I refuse to watch this, if only for the clumsy LJ post some poor hack left a few weeks ago.
All I'm getting out of them is "creepy."
These would be funny if the people making them knew what the hell they were doing. Audio is horrible in most of them. C+ concept, F- execution.
I love how he can't keep the bike on any of the paths he rides on.
wtf?
How is it he not the one who is running for office?
am i the only one loving all the predator related posts that have been going up lately. i think i'll go watch that movie now...
Is it common knowledge that Carl Weathers lives on Whidbey Island? My grandpa taught him how to be a cattle rancher, no joke.
he was filming some advert @ canal street coffee about 5 weeks ago. it was kinda funny and he was wearing a ton of makeup, so we weren't sure if it was him at first...
it's all in the hips!
After watching these clips, and without trying to be a hater, I just don't understand what is so funny about them. In fact, a good idea for an article in The Stranger would be an investigation into New American Humor and how, for example, 80s action star + awkward exchange = funny. In fact, I would go so far as to call this present trend a sort of anti-humor, where part of being in on the joke is being in on the joke (a good example of this would be the anti-humorist Sarah Silverman). Or, it could just be that we have gotten so lazy that all we require for a laugh is a sidelong, knowing glance into the camera that lets us know when it is time to chuckle (this is also known as anti-humor's meta laugh track; e.g. Jim from The Office).
I think they're sweet. When did that become a bad thing? Not creepy, not predatory, just kind of sweet.
douglas, i'm with you
Are they supposed to be funny? I think they're just supposed to be pleasant.
Thrice on the Predator posts.
Like we need a Slog prompt to watch Carl Weathers get his arm shot off for the thousandth time. Repeat: love this film.
Well you are just posting the living shit out of Gawker network items today--without citation--now aren't you?
brad, at the heart of most (if not all) humor is some sort of shock or even discomfort. that's why pushing peoples buttons on taboo subjects has always been such a comedy mainstay. the modern humor you are describing is a sort of schadenfraude embarrassment for the comedian or show or whatever, eg, sarah silverman, or the office. but ultimately it's the same thing that lenny bruce was doing, or that george carlin did when they deliberately crossed socially acceptable boundaries. naturally jim (or tim for purists) from the office breaking the fourth wall at a cringe worthy moment is much tamer than the seven words bit, but it's still the same basic breaking of comfort for the audience. which makes it funny...sometimes.
also, very important note, side long glances into the camera aren't a modern invention. laurel and hardy used this device to great effect, as did abbott and costello and the marx brothers.
This is an ad for Credit Unions of Washington, not banks and certainly not any particular bank.
Credit Unions are not banks. Thanks for passing this along.
i guess he's got some time to kill until the arrested development movie starts production.
sincerely,
diggum
They filmed those at my office. Needless to say I spent the whole day looking out for the Predator.
@19
"Baby, you've got a stew going!"
Hell yeah rocking the Bakfiets! You know you can pick one up at dutchbikeseattle.com in Ballard.
I concur with stew remarks as well.
All I really know, is that the woman in the video on kite hill is providing a fine example for the rest of the troglodytes in this town.
Change is beautiful, indeed.
@18 Thanks for your pedantry, now move along so we can have a conversation.
Is it just me or do these ads have a slight Magical Negro feel to them. Black guy, acting mystical, dispensing wisdom to white folks... except for the last one.
Douglas,
Good points. Interesting conversation here. Withouth being overly contentious, I have to disagree with you about the comparisons to Bruce or Carlin. These pioneers were making the audience feel uncomfortable about their own shared, outdated modes of thinking, exposing racism, classism and just plain idiocy for what it was...but they were not doing it at their own expense, which is what I feel is the main difference between then and now. Back then, they were making us laugh at (and examine) our beliefs through sometimes painfully blunt routines, with the shock resulting from our recognition that they were speaking the truth. Today, we are just expected to make do with the shock; nevermind the humor (or self-examination).
As for the novelty of the side long glance, I was referring to its current use as a substitute for a laugh track. However, having spent many hours watching the early comedians you mentioned, I don't think their frustrated grimaces or eye rolls were meant for the same purpose as we are discussing here. In fact, the humor (primarily slapstick, in these cases) was clearly evident to the audience, so there was no need to prompt them in case they missed it (which today's anti-humor clearly requires).
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.