Tourgasm debuts on HBO
The new HBO documentary (they insist it’s a reality show) is wildly entertaining. And it all comes down from the top. Dane Cook is ridiculously optimistic, positive and saintlike in his role as tour guide. The Tourgasm tour starts out in our beloved Burbank, where Gary Gulman, Robert Kelly and Jay Davis board the bus and head north to the Bay Area for their first show at Sonoma State.
While the venues are larger and the transportation a bit more luxurious than the vast majority of us are accustomed to, I think we can relate to nearly everything else that’s depicted in the half-hour episode. It’s full of laughs. It’s full of stupidity. It depicts comics delighting large halls filled with enthusiastic fans. It’s upbeat like hardly anything else that’s ever been centered on standup. There were moments of joy and frivolity in Seinfeld’s “The Comedian,” but it was low-key. There are occasional standup specials that attempt to capture, in taped intros, what it’s really like to be a comic, but they usually opt for the cool, detached, ironic thing or they go too far in the other direction and depart from reality altogether with wacky, zany fantasy scenarios. And then there was last year’s Comedians of Comedy Tour movie that was a downer from start to finish.
Cook is relentlessly upbeat, to reuse an overused phrase. Even the moments of tension– no doubt included to provide some sort of dramatic contrast– were quickly defused, often to great comic effect. And the editing seems to have been done by someone (hold onto your hats, people) by someone who not only understands comics and standup comedy, but actually likes standup comics and standup comedy.
Remind us again how television will kill standup.
And remind us why anyone reads Variety). (And, after reading the Variety review, please recall that it’s not paranoia if they’re actually out to get you.)
And the dusty turds who write for Hollywood Reporter said similarly sad (and embarassingly revealing) things about the show. This is a watershed moment in the Standup Comedy/Mainstream Media divide. We will watch the rest of the series and also monitor the reaction of the staid, dying MSM Entertainment Hacks.
We can only conclude that something else is bothering them. Perhaps they’re throwing a hissy/pissy fit because Cook has done the unthinkable: He’s achieved a wicked large level of fame and a measurable amount of power without the help of the Antique Media (gasp!). His skillful manipulation of the internet and his navigation of the oft treacherous entertainment waters in fairly unorthodox ways was enough to rocket him into a position usually reserved for people who were “anointed,” who were “deserving.” The hate-filled prose spun out by the Entertainment Press betrays their horror at the heretical path that Cook has taken. This oughta get interesting.
This series represents nothing short of a nightmare for the MSM.
No Responses
Reply to: Tourgasm debuts on HBO
Or not? Besides the fact that it is a blatent [and inferior] rip-off of Comedians of Comedy, it’s one of the most boring shows I have ever watched. The whole show consists of the four comics trying desperately to be entertaining enough for the camera. And even with the crying, the arguments, scooters, porn chats, and bullying poor Davis… they fail miserably. Don’t expect to see any different material from Dane or any insight into how real comedy is developed. Instead, be prepared for a show full of mediocre comedy, exaggerated drama, and very little true entertainment.
I thought the show was wildly entertaining! Dane is only beginning to unleash his masterful comedic talent. Anyone who has heard one of his cds, watched him on comedy central, noticed that he headlined the insomniac tour’s vegas show ahead of Dave Atell, or been fortunate enough to see him live knows that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Tourgasm’s first installment proved to inspire and delight the millions of people who already call themselves a Dane Cook fan! My favorite line…”this isn’t Taxgasm!” Dane is naturally the most entertaining guy in comedy. Kudos!
Here’s a nice summation of some of the larger rags/papers (which ever you choice to label them.) http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23567They vary in their views on the show, but one in particular came across as one of the most reprehensible statements I’ve read… the Washington Post said “is off-putting from the outset, largely because comedians are among the most self-absorbed and self-fascinated creatures on the planet monkeys in front of mirrors who seem never to tire of making allegedly funny faces.:Don’t get me wrong..I like making funny faces but jeez…I’m not always looking in the mirror.Darrin
For a show about four stand-up comedians, there was remarkably little stand-up comedy on this show and what little there was wasn’t very funny. I’ve been hearing about Dane Cook for a while now, so I was curious to see what all the fuss was about and I must say I was not impressed. (I was even less impressed by his costars). This is either a case of “Don’t believe the hype” or just further proof that all comedy is subjective.
Boy, I know you guys are on the conservative side, but this post reads like a caricature. I like you guys, so I don’t want to seem like I’m jumping down your throats, but “MSM”? Really? The show was incredibly boring, and the Variety review was right on. For the record, I’m not a huge Dane Cook fan, but he’s OK, and I certainly admire the way he’s marketed himself. And I was looking forward eagerly to this show. I know Gary Gulman a little bit, and he does seem to be the one guy who’s not playing incessantly to the camera. But Dane Cook is trying way too hard in this show, and his little talks with the camera about the meaning of everything, and how he’ll remember this all his life, are excruciating.But “This series represents nothing short of a nightmare for the MSM?” Come on. If anything, this series represents a nightmare for HBO. I really don’t think the “MSM” spends that much time thinking about Dane Cook, except for how to exploit his popularity by putting him in movies, hosting him on SNL and giving him an HBO show.Just because someone writes a negative review, it doesn’t make it “hateful”.
“Chris O” wrote:“Boy, I know you guys are on the conservative side, but this post reads like a caricature. I like you guys, so I don’t want to seem like I’m jumping down your throats, but “MSM”? Really? The show was incredibly boring, and the Variety review was right on.”To which we reply:We defend a comic against particularly billious reviews (and use the term “MSM” in the course of doing same) and we’re all of a sudden conservative? How exactly does that work? For the record, we’ve ripped into the so-called “alternative press” and we’ve also taken it to such non-MSM outlets as Suck.com (may they R.I.H.). We’ve also taken conservo radio host Laura Ingraham to task for making clumsy and uncomplimentary generalizations about all comics. Give us a little more credit. (Or read us a little longer or a little more frequently before jumping to such conclusions.)“Chris O” also wrote:“Just because someone writes a negative review, it doesn’t make it ‘hateful’.”To which we reply:Certainly not. But we’re not the ones who are making up the ground rules about what is hate speech and what isn’t. We remind you that Tom Shales called <>all comedians<> “monkeys.” There is legitimate criticism… and then there is bile-filled invective that is not so much criticism as it is self-indulgent pandering that is indicative of a real, deep-seated hatred of an entire group. Go back and read those reviews. Tell us that you can view them, through any political prism, and tell us that they can be reasonably be regarded as decent, reasoned analysis that isn’t tinged with some kind of personal bias.What is wrong with this picture? We defend a fellow comedian against third-rate garbage and <>we<>‘re the ones with the problem?Let’s remind ourselves again: Tom Shales called us all “monkeys.” And he said so without any qualifiers, no attempt at a joke, no shading.Put aside your personal jealousies, your aesthetic standards, any possible political or ideological differences and contemplate that for a minute.We are all, in the opinion of a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for a major American daily, <>monkeys<>.
“Saintlike”??? I’d rather be called a monkey.