Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

JW Buchanan

Members
  • Content count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by JW Buchanan

  1. JW Buchanan

    Episode 9.3 — Time Crunch: Day 3

    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!
  2. JW Buchanan

    Episode 9.3 — Time Crunch: Day 3

    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!
  3. JW Buchanan

    Suggestions

    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.
  4. JW Buchanan

    Suggestions

    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.
  5. JW Buchanan

    Suggestions

    @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.
  6. JW Buchanan

    Suggestions

    @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.
  7. JW Buchanan

    Episode 9.2 — Time Crunch: Day 2

    @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.
  8. JW Buchanan

    Episode 9.2 — Time Crunch: Day 2

    @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.
  9. JW Buchanan

    Episode 9.2 — Time Crunch: Day 2

    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.
  10. JW Buchanan

    Episode 9.2 — Time Crunch: Day 2

    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.
  11. JW Buchanan

    The End?

    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?
  12. JW Buchanan

    The End?

    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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. @Brendan L: "Poor comment choices?" "Pariah?" "Bully?" Thanks for nothing. . I always hesitate to post my opinions on a comment board because I don't want people to treat me like some kind of troll because I have a differing opinion; and yet the only reason to join a board is because you feel like your point of view isn't being represented. In a way it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and here I am being called a pariah on some other board, in some other dark corner of the internet. Hooray. Someday I'll learn my lesson and just not bother with these things. See you later.
  17. This was such a great episode! Keep up the great work, Matt and Frank! This was the first time I've listened to the Coaching Session and wasn't worried for one of the contestants-- I don't know if it's because Matt was working with them so well or if it's because they really are the top four, but I think they'll all do a good job this week. This really made for great listening. . P.S.: I'm sorry for only suggesting things that can't realistically be implemented (I feel kinda dumb about that) and I'm sorry for acting like a colossal dick on the forums. Everybody come punch me in the face. I live in Milwaukee, maybe I can come meet you at the airport.
  18. @Matt: I re-listened to some of the Day 3 episodes yesterday and while I don't want to contradict any of the conversation in this thread, aside from a few of the little tweaks suggested above, I found the overall quality of the judging to be very good. (Really good! Better in retrospect!) Listeners might have quibbles with the outcomes of specific Day 3 judgments, but I don't think the process of judgement needs an overhaul. . Here are those timestamps you were asking for from last week's Day 3 episode: 1) The "F Plus Defense" 12:17 - The F Plus hosts bring up the idea of conflicting feedback 12:26 - Matt Besser asks "What'd I say?" This was a sequence that was brought up, although I personally didn't have an issue with it. (I thought the substance of the critique was right on and the overall judgement was fair.) However, when you ask "What'd I say," that could just as easily be a question posed to Frank and Peter. When there's a question about what's happened over the course of the entire Challenge, I think they could be a good resource since they have the benefit of having heard everything that's happened (possibly multiple times). . 2) "Bob & Dan's Teasers" 17:30 - Kulap Vilaysack first brings up the idea of "fake teasers" 18:29 - Bob & Dan explain that the "fake teasers" are not fake 19:22 - Bob & Dan explain that the "fake teasers" are not intended as jokes (All explanations are ignored) This was just a misunderstanding, plain and simple (although it would have been a real bummer if their podcast had been eliminated because of a simple misunderstanding). To be honest, this specific situation might not ever happen again-- this was a real outlier among all of the Day 3 critiques. But in my opinion, a situation like this is where the Socratic approach needs to come to Day 3-- If the judges are confused about something, they should just ask more questions. Questions first, judgement later. I know that a lot of listeners think that if something needs to be explained, then it's not working, but I don't necessarily agree. Any critique that comes before the judge really knows what they're looking at (or listening to) just isn't worth that much. This also seems like another opportunity to throw the discussion to Frank and Peter, not because they have more information, but because five heads are better than three.
  19. @Julia: I like that we hear the judges' first reactions. There's something appealing about that for the listeners, even if it makes the judging more difficult. @Matt: OK
  20. The Socratic method is working-- the show is improving from week to week and episode to episode. I like the conversations between Matt and producers Frank and Peter on Day 1 and I like that they're having these conversations out in the open-- That's what's lead to a culture of commenting here that's about improving the show and making fair decisions, and not just cheerleading. I would like to hear from Frank and Peter on Day 3, even though they don't have a vote. When the judges lose the thread or get confused (as in the above Bob & Dan situation or the above-above F Plus situation) it would be nice to hear from a non-voting impartial third party that's seen the entire sequence of events. Everything is Socratic until Day 3, when all hell breaks loose.
  21. This has very little to do with the main bit of what you said, but I was really puzzled by the judges' reaction to Bob & Dan's intro. My understanding of it was that they had chosen to frame their entry as the first three minutes of a typical show, and that the "fake teasers" were teasers for segments you might hear in a full-length show. Even though Bob & Dan tried to explain this and said that the "fake teasers" were pulled from segments they'd done in previous episodes, the judges went in another direction, arguing about whether fake teasers as a concept is funny and whether these "fake teasers" were funny enough (note my use of quotes). So the teasers were "fake" in that it was a cut-down version of a pretend show made for a contest that ended after three minutes, and not fake in the ha-ha "these are the most ridiculous things we could think of, we'll never do this, it's a joke" sense.
  22. JW Buchanan

    This Week's Who Charted

    I thought it was hilarious. I've come to really appreciate Matt's approach but I never considered what the guest experience is like.
  23. JW Buchanan

    Episode 7.3 — Original Content: Day 3

    You're all uglies. None of your opinions can be trusted. I don't think I can make this any clearer. . OK, one more try: You guys are showing mean, rude bias against Totally Laime because you're ugly gross uglies who will never receive female attention due to acute gross ugliness 80 20 percent something. You guys are so rude! So ugly and rude and gross and disgusting and mean.
  24. JW Buchanan

    Episode 7.3 — Original Content: Day 3

    People need to be informed about this Severe Male Ugliness (SMU) problem. That's why I'm starting a fundraising campaign to raise awareness and combat this deadly affliction which plagues our message board. Ry Mil and I will be traveling door-to-door, selling Racine Kringles and handing out literature. Please Note: We only have apricot, cherry, and apple kringles; we've run out of raspberry/cheesecake and pecan kringles.
  25. JW Buchanan

    Episode 7.3 — Original Content: Day 3

    @Ry: It's sexist and reductive to presume that male listeners can't find Totally Laime funny, or that they wouldn't accept it even though it is funny. Is that clearer? . When did I advocate for The Fort or the F Plus? When did I bash Totally Laime? And anyway, if you'll re-read my original post, you'll see that I was AGREEING with you that the lack of enthusiasm for Totally Laime is a direct consequence of mass sexual frustration brought upon by SEVERE male ugliness. The people listening to this show are too ugly and therefore too alienated from the female gender to accept a female podcast host; and using a special proprietary algorithm of my own invention it has been shown that 80.0% of these sad "male" "humans" object to the Totally Laime podcast through sheer reflexive inbred misogyny. Of course, give or take a percentage point, but why bother with the details when you're dealing in gross generalizations?
×