BringBackAnthonyMason
IronMikeGallego This is a pretty obvious angle to the joke, but IMG presents with a voice and phrasing that makes the joke. Contrast this to Keeps_It_Real who sees the same angle but just sort of dumps it out there. Not a terrible joke, but Keeps It Real's setup and delivery keeps it on the "meh" pile. This isn't to say that any of the commenters who regularly knock out winners are innate comedic savants - it has more to do with practice, and once they recognize the essence of the punchline, they the time to finesse a sharp way to deliver it.
A while ago, I heard a comedian on some satellite channel start to tell a joke. As soon as he started in, I recognized it as a joke I read in some joke book in middle school, and knew where it was going. As far as making me laugh though, it didn't matter one bit. I don't think silly sound effects and over-the-top theatrics (or their equivalent) are the way to go on Deadspin, but it's fair to say simply blurting out "The wrestler escaped the Russian Half Pretzel by biting his own donger!" is not nearly as funny as this construction.
TheAmazingSneijderman You're right, Steve, that is surprisingly plausible.
Sneijderman again.
SameSadEcho - Disgustingly hilarious. (Edit - that post had a lot of good jokes. Clinton Portishead, snoop-a-loop, and Greek McPapadopoulos all made me laugh with bits of varying sophistication.)
The Night Man Cometh and SteveU took similar bits of wordplay in different, equally funny directions.
MaverickIsAirborne
StuartScott'sEye
crazyjoedavola didn't make a flotation or blowjob pun based on "Bob." Good for him.
sweatingmullets Bodysnarking is A-Ok with me.
Bad:
This junk.
Um, ok.
Yes, you did. This is an answer to the rhetorical question posed by this commenter.
This moron in pink - This unapproved comment in the Tebow Injury post consisted of a picture of Emperor Palpatine, containing the text "Let the hate flow through you" accompanied by "This message was approved by me." This comment, which thankfully was not approved, sucks*. First, it misconstrues the point of the article. Whether intentionally or not, it confuses Barry Petchesky's legitimate, objective observations about Tebow's injury-inviting style of play with "hating." Next, the commenter rejects intelligently or humorously rebutting the points Barry made. Instead, the commenter posts a simplistic, antagonistic, and vague picture that he copy/pasted from the internet. What is this dipshit actually saying?
Let's apply some ENG 301: Symbolism in Literature type analysis to the symbolism of the picture - it's possible that the commenter is a Tebow fan, and is using the juxtaposition of the picture with the article to align the concept of "hating" Tebow with the evil embodied and approved by Emperor Palpatine, and encouraging Barry to further surrender to his irrational disapproval of Tebow, a surrender which will lead to his ultimate demise.The picture can also be read to convey a completely different message, that the commenter, who is either unconcerned with aligning himself with evil (or thinks he's a badass by rooting for the badguys) dislikes Tebow too, and is hoping that Barry will continue to draw from his supposed well of antagonism to further undermine Tebow's accomplishments. Yay. 3 credits.
Analyzing that post is a waste of time; it's like asking "what deep message was that 2-year old trying to convey by throwing his food on the floor?" I doubt that the commenter was saying anything about anything. It's more likely that the commenter read the article and said "Hey, this fool's hatin' on Tebow. I'm going to call that hater out on that shit. Star Wars."
*A picture is worth a thousand words, supposedly. A funny image macro can convey a feeling or a reaction beyond words, I guess, but usually work the other way and oversimplify a complex, nuanced response into something that misses the point. They're cheap, dumb and lazy.
Ok, it's 5-ish, and I have a thing at that place.
No comments:
Post a Comment