Jump to content


Episode 97 - Alec Baldwin Is Beetlejuice (w/ Lee Rubenstein)


3 replies to this topic

#1 July Diaz

    Earwolf Buddy

  • Administrators
  • 5,464 posts
  • LocationUnder a roof

Posted 06 February 2018 - 08:58 PM

Actor Alec Baldwin (Lee Rubenstein) leans into five or six different controversies on today’s Hard Nation. He talks satire in the age of Trump, what the “AB” stands for in "ABFoundation," and why America won the hunt for Red October. Plus: Mark shouldn’t have invested in Bitcoin. Dilly dilly!
listen to scott aukerman on the latest ep of my podcast trends with benefits twb.cool

#2 Crummy Scrimmage

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • LocationAmityville, PA

Posted 07 February 2018 - 07:21 AM

I loved Mark's Henson/Belushi confusion. Also the fact that he thought Midnight Cowboy was called Cowboy Bebop.

#3 suburbs_lady_02134

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 04:14 PM

I *love* Hard Nation. But here comes some loving, sincere criticism:

"Pete" needs to not be so angry the entire episode.

Not just this episode; I mean in general in all eps.

It's gotten to the point where I kind of cringe or duck whenever it's Pete's turn to talk.

He sounds so sincerely angry that the silliness of the show disappears for a moment.

Then the guest and "Mark" get it back on track by being completely absurd (the reason I love this podcast so much; it's absurd), until Pete gets enraged again.

The issue is that I think the hilarious actor playing Pete (Paul W.) is wanting to make sure the audience knows that what the other guys are spouting is not their true beliefs.

But there's zero need for this. No one for a second believes anything anyone on this podcast is saying.

Not infrequently, Paul breaks the 4th wall in order to say something is too outrageous to even joke about.

He'll say things like, "Okay, that's not even funny." Or, "Let's not go there; that's problematic," etc. etc.

That makes the absurd place just evaporate, every time "Pete" feels the need to make sure we know were "just kidding" here on this podcast.

The other problem with this is that he sounds just too genuinely angry. And it's very jarring. It sincerely harshes my silly mellow.

How is it that Mark/Mike can yell and be angry, but it's not jarring, and Pete/Paul is a bit quieter but sounds more genuinely angry?

I don't know, but I've found myself wanting to fast forward through the Pete parts, because they aren't silly or absurd and are just angry.

And unfortunately I don't think it's 100% fake anger; too much of Paul is coming through.

Just one fan's opinion...

#4 Trurl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:03 PM

You're splitting hairs, the list seems harsh and hasty, and that's just his persona, take it or leave it - you can't change him. It's natural for his character to change over time, and I think he pulls off the self-defeatist and contentious attitude, it suits him and adds to the unpredictability. Maybe it's the fact that it's the closest thing (chemistry wise) to the now defunct Ronna and Beverly, but I anticipate this podcast more each week.
If I had one criticism though, it's that every so often, like here, the guests are in two minds over the accent they adopt, so they go for neither realism, nor absurdness, thus losing the parody aspect that's usually so delicious.