A Very Special Episode: The Intervention of Josh

[Chris_fromtheBX]

 I walk away from this thread only to come back  to find it embroiled in controversy.

Tomato. Potato. You either liked it or hated it.  And that's cool however you choose view it. That's a democracy at work.
But if this goes into a fifth page,  I would liken it to watching Popeye  lower his sailor pants and with the big battleships and anchors on his big baboon like arms and  jerk off while scatting.
Skiddely didy do dum boddy biddy bitten...BO..well shiver me timbers ugh gug ugh gug gug gug..ARR..
ARR..ARRH!!!
I loves me Olive.

[Justice]

Wow. I missed a lot. Since I was involved in the program I figured I'd throw in my two bits.

The first thing I've got to laugh about is the comment on the "buddy-buddy" nature of this show. Personally, I have never met Other Rob, Meg, Josh, or Zeke. I've also had limited exposure to Luke and David in real life. So to say that we sounded like a bunch of "Gen Con Friends" might be on par for the rest of the group, but I don't fit into that statement at all. So, I laughed at that "complaint".

"Complaint" because I don't see whats wrong with listening to people who sound like friends. We didn't make any inside jokes and there wasn't anything that "you had to be there for" in that episode. If it was, I wouldn't have got the jokes because I surely wasn't there.

Now, I'll chime in with what I thought of the episode. By itself I would say that it was alright, I'd get it a "meh" at best. Nothing really jumped out at me as HILARIOUS, but there were a couple pretty funny bits. As an experience, I had a blast recording it. I walked away thinking, "I don't think this is a general audience show... but something for avid podcast listeners and other podcasters." It felt kinda like a musical super-group. Sure, George Harrison, Jeff Lynne, Roy Orbison, Tom Petty and Bob Dylan don't sound as GREAT as they did alone but you bought into it for the fact that it was merely good and you'd get to see work done by George Harrison, Jeff Lynne, Roy Orbison, Tom Petty and Bob Dylan TOGETHER.

Of course, I'm terribly bias on the whole thing.

[adam]

Should I point out that I think one of the limitations/problems with the joke is that I think we all felt uncomfortable with each other?

Eh, don't like it don't download it.  I liked doing it and will in the future.  Hopefully, it'll be funnier next time.

[Talen Lee]

"Complaint" because I don't see whats wrong with listening to people who sound like friends. We didn't make any inside jokes and there wasn't anything that "you had to be there for" in that episode. If it was, I wouldn't have got the jokes because I surely wasn't there.

The complaint is because I found the whole tone of the piece unfunny, and figured that there was some in-joke at work that I was missing.

Assuming that there is in fact, none of this, then I'm just going to go with it being a badly delivered joke.

Eh, don't like it don't download it. 

That's a pretty ridiculous assessment. How can I know I won't like it until I've listened to it?

[Justice]

Assuming that there is in fact, none of this, then I'm just going to go with it being a badly delivered joke.

The joke was delivered just fine, just because you didn't laugh didn't mean there was anything wrong with the joke. For example, I don't laugh at Will Ferrel but that doesn't mean he's a bad comedian. Its just not the type of joke I find funny.

[Talen Lee]

The problem with comedy is unlike most other art forms, those who do it well do it in such a way as to convince people it's easy. You don't listen to an Aria and go I could do that, because I sing in the shower. Therefore, you hit this unfortunate point where amongst amateurs and the unskilled, there's a pervading attitude that anything that determines quality is really just determining flavour. I think this was badly done comedy. You can say it's just not something I liked, which is only true once you remove the 'just.'

[Justice]

The problem with comedy is unlike most other art forms, those who do it well do it in such a way as to convince people it's easy.

Again, I think your wrong. I have never once seen good comedy and thought, "So easy a caveman could do it!"

My general approach to comedy is that I'm myself. I don't actually try to be funny. For example, with this project I just had fun. Some people will find that funny and laugh, others won't because they are douchebags with no taste.

I think this was badly done comedy. You can say it's just not something I liked, which is only true once you remove the 'just.'

For once you're saying something that I would agree with, except you go on with semantics that are irrelevant. You're either attempting humor yourself or attempting to make yourself sound more intelligent. The word 'just' has a few different meanings. For example, when I said "Its just not the type of joke I find funny." I was using the version of 'just' meaning precisely or exactly. As in "Its exactly not the type of joke I find funny."

What meaning am I to loose when you remove 'just' from your sentence? Oh wait, it doesn't matter. Because no matter what meaning your implying for that phrase the bottom line is that the only constructive thing you've had to say is "I don't like it" flowered with the same self-aggrandizing fluff you accused us of.

Now, I don't want you to respond to this. I want you to quietly take your ball and go home because you're ruining the game for everyone else by being a poor sport. But, when you inevitably do respond to this try to do a couple things different. First, try to speak plainly. Stop flowering your statements with worthless trivialities. Second, try to say something that could we could actually take to heart to help improve future endeavors. Seriously, you seem like a fairly smart person who could actually help improve the quality of our next attempt at this but your wasting your energy on meaningless ego boosting, pointless assumption, and general dickery.

[Talen Lee]

I think your wrong.

While I don't think I necessarily know more about great Comedy than you do, I think Johnny Carson, Groucho Marx, Michael Gudeaux and Penn Jilette are more informed about it than either of us, so I trust them on this matter.

semantics that are irrelevant

They're as irrelevant as you let them be. When you use 'just' to preface something, you devalue it.

And if you can't take anything of what I've said in this thread to heart at all then I don't really think there'd be any point my dumbing it down further. I've yet to see anyone post saying: I liked this podcast until I saw Talen didn't like it, so now it sucks. I'm not ruining anything for anyone, unless you need a thread of vomited sunshine into your ear to make you feel better about a podcast you did which was supposedly ground-breaking, revolutionary and all that ballyhoo. You take the high ground and accuse me of dickery, which is a pretty understandable maneuver when you don't actually have anything substantial to offer in opposition. You accuse me of obfuscation then use an imprecise word like 'just' and claim that the interpretation that the word has (which is not uncommon) is wrong, therefore you weren't being a dick - which would be obfuscation.

I have covered my objections to this podcast many times over in this thread, I've noted I shouldn't have said it the way I said it the second time, and now you're telling me my opinion doesn't matter because other people did like it? because I'm ruining things for them? Oh boo hoo. For a guy who's standing up for Josh's right to be a dick, you're awfully quick to launch to the offensive against someone who has done something as horrible as not enjoy your work. Oh horrors.

You are dealing with what is supposed to be a groundbreaking piece of podcastery, according to Josh. How in the world am I supposed to know whether or not I like it, until I've downloaded it? There's no review, no label. It's up on a podcast I listen to and occasionally enjoy, and comes with their involvement, I'm taking a wild guess that it might be related or similar in some way, effectively roping me in to listen to it. So no, the solution is not to simply 'not download it', because that means I'd first have to be prescient and determine that I wasn't going to like it ahead of time without any clear markers (maybe I should have gone to all the other podcasts, listened to them, then decided whether or not I'd download this special podcast? But what if I didn't like those? Should I just not download them, now, too?), unlike the drunk episode. Secondly, given that it's partly a podcast that I may have mentioned having some desire to help out in the past, I think keeping my mouth shut wholesale about everything possibly negative is just closed-minded echo-chamber behaviour.

Finally, you seize upon my mode of communication to attack, as though my vocabulary and poise is made out of some ridiculous sense of 'feeling intelligent,' and 'self-aggrandizing.' Dude, how important do you think this place is? How big a deal, the world of podcasting! Whoah! Oh my god, free gaming podcasts, that's... so huge. I wrote self-aggrandizing fluff for the second-biggest Magic site on the net and actually got paid for it, why in the world do you think that a free forum for a free podcast has to be about self-aggrandizement? Do you think I come here to feel better than the people around me? Why the fuck would I bother doing that? I could set my sites really low and get a much bigger ego boost.

So, you disregard criticism, you ask of the listener psychic abilities, you don't want feedback and you attack the method of communication. And I'm the one wasting my energy on meaningless ego boosting, pointless assumption, and general dickery?

I remain stalwartly unimpressed.

[TheChrisWaits]

While I don't think I necessarily know more about great Comedy than you do, I think Johnny Carson, Groucho Marx, Michael Gudeaux and Penn Jilette are more informed about it than either of us, so I trust them on this matter.

And I don't think any of them are funny. People can vary wildly when it comes to what entertains them.

[Justice]

I think your wrong.

While I don't think I necessarily know more about great Comedy than you do, I think Johnny Carson, Groucho Marx, Michael Gudeaux and Penn Jilette are more informed about it than either of us, so I trust them on this matter.

Wow. Way to lock in on one thing I said and run with it. I thought you were wrong about people thinking comedy is easy. Read the whole statement before being a dick.

semantics that are irrelevant

blah blah blah blah[/quote]

First, Calm down.

Second, I've made my point now. Its not fun when people come around and bash your work by using strawman arguments and various levels of obfuscation, is it? Maybe, just maybe, that is how you were making the rest of the hosts feel.

I'm done here. Adios people.

[Talen Lee]

So your incredible argument was 'HAH! I was being a dick ALL ALONG and you FELL FOR IT!'

... more fool me, yeah, I totally believed you.

[Talen Lee]

While I don't think I necessarily know more about great Comedy than you do, I think Johnny Carson, Groucho Marx, Michael Gudeaux and Penn Jilette are more informed about it than either of us, so I trust them on this matter.

And I don't think any of them are funny. People can vary wildly when it comes to what entertains them.

Oh, and Mark Twain, too.

Though I now have to ask, what do you find funny?

[Meg]

Wow spiral.

I'd really like this thread to be constructive and the attention turn towards ideas for future projects or new people weighing in with their opinion about the show.  Talon, you've made your point clear and we'll both agree that you've weighed in sufficiently about the actual show.  I'd still like to hear ideas from you and from everyone about what other type of project a group of podcasters from different podcasts could do that you all would find entertaining.

[Talen Lee]

Entertaining is tricky to say. I mean, I take any group project as a chance for the group to show both the best of themselves (to encourage people to listen to their work) and to do something as a group they could not do separately (like Voltron). As it is, I don't think that that kind of group activity is going to happen.

I'm remembering the Four Horseman sessions, where Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens sat down and chewed the fat on various topics, with a handful of questions to discuss. It got some interesting topics out - such as Hitchens' pro-war stance and how the others felt about it, or how Hitchens felt the conflict between religion and atheism was a fundamental one that would never go away or be resolved, one way or another, and, perhaps shamefully on his part, he preferred the idea of an eternal opposition who was (to him) so ridiculous. This showed a bit of the character of Hitchens and in turn, could colour people interested in seeing more about what he has to say on... well, anything. I know I took that mark of pettiness in his character and read his books with an eye towards that.

But that's four prominent intellectuals on a heady mater. This is fun-based entertainment. This is very tricky to do, because you guys sitting around and playing Truth or Dare with one another might be entertaining but it might be a gigantic flop. I can imagine it being interesting, but I can also imagine it being unsatisfying: Josh*'s desire to be the center of attention makes it hard enough to get the gems that two other podcasters can offer, can you imagine him as the elephant in the room amongst five or six?

You had two good things with this podcast, two things I think you should even try to do for BGO normally. The first is the sequential nature of things. The second, and connected thing is there wasn't crosstalk in a lot of it. I know that's because it's all recorded separately, and because of skype. That's still a good thing, and to be embraced.

You guys like Arrested Development, yes? Well, Arrested Development was an amazingly disciplined comedy show. While it layered slapstick style humour (Tobias being hit by a car), it would then compliment it with dark humour (Lindsay's callous disregard for same), and then later, back-reference it (with talk from Zuckercorn about a car accident). You can see this in Scrubs, too, where a name is made up for a joke (Dr. Mickhead) which then is used in all seriousness later in the episode, making it 'real'. This is that verisimillitude thing which I've mentioned you should totally be doing a bloody podcast about. This layering of jokes is dense writing and it's bloody difficult to do - my own writing in a similar vein instead tends to be very, very 'cute', with a lot of jokes that mostly only are accessed by a tiny portion of the population who read it. This can either lead to an easter-egg moment, where one of those reader glimpses it**, or it can much more often, lead to a reader going: Wait, what?

So. You have a diverse group of podcasters. You have gamers. You have roleplayers. You could try something layered, dense and sitcommy, which, if it's pre-scripted I massively recommend. You could try doing, as ridiculous as this may sound, an IC radio drama. This would be character-driven, and could allow for the interesting metacommentary of characters breaking character to speak, as it were, 'as the players.' Or you could just do a bunch of guys sitting around jawing about some incredibly precise but universal thing.

Think that's all I got***.

* I speak in this context of the persona of Josh that is assumed. I know nothing of the Real Josh, I believe.

** The best easter eggs are the ones that everyone notices, and then thinks nobody else notices. It gives people a sense of satisfaction and specialness.

*** And, superfluously, it's Talen

[Meg]

Ug, I know it's Talen- I was just typing too fast and didn't think.  Sorry.

Those are great ideas.  Lots to digest there.  The "mega-mega-man of podcasting"... has a nice ring.

I am totally on board with the opinion that Arrested Development is some of the most complex, brilliant comedy ever.  I think Venture Brothers is up there too.  The call backs are subtle but definitely noticable and the whole thing is planned extraordinarily well.

That's where I get a bit nervous though in even aiming for that level- it's a totally different beast.  Those are scripted, written shows.  Podcasting is much more akin to improve.  It is incredibly difficult to spontaneously come up with humor on that level.

[Josh]

I can imagine it being interesting, but I can also imagine it being unsatisfying: Josh*'s desire to be the center of attention makes it hard enough to get the gems that two other podcasters can offer, can you imagine him as the elephant in the room amongst five or six?

Why do you think this is true?

[Talen Lee]

Can you phrase your question in the form of a question?

[Talen Lee]

I am totally on board with the opinion that Arrested Development is some of the most complex, brilliant comedy ever.  I think Venture Brothers is up there too.  The call backs are subtle but definitely noticable and the whole thing is planned extraordinarily well.

That's where I get a bit nervous though in even aiming for that level- it's a totally different beast.  Those are scripted, written shows.  Podcasting is much more akin to improve.  It is incredibly difficult to spontaneously come up with humor on that level.

Was this not scripted comedy?

If you want advice for making podcasts better at jokes I'm going to suggest you work harder on telling jokes in general. Antecedent into punchline, delivery, pacing... this is all pretty simple, classic stuff. But a collaborative project, with collaborative writing is actually pretty easy to layer if you've got a bossy editor-type who's good at sorting things out in the proper order. And you know, Meg, I think you can be that bossy editor-type. The power of christmas has been inside you all along.

[Meg]

I'm very good at editing- I spend most of my day job doing that.  The point I'm trying to make is that you aren't comparing apples to apples.  Podcasts aren't written.  They aren't scripted.  There is no group of writers nor editors.  Writing not only takes that side but then actors as well and none of us are either.

[Talen Lee]

As a collaborative project, write it. You have a team of people, put 'em to use. Podcasting is, in my opinion, no different to writing articles or blog posting, it's just a different medium. Consider using a flowchart to direct things? It's entirely possible to do a scripted-but-impro piece.