Brendan

@henklewine: "TLP would bring the best array of guests and the best non-improvy/sketchy comedy to Earwolf since, well, the first ten minutes of any episode of CBB. " There's a lot of great guests and "non-improv/sketchy comedy" already on Earwolf besides "first ten minutes of any episode of CBB. " I think Totally Laime wouldn't fare quite as well as you think if stacked up against all of Earwolf's podcasts. That's not meant to be a slam on Totally Laime, just an endorsement for the high quality of Earwolf. Also, Little Dum Dum Club doesn't necessarily have an entire continent as a fanbase any more than any American podcast has the entire country as a fanbase. I think the reason some people think it would be a good choice for Earwolf is because they are both comedians and are funny on their own, even without a funny guest.

Hey, here's my two cents! I figured there'd be some more backlash against Totally Laime again. I wasn't surprised they got through, but I was surprised that they were told they were safe first, since it seemed like their sketch was critcized much more than the Bob & Dan Cast sketch. It seemed anti-climactic since Matt mentioned they liked but didn't love Bob & Dan, so after TL was safe, you already knew that The Fort would be out. I'll also say that I had the same feeling of like but not love for most of the sketches, but I was expecting a huge train wreck from this challenge so I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the sketches turned out.

I don't usually read all the posts so I don't know if all of Jeff Ullrich's comments are excessively harsh or not. Certainly he has some valid points. But I think some of the comments against Totally Laime are due in part to the fact that they have been talked about as being the frontrunner. I think it's natural for people to comment on them because of that. The responses probably aren't proportional to the praise, but that's the nature of message boards, isn't it? Again, I'm not defending the comments since I haven't read them all; I'm just trying to put them in context. The fact that the judges may have appeared on Totally Laime or Little Dum Dum Club does mean that they know more about those shows than the other submissions, so their shows probably do have a bit of an advantage simply by the judges knowing more about them. But those shows have the most straight forward concepts in that they are interview shows, so they're easier to understand even if you haven't heard them before. I'm wondering if Totally Laime is also drawing more criticism because they have a lot of guests that people have heard of. You'd think that would be a clear positive, but I think there's a backlash because people may think the show relies on the guest more than the hosts to make it funny and interesting. I'm not saying that's my opinion, since a bad host can ruin an interview and make funny people sound unfunny. But it could lead some people to think "If the [so-and-so] podcast had guests like Paul F. Tompkins and Marc Maron, they'd be just as good or better than Totally Laime!" Again, not my opinion, but I'd bet more than one person here has thought that.

I thought the F-Plus's segment sounded a lot like the appearances Bret Gelman has had on Comedy Death Ray/Bang Bang, where he would read an intentionally offensive, sexual story that he wrote and Scott would keep trying to stop him. I'm not suggesting that the F-Plus was copying those bits, but since their segment was very similar, I can't help but draw that comparison. One tiny suggestion that I have for Earwolf Challenge is about the theme music. First, I like it, it's very appropriate. I would actually like to hear it play a bit longer at the beginning, I feel it cuts out too soon. I'd like to hear it continue to play under Matt's description of the show before it fades out. Even though I like the theme, I think the use of the loop behind the commercial is a little too much. Those 2 particular bars repeated over and over are a little distracting from the message of the commercial. As always, keep up the good work! I think the criticisms of the submissions were pretty on point. EDIT: Oops, just saw Monty's post mentioned the Bret Gelman similarities already.

@Matt Besser First, thanks to you, Jeff Ullrich and the other Earwolves for chiming in on this forum! Not to be an asskisser, but I especially appreciate when my comments are responded to by the people that make the shows happen. I also think it helps keep us "honest" knowing that the people we respect may be reading our comments. This show seems to invite more commentary since it's a competition, which, for good or for ill, also flows over into critiques of the show itself. As far as suggestions for the show, I wonder if it's possible at some point for one of the challenges to be to judge an entire episode of each podcast. I know the time involved would be prohibitive, certainly for the judges, since they couldn't listen to the submissions while recording the show. But maybe as a final challenge, the last two could submit their best single episodes, and those could be made available to download on Earwolf before the final judging. It would mean some "homework" for Matt and the judges, but I think once you get down to the last two podcasts in the race, it could be a worthwhile way to determine a winner.

They could probably just name all the challenges "Is It Funny?" because that's what each one boils down to. Though, to be honest, that's what it should come down to. I kind of feel that the some of the judges don't listen to many podcasts, because as a consumer of many podcasts myself, I think what I like listening and what I've heard before may differ from what the judges are critiqing. For example, "Totally or Lame" was liked by the guys, but it didn't do it for me. Maybe since I listen to podcasts while at work while performing other tasks I have a different perspective. It just seemed too repetitive and sounded like it was more fun for the people playing than for the listener. But that's just my opinion. @Matt Besser I think the fact that these episodes are already "in the can" means you can't take any of the suggestions offered here (not that you should anyway), and that hurts the show a little. Unfortunately, it also means you'll probably get the same critiques over and over since people may think you're not listening to them (again, not that you should).

@JeffUllrich I wasn't implying any intentional impropriety about The Complete Guide To Everything's chances. "Producery bullshit" never entered my mind! I just meant that if the judges are looking for a podcast that offers something different than other podcasts, like they've said, then TCGTE would draw comparisons to Professor Blastoff. I feel they'd have to execute the concept better than Prof Blastoff just to have a chance. And the comparison wasn't immediately apparent, so I understand that it wasn't intentionally set up to fail. It's just that the concept for both shows is so close, you'd have to think there'd only be room for one of them on Earwolf.

I have a feeling if "The Complete Guide To Everything" took the advice of Matt & the judges, their show would be just like Professor Blastoff, and I doubt they would have won the one year contract at Earwolf. Even as it stood, their concept was pretty similar, so I think they never stood a real chance.

Kulap, I think the reason for pantyhose on Hooters waitresses is to make their legs more appealing, not hygiene, since the hose covers up flaws. Or like Tom Lennon and Rob Huebel said on Scott's show, it's to cover up the "dick bruises."

Is it just me, or does Joe Cornish's voice bear a striking similarity to R.O. Mance? Just add reverb.

I feel compelled to throw my own 2 cents in on this. Not on the subject of if I like the Apple Sisters show or not, but the subject of criticism on the forums. Too often we see people spewing hate for episodes or shows they don't like. But here, the OP offered her opinion in what I feel was a respectful way. She didn't just bash the show with things like "this is the worst" or other such hyperbole. She just offered her opinion, siting specific reasons she felt the show didn't work for her. Yet some of the responses posted here I feel are as bad as the people who complain, but since they are positive towards the show, their comments seem to be accepted. I know these shows are all free, and no one is making money on them, so the subject of "why criticize something that's free" has come up. I agree with that sentiment for the most part, but I think there is room for people to offer their opinion of why they dislike something without getting slammed by people who feel offended that something they like is being criticized. Some of these hosts may actually appreciate comments that might help them gain more listeners. So when people jump on anyone who posts any negative comment, that may keep actual helpful criticism from surfacing in the future. Plus, it reflects badly on the person that feels they're defending the show. Making a comment in that way can invalidate your opinion. How you write is just as important as what you write. Just try to be respectful of others and post intelligently.

I would seriously by a T-shirt with a picture of a hamburger that says "Who wants ice cream?" on it. Make it happen, Earwolf.

I suppose it's easier for everyone to tweet their short joke ideas rather than calling an answering machine. And they get more feedback on twitter than they do here. It's too bad, since Eardrop offers comedians the chance to perform rather than just write. I guess the idea of an audio version of twitter hasn't caught on yet. Still, I hope it keeps going, in case it can pick up steam.