janus1172

Let's do this like Brutus!

Wait we only get one post?

Wait we only get one post?

I think this is going to be a really interesting matchup, and one that I think we could have seen building from the start. LDDC have been pretty consistently on, with the exception of last week not being their best effort. And while TL have been up and down at times, they have put out several good pieces. The main thing is that both of these podcasts have done a really good job of making content that fits into the sensibilities of their own show but addresses the challenge for the week. I will agree that in some weeks they have both eked out not being in the bottom 3 simply because their hosts sounds cute (girl, Aussies) and/or have good rapport. But for most podcasts this is why you listen each week.

I think this is going to be a really interesting matchup, and one that I think we could have seen building from the start. LDDC have been pretty consistently on, with the exception of last week not being their best effort. And while TL have been up and down at times, they have put out several good pieces. The main thing is that both of these podcasts have done a really good job of making content that fits into the sensibilities of their own show but addresses the challenge for the week. I will agree that in some weeks they have both eked out not being in the bottom 3 simply because their hosts sounds cute (girl, Aussies) and/or have good rapport. But for most podcasts this is why you listen each week.

@Scott Thanks, that makes sense. I agree it would have been good for the judges to know that up front. Because hearing them call "bullshit" on LHR's sketch because they didn't mention the guest fake out was really frustrating. The sketch wasn't that great, maybe even considering the time constraints. But judging the sketch in the challenge context should have been the focus on the judgment, not whether they incorporated the fake out into the submission. Especially because it could (and did) go either way—with valid reasons for both.

@Scott Thanks, that makes sense. I agree it would have been good for the judges to know that up front. Because hearing them call "bullshit" on LHR's sketch because they didn't mention the guest fake out was really frustrating. The sketch wasn't that great, maybe even considering the time constraints. But judging the sketch in the challenge context should have been the focus on the judgment, not whether they incorporated the fake out into the submission. Especially because it could (and did) go either way—with valid reasons for both.

@Scott I mentioned this in the Day 2 thread, but I'd like to get your feedback on what the contestants turned in vs. what you were expecting. Mainly, when you conceived of the challenge, did you intend for them to respond to the situation in their submission? Or go about business as usual in 30 mins? Did you want the initial reveal to be that the guest backed out or that they got pranked? I'm mainly just curious and not furious, because the judges did not have criteria about this and had to judge otherwise. LDDC and LHR had responses on the ends of the spectrum for ignoring/addressing the prank and TL found the middle ground.

@Scott I mentioned this in the Day 2 thread, but I'd like to get your feedback on what the contestants turned in vs. what you were expecting. Mainly, when you conceived of the challenge, did you intend for them to respond to the situation in their submission? Or go about business as usual in 30 mins? Did you want the initial reveal to be that the guest backed out or that they got pranked? I'm mainly just curious and not furious, because the judges did not have criteria about this and had to judge otherwise. LDDC and LHR had responses on the ends of the spectrum for ignoring/addressing the prank and TL found the middle ground.

@Jeff I feel like right now lots of people are over-reacting to this week's challenge. In a day or two most will calm down, and hopefully post something positive on the boards. But this is to be expected when entering the world of reality competitions. -- The strong reaction to this episode comes in part because we are down to the wire and people really really care about these podcasts now. But this challenge also had the decks stacked against LHR. And although they may have received a little leeway in the end, it didn't come across from Matt, the producers, or the judges. Having a challenge that is tougher for one of the podcasts doesn't sit well in the final weeks. Because how do you factor that into the judging? Or do you at all? This challenge also epitomizes an issue many people brought up throughout the Challenge, that the criteria for judgment came across as loose. Some weeks it's just about funny, sometimes about the specifics (using guest, recurring segment). This week just felt so loose and subjective, stacked against one podcast, and overwhelming for the contestants. And to have that be the second to last week makes it all the harder to swallow.

@Jeff I feel like right now lots of people are over-reacting to this week's challenge. In a day or two most will calm down, and hopefully post something positive on the boards. But this is to be expected when entering the world of reality competitions. -- The strong reaction to this episode comes in part because we are down to the wire and people really really care about these podcasts now. But this challenge also had the decks stacked against LHR. And although they may have received a little leeway in the end, it didn't come across from Matt, the producers, or the judges. Having a challenge that is tougher for one of the podcasts doesn't sit well in the final weeks. Because how do you factor that into the judging? Or do you at all? This challenge also epitomizes an issue many people brought up throughout the Challenge, that the criteria for judgment came across as loose. Some weeks it's just about funny, sometimes about the specifics (using guest, recurring segment). This week just felt so loose and subjective, stacked against one podcast, and overwhelming for the contestants. And to have that be the second to last week makes it all the harder to swallow.

I thought LHR had a great defense for not referencing the fake out situation. They stuck to their guns and did what they would have done had a guest cancellation in short notice happened in real life. I did get the feeling the judges took that into consideration in making the elimination, which I'm glad about. Personally, I feel all of the groups should have done what LHR did and produce content that could stand on its own without knowing about the prank situation. It felt more in line with the spirit of the challenge (and what should happen in the real podcast world) than LDDC's submission. But there were no constraints on whether they could reference the situation or not, so it really was just about how enjoyable the submission was. That said, I think this challenge should have been specific constraints on whether the fake out should be referenced or not. And the initial reveal should have been that Zach backed out, not that they got punked. -- LHR also had a good description of the process and how much work went into making their original content. And it was clear that factored into the judgment, too. I can see where LDDC are coming from, but their complaint of not having enough time in no way measures up to what LHR had to do. I wish the judges and Matt would have given LHR a little more props for that on air.

I thought LHR had a great defense for not referencing the fake out situation. They stuck to their guns and did what they would have done had a guest cancellation in short notice happened in real life. I did get the feeling the judges took that into consideration in making the elimination, which I'm glad about. Personally, I feel all of the groups should have done what LHR did and produce content that could stand on its own without knowing about the prank situation. It felt more in line with the spirit of the challenge (and what should happen in the real podcast world) than LDDC's submission. But there were no constraints on whether they could reference the situation or not, so it really was just about how enjoyable the submission was. That said, I think this challenge should have been specific constraints on whether the fake out should be referenced or not. And the initial reveal should have been that Zach backed out, not that they got punked. -- LHR also had a good description of the process and how much work went into making their original content. And it was clear that factored into the judgment, too. I can see where LDDC are coming from, but their complaint of not having enough time in no way measures up to what LHR had to do. I wish the judges and Matt would have given LHR a little more props for that on air.

@Foam Corner, the 98% was great. And you know what, it wasn't a great sketch. But 5 people sat down, wrote it out, gave notes, recorded it, and added some fx to it in 30 mins. It wasn't two funny people riffing about a funny thing for 5 mins. They stuck to their guns, kept to the sensibilities of their show, and the first words out of the judges mouths is "bullshit." -- @Matt Besser Wiping the slate clean from previous weeks makes total sense. But you said on Monday (last Sat) that LHR would be given a bit of leniency because they did have it harder this week. Maybe we'll hear that come up tomorrow, but it didn't today. And they really really should, given that this challenge put their process to an extreme test, and they did a professional job of dealing with it. -- If LHR get eliminated tomorrow, it should be because their submission was not as funny—factoring in the additional difficulties this challenge for them. I would be really upset if they got eliminated because they didn't mention the Zach fake out. 1) That was never established as part of the judging to anyone. 2) It would make no sense in the context of their actual show if they did that. Again, are they writing material just for this challenge, just for the judging audience? Or are they showing their chops as podcasters and making material that could fit into their show anyway? LHR did the latter, and maybe it wasn't as funny, but that they did so should factor in. If I was judging, I would have called bullshit on LDDC for focusing solely on the Zach thing. Would they do that any time something goes wrong before recording a show?? Was that really in the spirit of this challenge?! We don't know. The produces don't seem to know. And the judges don't seem to know.

@Foam Corner, the 98% was great. And you know what, it wasn't a great sketch. But 5 people sat down, wrote it out, gave notes, recorded it, and added some fx to it in 30 mins. It wasn't two funny people riffing about a funny thing for 5 mins. They stuck to their guns, kept to the sensibilities of their show, and the first words out of the judges mouths is "bullshit." -- @Matt Besser Wiping the slate clean from previous weeks makes total sense. But you said on Monday (last Sat) that LHR would be given a bit of leniency because they did have it harder this week. Maybe we'll hear that come up tomorrow, but it didn't today. And they really really should, given that this challenge put their process to an extreme test, and they did a professional job of dealing with it. -- If LHR get eliminated tomorrow, it should be because their submission was not as funny—factoring in the additional difficulties this challenge for them. I would be really upset if they got eliminated because they didn't mention the Zach fake out. 1) That was never established as part of the judging to anyone. 2) It would make no sense in the context of their actual show if they did that. Again, are they writing material just for this challenge, just for the judging audience? Or are they showing their chops as podcasters and making material that could fit into their show anyway? LHR did the latter, and maybe it wasn't as funny, but that they did so should factor in. If I was judging, I would have called bullshit on LDDC for focusing solely on the Zach thing. Would they do that any time something goes wrong before recording a show?? Was that really in the spirit of this challenge?! We don't know. The produces don't seem to know. And the judges don't seem to know.

This is shaping up to be the most divisive week ever, especially if LHR leaves. And with good reason. Was this challenge Time Crunch or Riff About Getting Faked Out? I'd be interested to hear Scott's assessment on what the contestants turned in vis a vis his original thoughts.

This is shaping up to be the most divisive week ever, especially if LHR leaves. And with good reason. Was this challenge Time Crunch or Riff About Getting Faked Out? I'd be interested to hear Scott's assessment on what the contestants turned in vis a vis his original thoughts.

@AH, along those lines: LDDC's submission would be along the lines of The Nerdist booking Zach to come on the show and him canceling. Then they spend the first 5 mins of the show complaining about booking the room at the E building, prepping for the show, and having him cancel. And then end up doing a guestless (hostful) episode. How professional and enjoyable is that? LDDC's clip worked ok for the challenge, but what does this show about them working under pressure in general?

@AH, along those lines: LDDC's submission would be along the lines of The Nerdist booking Zach to come on the show and him canceling. Then they spend the first 5 mins of the show complaining about booking the room at the E building, prepping for the show, and having him cancel. And then end up doing a guestless (hostful) episode. How professional and enjoyable is that? LDDC's clip worked ok for the challenge, but what does this show about them working under pressure in general?

One thing that came to me after listening to Day 2 of Time Crunch is who is audience of the challenge submissions and what is their context? That is, should they be putting out material that could stand within the context of their show in general or is only specific to the Earwolf Challenge? And is it geared only for the judges and only for that week? For the most part, the shows have done general submissions, but especially in this past week and a few times throughout, the podcasters are either speaking directly to the judges (and not just in the little "intro" clips). Or they speak freely about this being for the Challenge. In 2 weeks, TL put out material that breaks that barrier more, by having introductions *within* the submission to segments of the submission. I feel like this breaks the conceit of the show and kind of goes against the spirit of the Challenge. Can they produce content that meets the context of that week's challenge, caters to the judges, but can work for the style of their show overall? That is a worthwhile venture for these podcasts, a better way to judge them, and a cleaner medium for the listener.

One thing that came to me after listening to Day 2 of Time Crunch is who is audience of the challenge submissions and what is their context? That is, should they be putting out material that could stand within the context of their show in general or is only specific to the Earwolf Challenge? And is it geared only for the judges and only for that week? For the most part, the shows have done general submissions, but especially in this past week and a few times throughout, the podcasters are either speaking directly to the judges (and not just in the little "intro" clips). Or they speak freely about this being for the Challenge. In 2 weeks, TL put out material that breaks that barrier more, by having introductions *within* the submission to segments of the submission. I feel like this breaks the conceit of the show and kind of goes against the spirit of the Challenge. Can they produce content that meets the context of that week's challenge, caters to the judges, but can work for the style of their show overall? That is a worthwhile venture for these podcasts, a better way to judge them, and a cleaner medium for the listener.

Ok, on reflection, I'm even more pissed about the judges' and Matt's comments. Only LHR produced for this challenge (and all challenges) original content that could fit into any episode of their show. It stands for itself without the context of the Zach fake out or the Earwolf Challenge in general. It's certainly not their best sketchwork, but it hits a few funny bits. If they really were in a time crunch to put out an episode and they included something like this, they wouldn't miss a beat. -- The other submissions depend on knowing about the Zach situation and the Challenge overall, and both podcasts have produced material that is very specific for this challenge and no where else. LHR's submission met the spirit of the Time Crunch challenge in a way that didn't cave to the conceit of the situation. For that they get called "bullshit?" I call bullshit.

Ok, on reflection, I'm even more pissed about the judges' and Matt's comments. Only LHR produced for this challenge (and all challenges) original content that could fit into any episode of their show. It stands for itself without the context of the Zach fake out or the Earwolf Challenge in general. It's certainly not their best sketchwork, but it hits a few funny bits. If they really were in a time crunch to put out an episode and they included something like this, they wouldn't miss a beat. -- The other submissions depend on knowing about the Zach situation and the Challenge overall, and both podcasts have produced material that is very specific for this challenge and no where else. LHR's submission met the spirit of the Time Crunch challenge in a way that didn't cave to the conceit of the situation. For that they get called "bullshit?" I call bullshit.

Were the podcasts told the whole conceit of the challenge when given the reveal about no Zach? I'm thinking so from the comments made. Why was that the choice, instead of just saying Zach bailed then filling them in on the whole thing later? I wonder if that would have affected the outcome differently knowing the guest bailed vs. we got played for this challenge. Perhaps LHR would have mentioned Zach if they really thought he would have been on the show.

Were the podcasts told the whole conceit of the challenge when given the reveal about no Zach? I'm thinking so from the comments made. Why was that the choice, instead of just saying Zach bailed then filling them in on the whole thing later? I wonder if that would have affected the outcome differently knowing the guest bailed vs. we got played for this challenge. Perhaps LHR would have mentioned Zach if they really thought he would have been on the show.