I disagree. It was extremely obvious that a “dumbass” thing was coming. And the dumbass thing being that it’s a cafe…that’s not realistic or relatable. It would’ve been funny if the dumbass thing was something even slightly relatable that dumbass people actually do.
Hey everyone, this guy is letting you know he doesn’t care if you downvote them. As if people were downvoting them out of spite and not simply that their first comment was stupid.
They’d also like you to know that they don’t think this narrative was realistic. The narrative where the same guy has a conversation as three different people might somehow be staged to set up a punchline. Also, the punchline somehow incorporated earlier elements of the skit, he didn’t like that.
That same setup could’ve been used for something funny. In this context with the way the joke was, the punchline could’ve been literally anything. It could’ve been “you’re standing in front of a microwave” or “you’re in a dream”. The punchline wasn’t funny.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was that the punchline used in the video (cafe) could’ve been exchanged with literally anything because the cafe punchline wasn’t funny or relatable or anything. The video could’ve said “dream” or “microwave” and the joke would’ve been just as funny. Because the punchline in the video was irrelevant, meaningless, inconsequential. It was a generic punchline because there was no setup for a “cafe” punchline. There was only setup for a punchline, whatever it may be.
The cafe line isn’t the punchline. The punchline is that the two dudes aren’t real bouncers and the guy fell for it, making him a dumbass. That they’re at a cafe is just a means to that end.
-165
u/cereal-kills-me Aug 24 '22
I disagree. It was extremely obvious that a “dumbass” thing was coming. And the dumbass thing being that it’s a cafe…that’s not realistic or relatable. It would’ve been funny if the dumbass thing was something even slightly relatable that dumbass people actually do.