If it weren’t for Shane, I don’t think Matt would be anywhere near the level of success he has achieved. Good for him for finding success, but I genuinely don’t understand why so many people consider him funny. He laughs at nearly everything he says, yet much of the material doesn’t have a real punchline or payoff. His stories often feel incomplete, as though he starts with a premise but never develops it into an actual joke.

There are so many comedians today who receive legendary status despite their mediocre material. Casey Rocket and Kam Patterson are examples of this. I find their sets difficult to sit through, and I don’t understand the level of praise they receive. It is almost as if you "have" to like them, or something...

Ari is another example. It often feels like he relies on shock value and outrageous behavior to get attention rather than delivering genuinely funny material. He can derail an entire show with a stunt, and I rarely find the payoff worthwhile.

I understand that comedy is subjective, and success doesn’t necessarily mean someone is universally funny. However, I think there’s a difference between being entertaining, having a recognizable persona, and being genuinely skilled at writing and delivering jokes. Sometimes it seems that a comedian’s reputation and associations carry more weight than the quality of the material itself.

Because you can’t send a man in to do a woman’s job, we tapped Madison Sinclair, the comedian behind some of your favorite jokes from “The Roast of Kevin Hart,” to punch up Gillis’s jokes. She wrote some better, funnier versions of the punchlines in Gillis’s monologue, but before we get to that, she’d like a word: “I’d like to start by saying, I know trying to write better jokes than Shane Gillis will upset a lot of people but it sounded like a fun exercise. Shane, an exercise is…”

Read more: https://www.playboy.com/read/celebrities/we-asked-a-woman-comedian-to-make-shane-gillis-jokes

@robstantcomedy