I feel like there was a time, not too long ago, when Ricky Gervais was generally regarded as a great comedic talent who helped to usher in a New Era of better and smarter and more uncomfortable comedy, and everybody liked him and he was very good and nobody really questioned it that much. But then I guess he read God Is Not Great, and now everything he says is unbearable? What happened? Give me back my Ricky Gervais! “And give me back my Atheist Comedian title!” – David Cross. What’s even more unfortunate is that it looks like his new unbearable persona has leaked, from things that would be unbearable by themselves into things that would otherwise be fun and exciting. From Ricky Gervais’ blog:

I’ve had one of my big ideas. A live 3 hour podcast during The Golden Globes. Me and a few chums (like Louis CK, Chris Rock, Karl Pilkington, John Stewart, Larry David popping in and out) doing our own alternative commentary.

People at home can have the telly on with the sound down listening to us online say things that no broadcaster could get away with.

No one could do a fucking thing.

The biggest live webcast ever? Who knows? Who cares? What’s fun is the shit we might come out with. No money. No sponsor. No guide lines. Fuck me I can’t wait.

OH MY GOODNESS. First of all, does Ricky Gervais believe he’s the first comedian to have ever decided to do a “tell it like it is” Golden Globes live-blog? Every single person, let alone COMEDIAN, all over the world live-blogs basically every single TV “event,” and it’s never for money and it’s never censored and there are never any guide lines and no one ever can do a fucking thing about it, unfortunately.

Second, THE BIGGEST LIVE WEBCAST EVER? Followed by, “Who knows? Who cares?” As if the fact that he isn’t really thinking about whether or not it will be THE BIGGEST LIVE WEBCAST EVER is something to be regarded as passionate and rebellious or, I don’t know, a rejection of some sort of “mainstream media” way of perceiving how well your live-blog PODCAST does? While still suggesting that it COULD PERHAPS BE the biggest live webcast ever? And then saying that what’s fun is “the shit we might come out with,” like it says in all mass Facebook invites to college improv troupe performances? RICKY. GET IT TOGETHER. Of course that’s what the fun of it is! This is not a new idea! This is a very well-worn idea, as a matter of fact! And no one is going to be mad at you after it is finished, I’m sorry to say! “We get it.”

And finally, this idea sounds great. (Via Splitsider.)

Comments (50)
  1. Kelly, I like you, but you need to back off of my man Ricky.

    He’s talking about doing a live podcast wherein Louis CK, Chris Rock, Karl Pilkington, John Stewart, and Larry David make fun of the most insufferable group of shits on Earth on their most insufferable night. I am so on board with this.

    • It sounds great, but he is sounding equally as insufferable.

      • Is this a bid to turn Ricky into your Gwyneth? Because I just don’t see what’s so insufferable about any of it. He’s kinda just announcing a thing he plans to do, and doing so in a tongue in cheek manner.

        • True story: Ricky Gervais almost hit a pedestrian while dragging his comedy crucifix down Broadway on 9/11.

        • You know that chick that’s CONSTANTLY talking about God and how she’s a Christian and how everyone else is going to hell and should live like her? That’s Ricky Gervais.

          For the record, I don’t believe in God either, but people like Gervais/Dawkins/Hitchens etc. make us all look like condescending pricks.

          • But he didn’t say anything about God! The atheist pic is from a photo shoot that I will admit was somewhat obnoxious, but only appears here because Kelly put it there.

            Also, I’m glad that there are outspoken atheists in the world. They try and promote rational discussion where religion obscures it, and we could use a whole lot more rational discussion these days.

          • I will start by saying that I agree with the fact that it is annoying/condescending the manner in which some people act.

            However I will add that despite that, I am also on board with these people existing simply because I feel they offset what is unquestionably a minority in public spaces. When also I live in an environment that is unquestionably becoming more and more celebrity-idolization-centric.

            The reason the “Christian chick” is annoying is because for some of us (who are not Christians and growing up in a culture that is predominately Christian) hearing about Christianity is very very passé. Cool! Jesus? Yes. I heard of him.

          • “Growing up” Yikes. I am definitely at an age where I can’t say that I’m still growing up. My kids would be very disappoint.

          • I don’t think religion “obscures” rational discussion, R2D2? I think that’s taking an incredibly simplistic view of religion, and I also feel like being anti-religion is like being anti-art or anti-philosophy. You don’t have to approve of what the Dadas believe but to shit on Picasso as well is really silly and reductive, and the fact that Gervais constantly brings up his antitheism where it isn’t warranted or wanted means to me he’s someone to tune out.

            Atheists are not an oppressed minority, either! A minority, maybe, but not oppressed. Ricky Gervais doesn’t have to drink at the designated atheist water fountain.

          • But of course it does. All religions, somewhere in there, fall back on an idea of what God/gods/etc want. As soon as that gets interjected into a discussion, it becomes tainted because the individual’s faith is in play. And believe whatever else you like, but if someone’s faith in the supernatural is a part of the equation, you’re no longer having a rational discussion.

          • It’s ridiculous to say a religious person can’t engage in rational discussion, if for no other reason than that atheism is a theological position. It’s influenced by a certain understanding of material evidence, philosophy, and faith. You’re arguing, essentially, that rational discussion is necessarily impossible.

          • But I didn’t say religious people can’t have rational discussions. What I said was that religion is irrational because it’s based on faith as opposed to an examination of evidence. Believing, for example, that Christ is the son of God and all that goes with it is not a rational position. Therefore, if one’s argument eventually falls back on believing in Christ and the Bible (as is very often the case in our public discussions) then their rationale is faith based rather than rational and based on evidence.

            Plus, atheism is only a theological position if you assume that the burden is on the nonbeliever to demonstrate the nonexistence of God, which strikes me as absurd. An atheist is only saying that you can’t show me God, so there’s no reason for me to credit him with creation. Is it a theological position to say there are no vampires, or do we say that the person who claims they exist is the one who’s taking the position?

          • @Ignition remix – If you think atheists are not an oppressed minority, I would like you to visit the south sometime. I’ve received literal death threats to my face for my lack of religion. I think “threatening to make dead” is a form of “oppressing.” I’ve since migrated to more northern regions of the world, but the oppression is still there and often just as prevalent.

            And R2D2, I wouldn’t agree necessarily that religion ON ITS OWN obscures rational discussion, but I would argue that faith does. Faith as a virtue, at least. If you have faith, you’re trusting in something despite any rational argument. Like, having faith in a loved one being there for you is necessary in a relationship, and for some people faith that there is life after death helps cope with a fear of death. It brings peace to a lot of people. But it’s not a virtue. Skepticism is a virtue. Skepticism is a tool that can and will prevent you from being fucked over. Faith is taking a shot in the dark. And rational discussion is not based on just taking a chance.

          • @R2D2 First, some of the tenets of Christianity (since that’s the religion we’ve ended up discussing) are beyond the scope of empiricism. They are unprovable. But that does not mean they are irrational beliefs, only that they are immaterial. For instance, the Christian belief in the existence of the soul is rational based on a long history of hardy philosophy, but is immaterial because souls are immaterial.

            Second, atheism is indeed a theological position, and necessarily so. It is a positive statement, which plainly stated is “there is no god” (a much stronger assertion than the frankly more appealing but much derided agnostic declaration, “we cannot know if there is a god”). To say you are an atheist is to make a firm, declarative statement about the existence or nonexistence of a god. It is theological because it regards knowledge of god.

            Third, no, it is not a theological position to say there are no vampires. There is no “theos” in that position. Therefore no theology.

          • Oh god, I just have to say that I love that the adbot and her older adbot boyfriend loves reading internet discussions about religion. Never change, you wacky kids.

        • I think the most insufferable bit of it is the level of self-satisfaction he brings to everything he does. He’s becoming the guy who keeps finding ways to mention he doesn’t have a TV because he likes the status of being “that guy,” but who doesn’t think through why he’s made a decision. Gervais seems to be more interested in being known as a comedian than being a comedian. Or, on the other issue, he’s more interested in being known as an atheist than thinking deeply about why he holds his particular worldview. It’s shallow and self-serving, and while it’s something lots of us struggle with, it’s super annoying when he trumpets it.

      • Don’t do this, Kelly. Listen to your friend R2D2, Esq. He’s a cool dude. He’s trying to help you out.

      • 27 thumbs up for Ricky Gervais is becoming insufferable? Like my friend said to me the other day when I said the last Wilco album wasn’t that great, I think he’s earned a bit of a pass after giving us so much great material. This podcast of his sounds like the first reason to watch the Golden Globes ever, and we’re complaining? “There’s so many things to complain about!” – white people

    • R2D2, Esq., I like you, but you need to back off my girl Kelly.

      She’s talking about the way he’s promoting what she calls “a great idea” not the podcast itself. The podcast would be awesome, Gervais could tone himself down a notch or two.

    • I’m putting money on the fact that none of those guys will be there and that Ricky Gervais just makes puppets of them and does their voices

    • “The most insufferable group of shits on Earth”.

      WHICH he is a part of.

    • I LOVE this idea, too, but for the other comics, not Ricky. I find Gervais insufferable in general. That voice! that laugh! If he’s not on ‘The office’, stay away.

  2. As long as there aren’t too many instances of the screechy Ricky laugh, I’m probably there.

  3. Don’t tell me something (won’t be) is great. Let me decide for myself. – Karl Pilkington, re: The Great Pyramids (Ricky Gervais’ idea)

  4. So they finally just gave up and made the Golden Globes and the Oscars the same thing?

  5. Ok, I’ll listen to his thing. Anything to make him put his shirt back on.

  6. I like Ricky Gervais, I really do. My problem with him, however, is the way he insists on being “in your face” all the damn time. It’s annoying. “ATHEIST! COMEDIAN! I’M OFFENSIVE! CELEBRITIES ARE DUMB! BOLLOCKS LORRY ETC.!” I think if he were to just to his comedy shows and his podcasts and all that stuff, it’d be fine, but his insistance on furthering some social agenda just comes off as annoying. Yeah, get all your friends together, but do you have to make a huge deal of it?

    • That is pretty much how I think, with the addition that his current in-your-faciveness reminds me of 14 year old me, and for the record, 14 year old me was a dick.

  7. Ricky Gervais, comedy genius, has just invented Mystery Science Theater 3000.

  8. I’ll be listening to the Oscars with the sound off anyway if Eddie Murphy is hosting. Or get out of the house and go bowling. Oh, this is the Golden Globes? Well, maybe I’ll do some Wii bowling that night. I’m getting really good.

  9. You know what guys? I’m having HEAVY mixed feelings about this.

    I mean, yeah, he’s behaving like the living worst lately, but he’s the person who came up with The Office and Extras, so maybe he can get a pass for like, a year?

    Also, I’m kinda getting the vibe that he’s not even an actual atheist, he’s just looking for creative ways to pose shirtless in photoshoots and them not having to be for US Weekly? (Ricky Gervais New Bikini Body!). So this is basically a really elaborate and silly mid life crisis, OR SOMETHING.

    BUT! The photos are kinda hot (sorry!) and he’s becoming the biggest AILF* in my list.

    This is weird, my braing goes somewhere, and my no-no places take another direction!

  10. i don’t think it’s such a big deal that he’s an outspoken atheist.

    • You don’t think it’s a big deal that he’s leading children directly into the hands of Satan? What the fuck is the matter with you, psycho!!??

      Haha, just kidding.

  11. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

  12. I like you videogum, really i do, but if in real life, every single word you say would be over analyzed that way, it would be hell.
    In gervais’s post where some might see pretention or i don’t know what, i just see enthusiasm.
    (Sorry for my english, i’m just trying)

  13. Ricky does sound like a giddy child here but he’s a comedian, most people who give their own ‘comic’ opinions during an event like this aren’t exactly worth listening to. Sounds like you just don’t like the guy.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.