Jump to content
Welcome to the new Earwolf Forums! Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
admin

Episode 9.2 — Time Crunch: Day 2

Recommended Posts

I don't know if it was fair to call LHR's sketch a Borat riff, because while it had references to the character, for me it was about someone's passion project aging to a sad stub when they finally finish it. About desperation. Also, even if they pulled the sketch out of the files an recorded it anew, like Dave Anthony claimed they did, I don't know if that's the worst thing. From what I gather, almost every podcast which relies on guests seems to have a backlog. (But I guess such was not the warrior's call of the "challenge"!)

EDIT: I must be the change I want to see in the world, like a Gahndi who just consumes and consumes entertainment. I'll subscribe to Left Handed if I so oppose this!

EDIT 2: Actually, seeing as how their sketch was about people working very hard for a long time towards a worthless goal, maybe its much more about Galifinakis "cancelling" on them then it seems on the surface...

Share this post


Link to post

@ Max
.
"Also, based on the rumors in the comments, I tried to listen to Walking the Room to find out who got cut. Literally couldn't get through it. A bunch of guys I've never heard of saying 'fuck' a lot and complaining about the zoo? Riveting stuff! "
.
I went ahead and did the same. Fucking nonsense. I tried to listen to the thing but after about 20 minutes I just fast-forwarded to the earwolf discussion. I can't make out exactly what he said, but it's to the effect of, they voted off one of the teams (they haven't revealed which) that wasn't totally laime- then they told them why and gave them criticism. Then... according to the story on Walking the Room, the losing podcast REJECTED the criticism, and told them they were full of shit. Then after they had already voted them off the losers name-dropped someone (possibly Paul F Thompins- they were mumbling a lot and talking over each other.... It REALLY is a very poorly done podcast... bad audio quality too... I could hear a hissssssssss sound the whole time.) who made the judge totally regret the decision and now he vows to promote the show he voted against. Not much integrity with these Walking the Room guys. This will be funny to hear tomorrow tho...
.
I'm about to head over to iTunes and trash Walking the Room in a review... They're not the only ones capable of trashing a podcast. 1 star baby!
.
Reading thru this, with the exception of Chester (likely a virgin if he thought TL was 'compelling'), everyone seems to agree that this week had the worst judging yet- and it's not even judgment day!
.
Whether or not this weeks challenge was poorly conceived on Scott's part, or poorly executed on Matt's part, there are some legit concerns brought up.
.
@robstraws said it best with -
.
"On yesterdays show Besser mentioned that LHR deserved to have a kind of handicap because of their format but on today's show that seemed to be thrown out the window."
.
I guess he just completely forgot he'd said that? The guest judges 'probably' should have been privy to that tid-bit of info before they threw LHR under the bus.
.
@ Brendan H
.
"Ok, I didn't really agree with the judges this week. Totally Laime was the least funny for me. I don't care that it was an "honest conversation" like the judges said, I just didn't like the conversation. It's one of those conversations that people always seem to have that's really only interesting if you know the people involved. It always comes off as shallow to me, maybe even a little self-important."
.
'Shallow' is putting it nicely. If I wanted to hear a discussion about guy's dicks and tramp stamps I I'd go hang out with some strippers and at least get some eye-candy. This inane chatter is simply grueling. I imagine hell as being made to listen to totally laime radio non-stop. There are a lot of podcasts that suffer from this same problem that you mention about 'only interesting if you know the people involved'- sure, you'll download ONE episode and listen to it 'for the guest' -but that does not a good podcast make.
.
Can we consider making the Judges the same for the entire season with Earwolf Challenge 2? I don't think any of the reality shows have new judges each week do they? It would help keep things straight with who's who and who does what. This could lead to more advanced critiques where a judge might compare and contrast specific entries from weeks 2 and weeks 8 for example. I realize the main problem with permanent judges would likely be time-constraints and finding people who had 10 weeks to do this for little or no pay... maybe something can be figured out tho...
.
And maybe next time around you could do the challenge 'Best Game'. Lot's of podcasts have games- Aukerman has a bunch on CBB, Bensons got a couple that people really enjoy, Snydecast does them sometimes... I'm sure I've heard other podcasts do games before.
.
As long as you gave them a couple weeks prep time to come up with something I think a 'Game' challenge could be a real boon.
.
Well, I'm dreading tomorrow but I'm going to subscribe to both Left Handed and Little Dum Dum Club right now, so whichever one gets the ax, I'll still be listening.

Share this post


Link to post

@ Max
.
"Also, based on the rumors in the comments, I tried to listen to Walking the Room to find out who got cut. Literally couldn't get through it. A bunch of guys I've never heard of saying 'fuck' a lot and complaining about the zoo? Riveting stuff! "
.
I went ahead and did the same. Fucking nonsense. I tried to listen to the thing but after about 20 minutes I just fast-forwarded to the earwolf discussion. I can't make out exactly what he said, but it's to the effect of, they voted off one of the teams (they haven't revealed which) that wasn't totally laime- then they told them why and gave them criticism. Then... according to the story on Walking the Room, the losing podcast REJECTED the criticism, and told them they were full of shit. Then after they had already voted them off the losers name-dropped someone (possibly Paul F Thompins- they were mumbling a lot and talking over each other.... It REALLY is a very poorly done podcast... bad audio quality too... I could hear a hissssssssss sound the whole time.) who made the judge totally regret the decision and now he vows to promote the show he voted against. Not much integrity with these Walking the Room guys. This will be funny to hear tomorrow tho...
.
I'm about to head over to iTunes and trash Walking the Room in a review... They're not the only ones capable of trashing a podcast. 1 star baby!
.
Reading thru this, with the exception of Chester (likely a virgin if he thought TL was 'compelling'), everyone seems to agree that this week had the worst judging yet- and it's not even judgment day!
.
Whether or not this weeks challenge was poorly conceived on Scott's part, or poorly executed on Matt's part, there are some legit concerns brought up.
.
@robstraws said it best with -
.
"On yesterdays show Besser mentioned that LHR deserved to have a kind of handicap because of their format but on today's show that seemed to be thrown out the window."
.
I guess he just completely forgot he'd said that? The guest judges 'probably' should have been privy to that tid-bit of info before they threw LHR under the bus.
.
@ Brendan H
.
"Ok, I didn't really agree with the judges this week. Totally Laime was the least funny for me. I don't care that it was an "honest conversation" like the judges said, I just didn't like the conversation. It's one of those conversations that people always seem to have that's really only interesting if you know the people involved. It always comes off as shallow to me, maybe even a little self-important."
.
'Shallow' is putting it nicely. If I wanted to hear a discussion about guy's dicks and tramp stamps I I'd go hang out with some strippers and at least get some eye-candy. This inane chatter is simply grueling. I imagine hell as being made to listen to totally laime radio non-stop. There are a lot of podcasts that suffer from this same problem that you mention about 'only interesting if you know the people involved'- sure, you'll download ONE episode and listen to it 'for the guest' -but that does not a good podcast make.
.
Can we consider making the Judges the same for the entire season with Earwolf Challenge 2? I don't think any of the reality shows have new judges each week do they? It would help keep things straight with who's who and who does what. This could lead to more advanced critiques where a judge might compare and contrast specific entries from weeks 2 and weeks 8 for example. I realize the main problem with permanent judges would likely be time-constraints and finding people who had 10 weeks to do this for little or no pay... maybe something can be figured out tho...
.
And maybe next time around you could do the challenge 'Best Game'. Lot's of podcasts have games- Aukerman has a bunch on CBB, Bensons got a couple that people really enjoy, Snydecast does them sometimes... I'm sure I've heard other podcasts do games before.
.
As long as you gave them a couple weeks prep time to come up with something I think a 'Game' challenge could be a real boon.
.
Well, I'm dreading tomorrow but I'm going to subscribe to both Left Handed and Little Dum Dum Club right now, so whichever one gets the ax, I'll still be listening.

Share this post


Link to post

PS - I think it's totally unfair to say that LHR's Borat reference was the same attempt at criticizing poorly-done comedy that, say, Hamm Radio attempted with the "hack stand-up" bit early on in the Challenge. There was NOTHING "post-modern" or "meta" about LHR's sketch. The joke was that it took the guy five years to build the robot, so by the time he was finished the Borat joke was no longer relevant. For god's sake look up those terms if you're going to use them so often and regard them so disdainfully.

Share this post


Link to post

PS - I think it's totally unfair to say that LHR's Borat reference was the same attempt at criticizing poorly-done comedy that, say, Hamm Radio attempted with the "hack stand-up" bit early on in the Challenge. There was NOTHING "post-modern" or "meta" about LHR's sketch. The joke was that it took the guy five years to build the robot, so by the time he was finished the Borat joke was no longer relevant. For god's sake look up those terms if you're going to use them so often and regard them so disdainfully.

Share this post


Link to post

I listened to the first few minutes of 'walking the room' and I am lost...

And yeah something is said about 48 minutes into it, but I just cannot understand what he's saying at the crucial line in the story.

Share this post


Link to post

I listened to the first few minutes of 'walking the room' and I am lost...

And yeah something is said about 48 minutes into it, but I just cannot understand what he's saying at the crucial line in the story.

Share this post


Link to post

@Ben: He was saying the people they eliminated are "Cuddlahs", which is what they call the WTR listeners. I can see why people who don't know who Greg and Anthony are might find the show lacking, but once you get to know them it makes more sense.
.
.
@Snarla: I don't see where anyone said LHR's was the same as the infamous Hamm Radio sketch. It's not that the entire LHR sketch was meta, it's that one of the elements of LHR's sketch was dealing with hack, played-out comedy - which, as comedy commenting on comedic convention, is dealing in post-modernism.
.
So when Belknap brought up that point it immediately set up a nice tension knowing that to be one of Besser's demons in this contest, and the way Besser released that tension was funny.

Share this post


Link to post

@Ben: He was saying the people they eliminated are "Cuddlahs", which is what they call the WTR listeners. I can see why people who don't know who Greg and Anthony are might find the show lacking, but once you get to know them it makes more sense.
.
.
@Snarla: I don't see where anyone said LHR's was the same as the infamous Hamm Radio sketch. It's not that the entire LHR sketch was meta, it's that one of the elements of LHR's sketch was dealing with hack, played-out comedy - which, as comedy commenting on comedic convention, is dealing in post-modernism.
.
So when Belknap brought up that point it immediately set up a nice tension knowing that to be one of Besser's demons in this contest, and the way Besser released that tension was funny.

Share this post


Link to post

He says, "Hey man, we're Cuddlahs. Clown from the neck down."
Took a little research to figure that out. I couldn't understand him at all.

Share this post


Link to post

He says, "Hey man, we're Cuddlahs. Clown from the neck down."
Took a little research to figure that out. I couldn't understand him at all.

Share this post


Link to post

It's going to be hard for Besser to be less professional than he was today at the end there. Set the bar pretty damn low, man, I'm disappointed in you.

Share this post


Link to post

It's going to be hard for Besser to be less professional than he was today at the end there. Set the bar pretty damn low, man, I'm disappointed in you.

Share this post


Link to post

@Bucho, I see your point, but the sketch didn't read to me as a comment on comedy convention - rather as a joke about this guy's passion project robot taking so long to come to fruition that his friend doesn't appreciate it once it's done. Just seems like a stretch to call a reference to a five-year-old movie and its quoters "postmodern," and I certainly don't think that should count against them in judging, which I'm afraid it might.

Share this post


Link to post

@Bucho, I see your point, but the sketch didn't read to me as a comment on comedy convention - rather as a joke about this guy's passion project robot taking so long to come to fruition that his friend doesn't appreciate it once it's done. Just seems like a stretch to call a reference to a five-year-old movie and its quoters "postmodern," and I certainly don't think that should count against them in judging, which I'm afraid it might.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not the verdict itself I dislike -- judging is inherently subjective -- but the path to the decision. We've all invested two months in this show; Earwolf has invested significantly more. So isn't it insulting to both listeners and network when the chosen few finalists -- after a grand deception -- are treated in a dismissive, misanthropic manner?
 
Aukerman had a novel idea, but today's show left a sour taste in my mouth. If there's no curve to the final grading, then narrowly exclusive challenges should stay in earlier rounds.
 
@ Cody Nelson: Yes I think Matt just wanted to get out of there. Maybe he had Labor Day weekend plans? Understandable, but there's a sharp contrast with his superb shows last week.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not the verdict itself I dislike -- judging is inherently subjective -- but the path to the decision. We've all invested two months in this show; Earwolf has invested significantly more. So isn't it insulting to both listeners and network when the chosen few finalists -- after a grand deception -- are treated in a dismissive, misanthropic manner?
 
Aukerman had a novel idea, but today's show left a sour taste in my mouth. If there's no curve to the final grading, then narrowly exclusive challenges should stay in earlier rounds.
 
@ Cody Nelson: Yes I think Matt just wanted to get out of there. Maybe he had Labor Day weekend plans? Understandable, but there's a sharp contrast with his superb shows last week.

Share this post


Link to post

@snarla - yes. the intention was that this guy took so long to build his (unnecessary) dream project that it was irrelevant when it was done, and how that impacts his roommate. Most times I feel meta is boring and I'm a lil' disappointed that is how it came across.
-
I also know that interpretation is for art and intentions are for charity, but wanted to let you know you were on the right track with what we intended.

Share this post


Link to post

@snarla - yes. the intention was that this guy took so long to build his (unnecessary) dream project that it was irrelevant when it was done, and how that impacts his roommate. Most times I feel meta is boring and I'm a lil' disappointed that is how it came across.
-
I also know that interpretation is for art and intentions are for charity, but wanted to let you know you were on the right track with what we intended.

Share this post


Link to post

First off, I'm a longtime LHR listener so I might be biased, but I'm not sure I can even listen to tomorrow's episode.
-
There just seems to be so much misunderstanding going on in this week's challenge. What were the podcasts being tested on? Was it professionalism as has been bandied about? If so, there's no way LHR shouldn't have been the victors by far. Instead they're being penalized for, what? NOT whining about the bum hand they were dealt? Isn't that the very definition of professionalism?
-
Even if the test wasn't about that, there's no way in hell they could have mentioned the situation in the format of their show. They do a sketch comedy show in which they haven't once broken character in a single sketch. If, in the middle of one of their episodes, they suddenly stopped doing sketches and talking about how a big celeb was supposed to be there but canceled on them, it would have been completely distracting, not to mention petty sounding. Their only other option would have been to jokingly do a sketch that was clearly written for ZG but have someone completely inappropriate voice it. However...
-
a) A sketch like that has been done a million times before, and
B) There didn't seem to be anything in the rules that told them they needed to do that. I may be wrong (and if I am, I apologize) but it seems like they were just told "You have 30 minutes. Do something." They did. They worked together and did what it is that they do: sketch. And yet they could be going home just because the judges decided it was necessary to do something else?
-
And, even if you didn't like the sketch, I completely agree with @snarla that it was clearly about an idea who's execution outlives its usefulness. Think about it from a writing standpoint. If that's your idea (and again, you may not like it), what is better than a pop culture icon to demonstrate that something is dated? They could have had the guy create some outdated technology (CDs, laserdisks, etc.) but the idea they went with seems to have the best components that could be depicted in an audio only performance.
-
But, really, the sketch was what it was and I don't want to come off like I'm just some LHR fanboy who would be upset no matter what if they lost. I've grown to like all the remaining podcasts and I'm going to be upset for whomever goes home tomorrow.
-
This may have sounded like a good idea when Scott had it (and I do think there's the makings for an interesting challenge there), but it's just too late in the game to do something this hazily defined and possible to misunderstand. It hurts both whomever gets knocked out tomorrow as well as whomever wins next week ("They never would have won if ****** hadn't gotten cheated in the last round!").
-
I'm complaining as an LHR fan, yes. But as a huge fan of The Earwolf Challenge as well. This was a misstep.
-
(Sorry for the ridiculously long post and the stupid hyphens. Long time lurker, first time commenter)

Share this post


Link to post

First off, I'm a longtime LHR listener so I might be biased, but I'm not sure I can even listen to tomorrow's episode.
-
There just seems to be so much misunderstanding going on in this week's challenge. What were the podcasts being tested on? Was it professionalism as has been bandied about? If so, there's no way LHR shouldn't have been the victors by far. Instead they're being penalized for, what? NOT whining about the bum hand they were dealt? Isn't that the very definition of professionalism?
-
Even if the test wasn't about that, there's no way in hell they could have mentioned the situation in the format of their show. They do a sketch comedy show in which they haven't once broken character in a single sketch. If, in the middle of one of their episodes, they suddenly stopped doing sketches and talking about how a big celeb was supposed to be there but canceled on them, it would have been completely distracting, not to mention petty sounding. Their only other option would have been to jokingly do a sketch that was clearly written for ZG but have someone completely inappropriate voice it. However...
-
a) A sketch like that has been done a million times before, and
B) There didn't seem to be anything in the rules that told them they needed to do that. I may be wrong (and if I am, I apologize) but it seems like they were just told "You have 30 minutes. Do something." They did. They worked together and did what it is that they do: sketch. And yet they could be going home just because the judges decided it was necessary to do something else?
-
And, even if you didn't like the sketch, I completely agree with @snarla that it was clearly about an idea who's execution outlives its usefulness. Think about it from a writing standpoint. If that's your idea (and again, you may not like it), what is better than a pop culture icon to demonstrate that something is dated? They could have had the guy create some outdated technology (CDs, laserdisks, etc.) but the idea they went with seems to have the best components that could be depicted in an audio only performance.
-
But, really, the sketch was what it was and I don't want to come off like I'm just some LHR fanboy who would be upset no matter what if they lost. I've grown to like all the remaining podcasts and I'm going to be upset for whomever goes home tomorrow.
-
This may have sounded like a good idea when Scott had it (and I do think there's the makings for an interesting challenge there), but it's just too late in the game to do something this hazily defined and possible to misunderstand. It hurts both whomever gets knocked out tomorrow as well as whomever wins next week ("They never would have won if ****** hadn't gotten cheated in the last round!").
-
I'm complaining as an LHR fan, yes. But as a huge fan of The Earwolf Challenge as well. This was a misstep.
-
(Sorry for the ridiculously long post and the stupid hyphens. Long time lurker, first time commenter)

Share this post


Link to post

@KC, I understand your point about the Nerdist, but then it goes back to chat show vs. sketch show format. The only way LHR could address Zach would be to do a "meta" sketch about him, which, if this were a real situation where a guest canceled (let's assume for a legitimate, serious reason) would be unnecessary and possibly hurtful. They would go on with their sketch show as usual.
.

I don't agree that complaining about (or even mentioning) a canceled guest on a podcast is necessarily professional. For a live show, absolutely, especially if the guest had been promoted, but on a podcast I think it would be more professional to quietly move on and try to reschedule. Not to fault TLDDC, who were riffing on being pranked, not on a cancellation. I doubt that if a real guest canceled they would have done that at all.
.

Again, EC is a really compelling podcast, but they need to make sure everyone is on the same page with judging criteria.

Share this post


Link to post

@KC, I understand your point about the Nerdist, but then it goes back to chat show vs. sketch show format. The only way LHR could address Zach would be to do a "meta" sketch about him, which, if this were a real situation where a guest canceled (let's assume for a legitimate, serious reason) would be unnecessary and possibly hurtful. They would go on with their sketch show as usual.
.

I don't agree that complaining about (or even mentioning) a canceled guest on a podcast is necessarily professional. For a live show, absolutely, especially if the guest had been promoted, but on a podcast I think it would be more professional to quietly move on and try to reschedule. Not to fault TLDDC, who were riffing on being pranked, not on a cancellation. I doubt that if a real guest canceled they would have done that at all.
.

Again, EC is a really compelling podcast, but they need to make sure everyone is on the same page with judging criteria.

Share this post


Link to post

Worst. Episode. Ever.
-
Besser says one thing on Monday, disregards it completely on Tuesday. The judges yell at one podcast for making a big deal about the prank, yell at another podcast for not mentioning the prank, and say that the lamest one was smart to fall back on sex talk.
-
This was the most unprofessional piece of shit I have ever heard. There is not a single podcast that has been featured on this program that had a single submission that was less professional than this show. This "let's make up the rules as we go along" shit has finally lost whatever charm it had. How dare you host a contest for people, claim to be serious about it, and then subject them to this shitty treatment?
-
And I'm not talking about the "prank". It's a good idea to build a challenge around a guest dropping out, as I'd imagine that happens all the time to people who don't pay their guests for appearing on their shows. What was shitty about it was that the judges had no clue what they were looking for, no consistency, and no appreciation for genuine effort.
-
I have never listened to Walking the Room or Never Not Funny, and these clowns certainly didn't provide any incentive to do so. They were far and away the least competent assholes you've featured as judges on this program. They call LHR liars and say that they didn't pull their sketch together in thirty minutes, basically because LHR didn't do what they would do in that situation. And what did they want LHR to do? Make a sketch about how their guest ditched them, which is something absolutely NO PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM WOULD EVER DO. They rip LDDC for spending too much time being funny about their prank, which is all they wanted LHR to do. And I have no doubt that the two guest judges (I can't be bothered to remember their names) have the sense of humor of middle-school boys, but really, Besser? You're going to tell me that if ANY OTHER PODCAST had fallen back on that unbearably tedious "when did you lose your virginity" shit that you wouldn't be calling them out for being a lazy sack of shit?
-
They rip LHR because they can't get a decent sketch together in 30 minutes without using some canned jokes, but they have no problem with Totally Stupid just asking themselves the same inane question they were supposedly going to ask Galifiniakis? (Sidenote: I actually would have LOVED to have seen how that question would have gone over with Zach, who is hands-down the least engaging, "can't be bothered" guest on every podcast he's ever visited. Seriously. Go listen to his appearances on CDR and Mike Detective.) So it's cheating for a sketch show to have something in the can for an emergency, but it's downright NOBLE for a chat show to just breeze on with the same "material" they've done a thousand times, except instead of boring a guest AND an audience with their trite bullshit, they're just boring an audience? This is assuming that LHR DIDN'T create their sketch from scratch in 30 minutes, which is not an assumption I have made. If they had, however, I'd say they were still acting in the spirit of the challenge. You're going to tell me Super Ego doesn't have a sketch or two on ice for emergencies? The challenge was Time Crunch, not Make Up Something New But This Only Applies To Sketch Shows. And I guess Besser just forgot the bit about cutting LHR extra slack for EXACTLY THIS REASON? How many times did we hear excuses when Totally Dull turned in a substandard entry? That the challenge was outside their WHEELHOUSE? OFTEN. LHR had to write, perform, produce and edit a sketch in 30 FUCKING MINUTES. Totally Horseshit had to talk about the husband's penis. But THEY were smart to "fall back on dirty."
-
Seriously. Seriously. Everyone involved with this debacle should be ashamed of themselves. Why do you even bother doing this if you won't take it seriously? How dare you presume to judge others when your own product is so completely, thoroughly half-assed?
-
This thing has always teetered on the edge of fiasco, and with this episode, you've rushed headlong over the edge. I'm truly resentful I've wasted any time on this shit. At least if there's a season two, I know I only need to listen to the first one: after this season, I have all the clues I need to spot the podcast you've chosen to give preferential treatment to in every challenge, before you declare them the winner.

Share this post


Link to post

Worst. Episode. Ever.
-
Besser says one thing on Monday, disregards it completely on Tuesday. The judges yell at one podcast for making a big deal about the prank, yell at another podcast for not mentioning the prank, and say that the lamest one was smart to fall back on sex talk.
-
This was the most unprofessional piece of shit I have ever heard. There is not a single podcast that has been featured on this program that had a single submission that was less professional than this show. This "let's make up the rules as we go along" shit has finally lost whatever charm it had. How dare you host a contest for people, claim to be serious about it, and then subject them to this shitty treatment?
-
And I'm not talking about the "prank". It's a good idea to build a challenge around a guest dropping out, as I'd imagine that happens all the time to people who don't pay their guests for appearing on their shows. What was shitty about it was that the judges had no clue what they were looking for, no consistency, and no appreciation for genuine effort.
-
I have never listened to Walking the Room or Never Not Funny, and these clowns certainly didn't provide any incentive to do so. They were far and away the least competent assholes you've featured as judges on this program. They call LHR liars and say that they didn't pull their sketch together in thirty minutes, basically because LHR didn't do what they would do in that situation. And what did they want LHR to do? Make a sketch about how their guest ditched them, which is something absolutely NO PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM WOULD EVER DO. They rip LDDC for spending too much time being funny about their prank, which is all they wanted LHR to do. And I have no doubt that the two guest judges (I can't be bothered to remember their names) have the sense of humor of middle-school boys, but really, Besser? You're going to tell me that if ANY OTHER PODCAST had fallen back on that unbearably tedious "when did you lose your virginity" shit that you wouldn't be calling them out for being a lazy sack of shit?
-
They rip LHR because they can't get a decent sketch together in 30 minutes without using some canned jokes, but they have no problem with Totally Stupid just asking themselves the same inane question they were supposedly going to ask Galifiniakis? (Sidenote: I actually would have LOVED to have seen how that question would have gone over with Zach, who is hands-down the least engaging, "can't be bothered" guest on every podcast he's ever visited. Seriously. Go listen to his appearances on CDR and Mike Detective.) So it's cheating for a sketch show to have something in the can for an emergency, but it's downright NOBLE for a chat show to just breeze on with the same "material" they've done a thousand times, except instead of boring a guest AND an audience with their trite bullshit, they're just boring an audience? This is assuming that LHR DIDN'T create their sketch from scratch in 30 minutes, which is not an assumption I have made. If they had, however, I'd say they were still acting in the spirit of the challenge. You're going to tell me Super Ego doesn't have a sketch or two on ice for emergencies? The challenge was Time Crunch, not Make Up Something New But This Only Applies To Sketch Shows. And I guess Besser just forgot the bit about cutting LHR extra slack for EXACTLY THIS REASON? How many times did we hear excuses when Totally Dull turned in a substandard entry? That the challenge was outside their WHEELHOUSE? OFTEN. LHR had to write, perform, produce and edit a sketch in 30 FUCKING MINUTES. Totally Horseshit had to talk about the husband's penis. But THEY were smart to "fall back on dirty."
-
Seriously. Seriously. Everyone involved with this debacle should be ashamed of themselves. Why do you even bother doing this if you won't take it seriously? How dare you presume to judge others when your own product is so completely, thoroughly half-assed?
-
This thing has always teetered on the edge of fiasco, and with this episode, you've rushed headlong over the edge. I'm truly resentful I've wasted any time on this shit. At least if there's a season two, I know I only need to listen to the first one: after this season, I have all the clues I need to spot the podcast you've chosen to give preferential treatment to in every challenge, before you declare them the winner.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×