Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 273
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moderators

Not buying all the "just good publicity, ain't it? He'll land on his feet" stuff.

 

Aside from the video of him telling a disapproving female in the audience she was "gagging for a rape," when was the last time a comedian with material like this got anywhere? (It's only 7 seconds long)

 

 

Jim Davidson, Chubby Brown and Bernard Manning are the exceptions, and Brown aside, found an audience on TV before they got shifted back to the clubs and piers. This type of 'comedy' isn't making a comeback any time soon. It's dwindling nightclub appearances and any student unions that'll let him play from now on. 

 

Fair enough, he got known over Vine and Twitter, and there's nothing to stop him going back to that, but if you've not got a product to sell, you're not making any money that way. Vine comics who have made money have done so with sponsored Vines for businesses and corporations, or, like Dapper did, getting shows off the back of it. No sponsorship's touching him now, and he'll have a hard time getting big venues to let him in to even use it to promote his live shows.

Edited by Astro Hollywood
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
This type of 'comedy' isn't making a comeback any time soon. It's dwindling nightclub appearances and any student unions that'll let him play from now on.

 

 

Not sure about that tbh, these are his tour dates for Feb 2015 -

 

  • 13 - Manchester Ritz
  • 14 - Newcastle O2 Academy
  • 15 - Glasgow O2 ABC
  • 17 - Liverpool O2 Academy
  • 18 - Leeds O2 Academy
  • 19 - Birmingham Institute
  • 21 - Oxford O2 Academy
  • 22 - Cardiff Students' Union Y Plas
  • 23 - Bristol O2 Academy
  • 25 - Bournemouth O2 Academy
  • 26 - Leicester O2 Academy
  • 27 - Nottingham Rock City

Dapper Laughs previously toured with the sold-out 'Proper Moist' tour, and is currently completing his 'Socially Unacceptable' London and Manchester residencies.

 

 

This is straight after he did 3 sold out nights at Gorilla in Manchester which equated to 2,100 tickets. These venues aren't that small. I've no doubt he'll fade away a lot quicker than the likes of Chubby, Davidson etc but there are plenty of 'big' bands right now (let alone comedians!) that would love to have a tour with that many dates in those rooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t help but think the best approach would’ve been to ignore him, let him have his 15 minutes & fade away. Rather than giving him oodles of free publicity & letting him become another ‘victim’ of ‘PC Culture’.

You're meant to say survivor now. Victim is like half-caste, something embarrassing that nans say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fair enough, he got known over Vine and Twitter, and there's nothing to stop him going back to that, but if you've not got a product to sell, you're not making any money that way. Vine comics who have made money have done so with sponsored Vines for businesses and corporations, or, like Dapper did, getting shows off the back of it. No sponsorship's touching him now, and he'll have a hard time getting big venues to let him in to even use it to promote his live shows.

 

 He has a show on at the Shepard's Bush Empire on the 12the December, and from what I've heard ticket sales have increased this week and it's close to selling out (that's from someone that works with him, so could be bollox)

 

It's easy for me to see "Dapper Laughs" as a character taking the piss out of "lad" culture as I've spent some time with the guy behind it. I've always thought the laughs were to be had at the characters expense, your supposed to watch his clips and think he's a twat, he's a sleeze ball.

 

Most of feedback I had on the episode was people saying I came across as nice, respectful and naturally funny, while he came across as a twat. I think that's the point.

 

The debate I've been having with myself is in relation to the influence he has on people that don't see the irony (there are a lot). I'm not sure it's his responsibly to educate people. ITV should have been the ones asking themselves if they want to give a platform to someone that may have an influence on a younger audiences or idiots. The fact they have Keith Lemon the on station suggests they didn't.

 

Richard Herring put it well last night when he said Daniel hadn't had the chance to fully develop his character and learn from his mistakes on the small club circuit like most comics do.

Some of the stuff that he put out early on, when he had just a few thousand followers hasn't featured in his act since. The difference with his mistakes is they are recorded on Vine and Twitter, where as other comics have them as crossed out lines in note pads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's similar to what happened with The Pub Landlord.  That was meant to be a joke at the expense of close-minded little Englanders, but ended up becoming adopted by that exact tribe as their mascot.  Al Murray made a career and a great deal of money out of it, but only by toning down its satirical edge and becoming a bit more warm and fuzzy.  

 

Alf Garnett too - but in both these cases I'd argue that the satirical nature of the character was a lot more obvious than Mr Laughs.  If it's meant to be a pisstake of lad culture, it hasn't worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. If it's satire that the audience aren't noticing, it's extremely bad satire. They way he stays "in character" just enforces the opinion that it isn't satire at all and is going for the Top Gear defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing strikes me as little bit of using DL as an easy target to avoid a much wider & uncomfortable discussion. Why is there seemingly a rise in misogynistic behaviour? And more importantly, why do young women believe this is acceptable? ‘Fuck that, let’s just blame Childs Play 3 & have done with it’.[/font][/size]

Yes, I had that exact same thought yesterday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He obviously doesn't take criticism very well, and responding and venting to critics via the Dapper Laughs profile was clearly a bad idea. It was his response to the slating of his Christmas album that started the snowball off.  His response to that was clearly not in character.  His originally response to articles written about him, such as the one that started this thread off was "jokes on them, I can't read".  That would have been perfect for the Dapper Laughs character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but feel this has all been blown out of proportion by those who believe their social barometer is the only acceptable one.

 

It'd be interesting to see if a thread about the institutional genital mutilation of babies in certain religions would make it to 8 pages. I certainly find it more morally repugnant than yet another comedian who oversteps the mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I can't help but feel this has all been blown out of proportion by those who believe their social barometer is the only acceptable one.

 

It'd be interesting to see if a thread about the institutional genital mutilation of babies in certain religions would make it to 8 pages. I certainly find it more morally repugnant than yet another comedian who oversteps the mark.

 

I think you're actually fairly close to the crux of the issue here and I think why it gets more outrage. The reason this is getting more attention is because it is appealing to the lowest common denominator, i.e. the thickos of society. Unfortunately, the thickos cannot distinguish satire and so instead look at Dapper as "what a top lad he's my hero". That starts to become dangerous because then the morons are roaming the streets going "alright babes, get your laughing gear round this eh" Dapper-esque stuff before getting high-fives from their equally dumb friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fair enough, he got known over Vine and Twitter, and there's nothing to stop him going back to that, but if you've not got a product to sell, you're not making any money that way. Vine comics who have made money have done so with sponsored Vines for businesses and corporations, or, like Dapper did, getting shows off the back of it. No sponsorship's touching him now, and he'll have a hard time getting big venues to let him in to even use it to promote his live shows.

 

But whilst he was on ITV2 he was on a niche (the niche being for the imbecilic) channel and a more controlled environment, doing what I can only guess is a watered down version of the awful offensive comedy you have posted there. I imagine it would have eventually just died a death; certainly there is nothing to suggest otherwise from the viewing figures. And at least if it is on mainstream TV, there is going to be some semblance of censorship. I can’t imagine he would be allowed to get away with something like the clip you have posted. He may have even lost some of his original fanbase, who might think he had sold out.

 

 

But now you have the Twitter campaigns against him, the pieces in the national news that have focussed much more attention on his work than the ITV2 show could ever have. So people like me are going to look at his uncensored work on Twitter and hopefully most will, like me, think it’s absolutely the shittest thing ever and never bother with it again...but I bet loads of people, possibly young impressionable and thick males won’t. So he may lose revenue which is good, but he’ll get many more views from idiots who think that attitude to women/blacks/homeless is hilarious which is what the whole campaign was about it in the first place surely?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or was he?

 

This just popped up on my Facebook, felt kind of related:

 

https://www.change.org/p/uk-home-office-deny-julien-blanc-a-uk-visa

 

Who is spokesperson for this lovely  lot:

 

http://www.realsocialdynamics.com/

 

"Through a program comprising online videos and in-person classes, the company has built a business model which preys on lonely desperate men, offering them the promise of female sexual attention through force when it doesn’t exist by will. The instruction and promotion of abuse and the total violation of consent is this company’s stock in trade." (Guardian)

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...