they are, in many ways similar okay, like, henry rollins, his humor doesn't depend on incongruity. it is VERY contextual, and will definitely be irrelevant in ten years, but, elements of it (just as elements of silvermans work) do have legs. seinfeld, though, not my favorite comedian, thrives not on incongruity, but the nature of accepted congruity. and there is this one comic, whos name I cannot remember he was on "jimmy kimmel live" one night when I was still in school he did deconstructionist humor, which, I do suppose has some incongruity, but it was brilliant, sadly it was over the heads of the in studio audience, but, shit man, that gave me more faith in modern comedy than anything else.
So, Star wars... have you ever thought to yourself "holy shit, what if OSHA inspected the death star?" is how my routine starts out, it is based heavily on incongruity, but I'm not a good comic (good comic and funny being separate concepts)
I don't know, I loved the guy though it was like "pause for laughs... one, two, three, tell embarrassing anecdote about my sex life, pause for laughs, one, two three"
oh. that doesn't sound as good as Neil Hamburger. why he's so good, his Michael Jackson routine was posted twice today on RT.
I thought you knew something I didn't until you said potty jokes are never good comedy. Unless that was a joke. You know what else besides going potty is good material? Club sandwiches. Jokes are not about "depth."
it was better than that, but that's the basic deconstructionist gist of the guy I saw, it was amazing.
comedy is a high art, and the lack of respect for it really saddens me, that's like saying "sculpture isnt' about depth, it's just making pretty objects"
if you remember the name, post it up. but this guy is still the best comic ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu0zuyUJlvY
If men are funnier it is only because they lack empathy or backbone in general. IE. they are fucking assholes.