JW Buchanan

Maybe if you yell loud enough at Scott and Jeff they'll stop answering our questions and listening to our feedback, which is SUUUUCH A HASSSSSLE!

Maybe if you yell loud enough at Scott and Jeff they'll stop answering our questions and listening to our feedback, which is SUUUUCH A HASSSSSLE!

This was a tough week to listen to. Up to this point, the Challenge has been all about the elements of a good podcast, challenges that test basic podcasting skills, and pro tips from guest judges-- with Matt using his "Socratic approach" to figure out the platonic ideal of a comedy podcast. That's a big part of what made this show fascinating as a frequent podcast listener; It was a discussion of the form, disguised as a reality competition show. Why are good podcasts good? Matt will tell you, and the contestants will show you (by failing or succeeding in the challenges). . All of that went out the window this week (and last week, too) as the focus has shifted to "Who's funniest?" It's a question that none of us can reasonably answer, including Matt and the judges. And predictably, the forums have erupted with anger. I sympathize with the judges, but there's got to be a better way of ending the competition than changing the criteria in the final rounds to subjective judgement. . This would be my suggestion as to how to end a competition like this: 1)Once the final four (or three) is figured out, each finalist records a 10-15 minute long final submission with no overarching directive from Matt & Frank. (You could present it in the normal way, where we hear all the entries on Day 2 and critique/deliberation/judgement on Day 3, or break it out into smaller episodes where we hear a final submission followed by its critique, with a mass deliberation/judgement finale thing.) 2) The judging panel in the final stages should be bigger than just Matt and two guests. We need more judges, and preferably some of the guest judges from earlier in the season. Not only would they not need to be introduced to the contestants or the Challenge, but they'd be the best judges of how the contestants have improved.

This was a tough week to listen to. Up to this point, the Challenge has been all about the elements of a good podcast, challenges that test basic podcasting skills, and pro tips from guest judges-- with Matt using his "Socratic approach" to figure out the platonic ideal of a comedy podcast. That's a big part of what made this show fascinating as a frequent podcast listener; It was a discussion of the form, disguised as a reality competition show. Why are good podcasts good? Matt will tell you, and the contestants will show you (by failing or succeeding in the challenges). . All of that went out the window this week (and last week, too) as the focus has shifted to "Who's funniest?" It's a question that none of us can reasonably answer, including Matt and the judges. And predictably, the forums have erupted with anger. I sympathize with the judges, but there's got to be a better way of ending the competition than changing the criteria in the final rounds to subjective judgement. . This would be my suggestion as to how to end a competition like this: 1)Once the final four (or three) is figured out, each finalist records a 10-15 minute long final submission with no overarching directive from Matt & Frank. (You could present it in the normal way, where we hear all the entries on Day 2 and critique/deliberation/judgement on Day 3, or break it out into smaller episodes where we hear a final submission followed by its critique, with a mass deliberation/judgement finale thing.) 2) The judging panel in the final stages should be bigger than just Matt and two guests. We need more judges, and preferably some of the guest judges from earlier in the season. Not only would they not need to be introduced to the contestants or the Challenge, but they'd be the best judges of how the contestants have improved.

@KC: I agree with you-- When submissions are playing directly to the guest judges, to a very special audience of 2, it can be boring and even annoying. But even if it were objectively obvious that a submission was overexplaining and repeating itself for the sake of the judges (instead of just our opinions), what could you even do to prevent it? . I started listening to the archives of the Bob & Dan Cast and whenever I've come across a section of their show that was submitted to the Challenge, I've been kind of impressed that it's just a funny chunk of their show and not a weird simulacrum made for the benefit of the judges.

@KC: I agree with you-- When submissions are playing directly to the guest judges, to a very special audience of 2, it can be boring and even annoying. But even if it were objectively obvious that a submission was overexplaining and repeating itself for the sake of the judges (instead of just our opinions), what could you even do to prevent it? . I started listening to the archives of the Bob & Dan Cast and whenever I've come across a section of their show that was submitted to the Challenge, I've been kind of impressed that it's just a funny chunk of their show and not a weird simulacrum made for the benefit of the judges.

@Caroline and everyone else who was talking about podcasts coming out on time: It's much more important to me to hear a funny, finished, polished podcast episode than a podcast that came out on the right day.

@Caroline and everyone else who was talking about podcasts coming out on time: It's much more important to me to hear a funny, finished, polished podcast episode than a podcast that came out on the right day.

As a challenge, this was a real misfire. It's too bad, because I thought the idea was interesting, but we didn't learn anything about the contestants (except how mad they got when pranked). The prank element of this challenge just built up an expectation in the judges that they'd get to see the contestants react to the prank, and so they were disappointed(!!!) that Left Handed Radio just rolled with the punches. Ugh. . I guess the only thing to glean from this challenge is that it's funnier to watch a chat show flail about and struggle, because the listener can identify with those kinds of feelings; If a sketch show is flailing about and struggling, the sketch suffers and the listener doesn't care. That's a huuuuuuge advantage for a chat show, in this challenge and in real life.

As a challenge, this was a real misfire. It's too bad, because I thought the idea was interesting, but we didn't learn anything about the contestants (except how mad they got when pranked). The prank element of this challenge just built up an expectation in the judges that they'd get to see the contestants react to the prank, and so they were disappointed(!!!) that Left Handed Radio just rolled with the punches. Ugh. . I guess the only thing to glean from this challenge is that it's funnier to watch a chat show flail about and struggle, because the listener can identify with those kinds of feelings; If a sketch show is flailing about and struggling, the sketch suffers and the listener doesn't care. That's a huuuuuuge advantage for a chat show, in this challenge and in real life.

Hey, does anybody know whether the next week of shows will be the last? I know that most reality competition shows on television choose a winner from three finalists, but maybe the Challenge has something better in mind?

Hey, does anybody know whether the next week of shows will be the last? I know that most reality competition shows on television choose a winner from three finalists, but maybe the Challenge has something better in mind?

Yeah, I don't know how that will work (getting in contact with commenters), but I really hope this supplementary podcast happens so that we get at least one more episode with Matt beyond the finals.

Yeah, I don't know how that will work (getting in contact with commenters), but I really hope this supplementary podcast happens so that we get at least one more episode with Matt beyond the finals.

I question whether it's possible to express a contrary opinion on this board, because I've gone to great lengths to couch my comments or present them as a joke, and I still get called a bully; which fills me with INSANE BULLY RAGE!! BUUULLLLY SMASH! ARRRRRRRRRRGH! O'Doyle Rules, JW Buchanan