception to this is uwe boll, but he is an incredible person that is aware of how ridiculous he is. i laughed during the serious scenes of all of his movies, but i did laugh even harder during postal, which was his intention. i'm kinda inclined to believe that uwe boll could actually pass as a filmmaker if he totally gave up making wannabe blockbusters and just made the most ridiculous shit he possibly could. he's a pretty outrageous dude when it comes down to it, and i think his movies could at best be pretty enjoyable if he actually embraced that rather than making all these worthless game movies.

in general though, sometimes you just laugh at shit independent of whether it has some sort of intrinsic comedic value(if it's possible for something to have intrinsic creative value????). i'm sure if i looked through all my posts from the last year of this forum, i'd see myself laughing at shit that was genuinely not funny or would go against some sort of BETTER JUDGMENT that i pretend i adhere to strictly.  sometimes you just laugh even though you know better. but still, i'm not usually going to really label something funny unless i honestly believed this was the case. that's what you were asking though, so i'm going to stick with the SMART GUY ANSWER even though nobody can really LIVE IDEALS 

yeah, I've always thought that video of the young christian's hour or whatever it's called is pretty awful, I'm not sure what they thought they were doing there

also I'm not so sure james quall doesn't understand why his routine is funny

lol are you actually trying to antagonize me because i called your favorite comedians phase humor?

no. it's true that they are among my favorite comedians, but it doesn't bother me if you don't like them. I was trying to antagonize you because as I had said somewhere else in the same post, I really don't appreciate philosophies on humor. and while I knew you could come up with a post about it I doubted it would have any meaningful insight into why they are fundamentally bad (or at best phase humor) comedians. from what I've read of the rest of your posts on the matter you've done a bit more than that, and I can kind of agree with some of it. the situation with David and his songs does come across as a little mean. but I'm not ready to believe they are entirely insensitive to David himself, and that they would still include him on the show if it was bad for him or it made him unhappy. david really loves having his work on the show and as seen on nite live, was sincerely overjoyed when he saw a video of a fan performing one of his songs. I'm sure a lot of people laugh at him because they think he's an idiot and a freak but I don't think it's fair to say that's what TNE are advocating. he is a really cool guy and I'm glad awesome show introduced me to him

not sure any of this makes them bad comedians, it just potentially paints a kinda gross picture of them

I'm not really into convincing anyone that what I think about them is The Fact tho

i DO disagree about theodore, but that comes slightly from the fact that his work attempted to do things that no creative person has attempted to do for hundreds of years. you'd need to go back to the 1600s and dig through renaissance drama to find people doing black comedy like that. that's the sort of thing i appreciate, but i don't necessarily expect others to. still, outside of that, i really would be inclined to argue that his rather fiercely unique perspective of the world and comedy do give him more lasting appeal outside of a couple cheap giggles.

yeah, I mostly agree. the first part just makes him a noteworthy comedian, but the second part about being so unique a character keeps him refreshing. but in my experience, as you grow to know brother theodore he becomes less hilarious and more simply likeable and endearing

posting tim heidecker stand up
http://www.youtube.com/user/theidecker

I was trying to antagonize you because as I had said somewhere else in the same post, I really don't appreciate philosophies on humor.

why not? humor isn't some natural occurring entity with no interior explanation. there are reasons why certain things are regarded as funny, and other things are not. quality humor IS really about expression and the ability to zero in on and abstract concepts in reality. this isn't even a philosophy as much as it is a factor that underlies about how comedy works. sure the ultimate evaluation regarding how funny something is, or how funny it is at all is open to opinion, but the underlying logic and thought processes behind it are not these scientifically unknowable psychological concepts, which is what a lot of people tend to believe. don't forget that humor is a creative entity, and there are schools of thought that evaluate the worth of creative entities.

criticizing me because i evaluate humor in the same way i evaluate literature or film is pretty narrow-minded. i don't think it's an illegitimate or worthless way to perceive comedy. most people i encounter generally regard me as a funny person, and that doesn't stem solely from some subconscious process, but an effort i've made to express my thoughts in interesting and humorous ways based on what i know about how humor works. i absolutely wouldn't call myself some professional-grade comedian, or even a comedian at all since that isn't at all my intention, but it's been an effective and enjoyable method for me to interact with people and they seem to appreciate my outlook as a result. denying the possibility of evaluating comedy is just foolish. people do it and it enriches their lives. don't waste my time with this shit simply because i'm deeply interested in the subject and you wish to remain gleefully ignorant of it. there's nothing stopping you from simply continuing to scroll down the page if you aren't interested in seeing me pull back the curtain.

the situation with David and his songs does come across as a little mean. but I'm not ready to believe they are entirely insensitive to David himself, and that they would still include him on the show if it was bad for him or it made him unhappy.

that's not the question i'm asking here. my question is if they perceive hart as a legitimate collaborator, or if they are exploiting his clear mental problems for some potentially dubious comedic end. like i said earlier, what if hart had down syndrome? would you be able to reconcile that easier? hart is clearly disturbed and they have him on their show for no other reason than to parade around how disturbed he is. i don't think there's a fundamental difference there. they're making fun of someone with a form of mental incapacitation, and i think that's a rather staggeringly immature way to formulate a creative career.

not sure any of this makes them bad comedians, it just potentially paints a kinda gross picture of them

i don't think they're bad comedians, because their work is fairly unique and creative, and they do occasionally produce the inventive piece of comedy. i said they won't have a lot of lasting appeal due to how lacking in diversity and intelligence their work is. all the stuff about hart and others aside, they do beat jokes to death and reuse the same general themes to the point where any humor or meaning becomes negligible. comparing them to the three stooges would be pretty appropriate, given the similarities in shallowness and monotonous nature of their subject matter, and the only reason why the three stooges are remembered at all is because of how mind-bogglingly cheap the syndication rights are.

remember that i was comparing tim and eric to monty python, for whom i have enormous respect despite the appeal of their show wearing thin over the years. it's not like i'm comparing tim and eric to the walking black hole will ferrell here.

why not? humor isn't some natural occurring entity with no interior explanation. there are reasons why certain things are regarded as funny, and other things are not. quality humor IS really about expression and the ability to zero in on and abstract concepts in reality. this isn't even a philosophy as much as it is a factor that underlies about how comedy works. sure the ultimate evaluation regarding how funny something is, or how funny it is at all is open to opinion, but the underlying logic and thought processes behind it are not these scientifically unknowable psychological concepts, which is what a lot of people tend to believe. don't forget that humor is a creative entity, and there are schools of thought that evaluate the worth of creative entities.

criticizing me because i evaluate humor in the same way i evaluate literature or film is pretty narrow-minded. i don't think it's an illegitimate or worthless way to perceive comedy. most people i encounter generally regard me as a funny person, and that doesn't stem solely from some subconscious process, but an effort i've made to express my thoughts in interesting and humorous ways based on what i know about how humor works. i absolutely wouldn't call myself some professional-grade comedian, or even a comedian at all since that isn't at all my intention, but it's been an effective and enjoyable method for me to interact with people and they seem to appreciate my outlook as a result. denying the possibility of evaluating comedy is just foolish. people do it and it enriches their lives. don't waste my time with this shit simply because i'm deeply interested in the subject and you wish to remain gleefully ignorant of it. there's nothing stopping you from simply continuing to scroll down the page if you aren't interested in seeing me pull back the curtain.

well I could tell you wanted to talk about it!! you can't tell me you didn't enjoy stroking your ego in that last part.

and yeah, I don't care about people evaluating humor. if you're actually talking about tangible things like tim and eric's sense of morality in using david liebe hart or louis ck's use of offensiveness and shock value in his routine, that's cool I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. but it didn't really seem like that's what you were doing at first, because generally when people simplify awesome show to weirdness and stupidity they're just dismissing humor they don't get, and no valuable discussion can come from that. when people run out of tangible things to describe why they like or dislike something, they tend to try and put their gut feelings to words. when this is presented as a viable critique it's nothing but irritating to those who would disagree. this is what I'm talking about with "philosophies of humor", so you can ignore this part if you don't feel it applies to you.

like with all art is is necessary to be able to evaluate what you like and don't like and why. this is actually something I'm always trying to get other people to do (eg the_bub_from_the_pit's photography thread). and also like with all art it's important to maintain some level of ambivalence and tact, possibly even more so with humor. not everything deserves to be put down or to be cynically scrutinized. all you'll really accomplish by doing so is to annoy people you'd otherwise agree with. or in an argument you may come to realize the liberties you've been granting the humor you do like, simply because you've found no reason to rip into it. that is just an awful way to live, and it makes it difficult to really enjoy anything. every form of art has its own group of annoying cynical hypercritics. it works best with the visual arts like painting, because few people use that kind of art purely for entertainment and those who do aren't coming in contact with those kind of critiques anyway. if you've explored music on the internet much, you've no doubt come in contact with an irksome Music Fuck. a humor fuck is the only thing worse

that's not the question i'm asking here. my question is if they perceive hart as a legitimate collaborator, or if they are exploiting his clear mental problems for some potentially dubious comedic end. like i said earlier, what if hart had down syndrome? would you be able to reconcile that easier? hart is clearly disturbed and they have him on their show for no other reason than to parade around how disturbed he is. i don't think there's a fundamental difference there. they're making fun of someone with a form of mental incapacitation

are they? I thought this was a concern of yours (and mine and jamie's too), not a strong conviction. I haven't seen anyone say anything to indicate that tim and eric are without a doubt exploiting a man of poor mental heath as a freak for their audience to laugh at. does david not know why he's on the show and why his songs make people laugh when he's performing on stage? as you said at the beginning of this same quote, are they even presenting him as a freak at all, or something a lot more benign, like a cool and kind of nutty guy they like to make videos with?

are they? I thought this was a concern of yours (and mine and jamie's too), not a strong conviction. I haven't seen anyone say anything to indicate that tim and eric are without a doubt exploiting a man of poor mental heath as a freak for their audience to laugh at. does david not know why he's on the show and why his songs make people laugh when he's performing on stage? as you said at the beginning of this same quote, are they even presenting him as a freak at all, or something a lot more benign, like a cool and kind of nutty guy they like to make videos with?

I would like to assume that the motivation would be that they simply assumed people would like him on the show and would therefore want to see the things he does on that show. You can analyze how and why something is funny and enjoyable to X amount of people all you want, but in the end the actual reason as to why a person enjoys watching something can only belong to the person actually watching it. You can't very well say everyone has the same reason for liking what this person does when trying to be entertaining to them. This is where the whole issue of ambivalence shows up when trying to form some sort of objective basis when analyzing the quality of any sort of work. You can certainly analyze the issue on objective basis and maybe find commonalities people share when they form their own reasons for enjoying the thing they are watching. But that doesn't change the fact that the reasons belong to them alone, despite how many people may have that same reason in mind (consciously or unconsciously) when they find that they enjoy that same thing as well.

I'm sure Tim and Eric are smart enough to realize that with so many people enjoying the funny songs he performs on stage, that more than a few of them view this person as entertaining on a basis where they look down to him and only find him enjoyable as some unstable freak with a really awkward taste in puppetry. That doesn't mean it was their intention to present him as such in order to only appeal to and entertain the folk that view him as such, and it certainly doesn't mean they need to take responsibility for how a certain subset of people may view one of the people they are collaborating with when they present his work to them. (especially when the majority of those people most likely hold the exact same opinion of Tim and Eric themselves) They may very well may have a lot stronger feelings on the matter since they know the guy personally enough to work with him based on their own reasons to enjoy the things he does for themselves.

They probably didn't really think about it too much beyond the mere fact that there could be plenty of other people out there with reasons to enjoy watching this man, and that they should make him a part of their show just on that merit alone.