action52

OK KajusX, I've listened to the rest of the episode. To be honest, I still think you might have misrepresented some things, but to be honest he didn't make a lot of sense and was such a douchebag in general that I don't want to bother talking about it anymore. Basically we'd be quibbling over the nuances of how he made an idiot of himself, and it's hard to think of a bigger waste of time. And please don't take this as an insult, but your post was probably a huge waste of time, too. You seem to be an intelligent person overall, but I think you have been baited into a fool's errand. At first I was annoyed at your post for not seeming to make sense, but after listening to the podcast I see that this was just because of what you were trying to respond to. And I don't think you have to worry about people getting false ideas about comic books from this guy--even if he didn't alienate everyone with his attitude, he's so incoherent in his comic book rant that it's hard to get much of an idea about anything regarding the subject. I still will defend what Kulap said, though. She was talking, as a comic book fan, about her disappointment with the new Spider-Man movie and the industry in general. And dammit, she was right--you go into the board room at Disney, or whatever conglomerate owns DC comics now, and that's how they see their comic book properties. As a springboard for something more profitable. Does some great art manage to come out of this system? Absolutely. But that's not the goal of the system. Oh yeah, the pickup artist bit was kinda creepy, but pretty tame compared to what's out there. Actually it was much less manipulative than most of what I hear from those types. I think the reason most of these things seem to work is the placebo effect--it gives people confidence, which means they actually go out and try to pick up women much more than they had before, and don't fuck themselves over by being nervous and saying/doing something stupid. Maybe it was because the comments here are usually so positive--seeing all these negative responses made me think I was in for a complete scumbag which would nauseate me to listen to... which he really wasn't. And some of the criticisms made no sense. "Creepy dedication to finding out where The Smashing Pumpkins were on the charts?" How is it creepy if you're a big fan of one of the most popular alternative bands of all time who just put out an album, and you want to know if it charted? Don't get me wrong, I think there are plenty of valid reasons not to like this guy, but it seems exaggerated in some parts.

@KajusX: I have not listened to the podcast yet (I originally planned to skip it, but after all these comments I want to listen out of morbid curiosity) but based on reading that, it seems like you are completely misunderstanding what they said. Since your post was so long, I will try to address it point by point. 1. What you said here is factually true, but I fail to see how it disagrees with anything they said. Perhaps I am missing something. 2. You're being petty. Up until the 80s or 90s, the vast majority of comic books were written for children. Today the vast majority are written for teenagers and up. What he said is true of the comic book industry IN GENERAL. 3. You're giving me figures about how people were still buying the regular, "floppy" comic books by the millions in the 90s... do you have any figures for today? Because I would expect they sell a hell of a lot less, especially with digital media. I think he was saying that what we think of traditionally as "comic books" are an ever-shrinking market, and that comic book companies are making most of their profits by squeezing money out of the hardcore collectors and developing more profitable media like movies (mainly the latter). 4. It doesn't sound to me like Chris is saying that comic books are nothing more than "POTENTIAL MONETARY WORTH IN OTHER, MORE PROFITABLE ENTERTAINMENT MEDIUMS," he's saying that this is how comic book companies have come to see their own intellectual property. It seems to me like they are just talking about the way the business works, not passing judgement on its worth as an art form. 5. Same with Kulap. When she says comic books are storyboards, I highly doubt that she is saying that's all they should be worth as an art form. She is talking about how, more and more, comic book companies are seeing their intellectual properties this way. Now, this is how it looks to me based on reading the quote you posted. Maybe after I listen to the podcast, I will have a different interpretation.

This is responding to the comments Matt said in episode 29 about atheism, and why they encounter more negativity than religious people. I think one reason is that even the most fanatical Christians know they have to tolerate other religions. Because Christians have been persecuted in the past, and of course many Christians like to imagine they are still being persecuted, now, in America and around the world. So they know it would be blatantly hypocritical to openly antagonize other religions, or try and deny them freedom of worship. The same courtesy need not be extended to atheists. There's also the fact that the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom to worship, but it doesn't specifically say you have freedom not to worship. I think any rational person would think that was intended to mean freedom in all things related to religion, whether you believe it or not, but when we're talking about extremists rational thought will go out the door. Another reason, and maybe this is the reason non-extremist Christians sometimes get negative, is that there is a certain type of atheist out there that is just insufferable. I think a lot of us know the type--pompous, condescending. Often very educated and smart in some ways, but then they also act like this makes them superior and more enlightened than everybody else. Richard Dawkins is the first famous person to come to mind. Bill Maher can be like that sometimes, too, but usually he's funny and charming about it rather than pompous and condescending, so it doesn't really bother me. But it is extremely annoying, even as a fellow atheist, to encounter people like this on places like internet forums. Often saying that religion is a poison that is the cause of all society's problems, throughout history, and defending any ridiculously farfetched theory they come across that says something bad about religion. What's more infuriating is that they'll use their intellectual abilities to put huge amounts of thought into these crazy arguments, and if you try to answer them with simple common sense they'll come up with convoluted answers that are a pain in the ass to even answer. They will also dissect everything you say and pick apart any little inconsistency or flaw they can find. So even though I would say the extremist Christians do more harm in the real world, there's a certain level of obnoxiousness that the bad atheists have much more than even the worst Christians. That said, I have found a lot of obnoxious atheists do grow out of this as they mature, whereas fanatical Christians tend to stay that way for the rest of their life. And by the way, I have never heard Matt say anything that I had problems with. I think it's mostly just experiences with the bad atheists that sometimes make people biased towards atheists, and makes them hear antagonism where there is none. I would say the best way to respond is to just be clear that you're not antagonizing anyone, just saying things that even moderate religious people should agree with (like how intelligent design should not be taught in science class).

A little less than halfway through, and I'm taking a break to say: I love the idea of doing a prequel. What Scott should do is, wait 15 years and talk the prequels up like they'll be way more amazing than the originals. Then he should make the prequels totally mediocre and lacking any of the humor that made the originals great. Simultaneously, he should go back and digitally alter the originals to make them a little more bland and unfunny. Then he should refuse to distribute the podcasts in their original forms, and sue the pants off of anyone who tries to do so. That would be awesome.

I just want to say FUCK YOU JASON PAUL AND JUNE FOR POSTING THIS PERFECT FATHERS DAY MOVIE JUST AFTER FATHERS DAY YOU SADISTIC ASSFUCK JERKS. AFTER LISTENING TO THE AMAZON REVIEWS I REALIZED THIS WAS THE PERFECT MOVIES FOR BONDING WITH MY FATHER BUT UNFORTUNATELY I MISSED THE FATHER'S DAY DEADLINE. IF YOU HAD POSTED THIS A FEW WEEKS AGO I COULD HAVE SPENT SOME WONDERFUL QUALITY TIME WATCHING JUDGE DREDD ON HIS SPECIAL DAY BUT NOW I CAN'T DO IT UNTIL NEXT FATHERS'S DAY. OH YEAH THATS ASSUMING HE LIVES THAT LONG YOU COCKSUXKERS. THANK YOU FOR TWISTING THE KINFE AND THEN POURING SALTY LEMON JUICE ON IT YOU FUCKING PICKLE FUCKERS. I HOPE YOU DIE AND BURN IN HELL. Also thank you for the great podcast! I look forward to it every week.

This was a sarcastic comment, right? I mean, pretty much everyone who hates the movie (i.e. the majority of people who saw it) complains about this when they mention why it's bad. I actually haven't seen it, but it's one of the most common complaints I hear just from people talking about the movie.

This makes me want to start calling thermoses "dick bottles," even though I know I can't. I love ironically pretending to be a dumb homophobe, but in real life it's hard to do this without getting mistaken for the real thing.

Morrissey interview was great. I remember I used to hear a lot of these fake interviews with song clips cut in on the Dr. Demento show when I was a kid. They were always so terrible. Part of the problem is that it's so difficult to understand lyrics that have been cut out of context like that. Scott's are still bad, but he knows how to do something so that it's bad in a funny way. Also he keeps them short and simple, and I love how he inserts song clips by completely different people, and himself, at the end just to drive home the absurdity of everything. I would love to see more of these, and if Scott doesn't mind me giving advice: make it as ridiculous as possible.

I totally agree that the guy who wrote that was out of line, and that this really should be a non-issue. But I also know that Matt is the kind of guy who has a hard time ignoring stuff like this, so I thought it might be a good idea to have a discussion. Even if only to show that pretty much everyone agrees that Matt never said anything remotely offensive or out of line, and the original commenter was being oversensitive if not silly. Also I wanted to agree with Matt's statement that atheists often DO get more negativity than they deserve, and I was giving the reasons I think this is so. Finally, I want to say that I have never been an atheist who attacks religion. I do not think it is the root cause of society's evil. I actually had pretty positive experiences with religion growing up because I grew up surrounded by moderate, liberal Catholics. So I see a lot of potential for good in religion, too. Mostly I disagree with religions because I think they are factually inaccurate. I believe that religion is neither good nor bad in and of itself--it is a force within society that can be used for good or evil purposes. It's just that it's human nature for people to use it for evil purposes. So coming from this perspective, I thought there was NOTHING WRONG with anything Matt said. It's just common sense. Intelligent Design has no place in a science class. Tim Tebow is ridiculous, and totally deserves to be made fun of. And 50 years from now, I believe the Christians preaching homophobic propaganda in the gay marriage debate are going to look just as bigoted and backwards as the Christians who preached that interracial marriage was a sin.

I thought the brother sketch did take things a little too in the middle, in the sense that it was becoming too disturbing and not funny anymore. But I think Matt and everybody noticed this, and took things in a more lighthearted direction at the end. The menu thing was great. I loved how as we were hearing all these horrible, grisly things described, we also kept hearing little tangents about how great the various menu items were. P.S. I created a topic in response to the remarks Matt made in this show about strong negative reactions he often gets to religion-related remarks. I thought it might be too big of a tangent for this episode's discussion, and anyway it seems to be an ongoing thing that he wanted to address. So I gave it its own topic here: http://forum.earwolf.com/topic/7156-atheism-and-negative-reactions/

Michael Jordan is a great example of a "selfish player who overcame that." In the late 80s/early 90s, Jordan was in some ways at his peak in terms of raw talent. He was doing crazy dunks and showing athleticism that no one had ever seen before. But he was also pretty arrogant, and focused more on getting the ball so he could try tough-to-do shots that made him look awesome when he did it, but would often get stolen by the other team. Plus there was his whole gambling issue, which I think was due largely to hubris of thinking he could do it and not get in trouble. Then he had his "retirement" (which everyone knows was basically the league punishing him for the gambling), which I think humbled him. He came back a very changed player, who was more focused on working as a team. It made the Bulls champions, and it actually led him to play better too, because now he was working as a team which gave him better opportunities to score points. Just an example. I don't follow basketball enough these days to know if it applies in this situation, but it came to mind as I was listening to the podcast.

Was expecting a regular "bonus cut," which would have been awesome enough. Then I look in my mp3 player and find that it's a full hour and I'm like FUCK YEEEEAAAAAHHHH!!!!! Oh, and by the way, Danielle pretending to take a dump has to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard. Then they follow it up with "Heee, heeee, heeee, heeee... OHHHH NELLYYYYY!" I listened to that scene three times!

"Morning Musume" is actually kind of a has-been group. They do chart when they debut a new single, but that's only because the Japanese music industry is so homogenous. You'll have one or two real hit groups at the top, and then the B and C list artists will squabble over the lower ranks. Morning Musume has enough diehard fans that they can make the top 5 with every new single, but they drop off immediately. To give some perspective: back in the early 2000s, when they were REALLY popular, every single would debut at #1 and stay on the charts for awhile. Plus they had several spinoff groups of 3-4 members each that would put out #1 singles as well, and a few of the members had hit singles as solo artists on top of that. The whole reason they've been trying to make money overseas in China and at anime conventions is because the Japanese market has dried up so much. The real hit girl group is AKB48. AKB comes from Akihabara, often called "AKIBA," the district of Tokyo where they are centered and do most of their live shows. 48 is because there are 48 members. Yes, 48. You guys thought it was crazy that Morning Musume has 15 members, but this group genuninely has 48! Not only that, but there are a bunch more spinoff groups in other parts of Japan, and all of them have 48 members too! Too bad AKB48 wasn't on the charts this week. I would have liked to see how Natasha would have reacted.

I think Jing it or Ding it could be very funny if you made it a conversation game. That is, after explaining the game Scott-a-Bott would pretend to interview them as normal, but randomly exclaim "ring it!" or "ding it!" while talking, at which point the guests would frantically have to reach for their bells. It would create a lot of tension, and Scott could figure out some creative ways to fake out or work it in.

If I ever had an interview with Fred Savage, the first thing I would ask is whether or not Punky Brewster's boobs were real in that one episode where she guest starred.

I hope they have a "number nose" song for the next part of the countdown. I know it's probably impossible but it would be so awesome if they did.

Yeah, one of the cool things about Amy is that she'd kind of fade into the background and you'd forget she was there... then she'd remind you by coming in with something hilarious.

The first one, while very funny, didn't quite live up to the extremely high expectations I had based on Gelman's other podcast appearances. This one may have exceeded those expectations. Awesome!

@Heather Mayer: I don't think that was the opening sequence everyone is talking about. The third movie broke with the first two by having this crazy slapstick-y sequence, Instead of having the opening credits roll over space like the first two. Certain later versions (like the TV version) changed the opening credits to the "in space" version that you see here. (At least, that's how I understand it. I haven't seen this movie since I was a kid, so I don't remember the ridiculous intro they are talking about.)

How stoned do you have to be to accidentally post the same thing twice in four hours? Way to reinforce stereotypes about Phish fans. As for the episode, I am loving it. Not quite as hilarious to listen to as the other two, but it had more genuinely interesting conversations, and some of the Phish music was actually good. REALLY looking forward to the MSG episode. Hearing Scott try to coherently podcast while wasted out of his mind sounds like podcasting GOLD.

I think we should take the Sarah Silverman approach and "make it a treat." I think it can be very cool as a once-in-a-while thing, but I do get tired of it when it comes week after week. Also a live performance by Weird Al with his band would be awesome. Whether it's possible or not, I don't know but it would definitely be awesome.

Thank you so much for these past 10 weeks. This podcast has indeed been very educational, especially having Matt as permanent judge to explain and comment on things. Matt is a guy who isn't just good at comedy himself, but he's also good at teaching new comedians how to be funnier. It was a real treat hearing his experiences and insights. I think a lot of people need to realize that these "reality shows" are always going to be bullshit, to a certain degree. The main purpose of the Earwolf Challenge is not to find the absolute best podcast out there. If Jeff and Scott wanted to do that, there would be no reason to bother with a competition. The main purpose of the Earwolf Challenge, and and "reality" show, is to ENTERTAIN. Give people something they enjoy watching/listening to, and make them want to come back for more. And Earwolf was very successful in this respect. For the most part, I agreed with the judges' decisions, and I just want to echo people's comments that you should not take the negative comments as a sign that the show is doing badly. In fact, you don't need to take the negative comments seriously at all. That's the problem with people who troll message boards--sometimes people actually listen to them. You have to understand that when people say crazy things like "this podcast is one big conspiracy for Totally Laime," they represent a very tiny percentage of the audience. It just seems like more, because that crazy 0.1% of the population will go out of their way to make their voice heard. But really, you don't even need to respond to people like that. Take in the constructive criticism, but guys like that you need to ignore. Maybe tell them, "hey, if you want to give me some constructive criticism I'm open to that, but if you're just going to bitch and moan then I'm not going to respnd to anything you say." Or not say anything at all, really. About "this generation" and how much worse the negativity is: I think the main reason it's worse than it used to be is because it's easier. It used to be that the only way you could contact an oranization or famous person was by writing a letter, which is a lot of work. You'd have to track down the person's contact info, write the letter, and then physically go and send it, all at your own expense. Chances are you wouldn't stay mad long enough to go to all that trouble, and even if you did, you'd probably be feeling less angry and more thoughtful. But these days, if you want to complain to a person or organization, you can usually find a message board or twitter feed in seconds. You can get that instant gratification, and moreover you can do it at the height of your own anger. Oh and Scott, I am going to respectfully disagree with one thing you said on this podcast. You said that publications like the AV Club's Podmass are overanalyzing podcasts, giving them more scrutiny than they should get considering what they are. I think that Podmass gives an absolutely perfect amount of coverage. Because they don't give them a true review--there is no rating, and it just gives a general sense of which ones were good this week, and which ones were skippable. I find it very useful to check up on podcasts that I like, but not enough that I want to listen to every single one. For example, when I saw the description for last week's "Who Charted?" with Howard playing his brother Lee, it didn't sound like something that would be able to stay funny for a whole hour. It was sitting in my mp3 player and I was debating whether to delete it or not. The article said, no, it actually doesn't get old and the character's humor holds out surprisingly well throughout the show. So I gave it a listen, and it's probably one of the best episodes I've heard yet. So yeah, I'd like to see more publications doing ratings like that. Nothing in detail, just general overviews that can help the casual fans determine which ones are "must listen" and which ones we might not want to bother with this week.

Thank you so much for these past 10 weeks. This podcast has indeed been very educational, especially having Matt as permanent judge to explain and comment on things. Matt is a guy who isn't just good at comedy himself, but he's also good at teaching new comedians how to be funnier. It was a real treat hearing his experiences and insights. I think a lot of people need to realize that these "reality shows" are always going to be bullshit, to a certain degree. The main purpose of the Earwolf Challenge is not to find the absolute best podcast out there. If Jeff and Scott wanted to do that, there would be no reason to bother with a competition. The main purpose of the Earwolf Challenge, and and "reality" show, is to ENTERTAIN. Give people something they enjoy watching/listening to, and make them want to come back for more. And Earwolf was very successful in this respect. For the most part, I agreed with the judges' decisions, and I just want to echo people's comments that you should not take the negative comments as a sign that the show is doing badly. In fact, you don't need to take the negative comments seriously at all. That's the problem with people who troll message boards--sometimes people actually listen to them. You have to understand that when people say crazy things like "this podcast is one big conspiracy for Totally Laime," they represent a very tiny percentage of the audience. It just seems like more, because that crazy 0.1% of the population will go out of their way to make their voice heard. But really, you don't even need to respond to people like that. Take in the constructive criticism, but guys like that you need to ignore. Maybe tell them, "hey, if you want to give me some constructive criticism I'm open to that, but if you're just going to bitch and moan then I'm not going to respnd to anything you say." Or not say anything at all, really. About "this generation" and how much worse the negativity is: I think the main reason it's worse than it used to be is because it's easier. It used to be that the only way you could contact an oranization or famous person was by writing a letter, which is a lot of work. You'd have to track down the person's contact info, write the letter, and then physically go and send it, all at your own expense. Chances are you wouldn't stay mad long enough to go to all that trouble, and even if you did, you'd probably be feeling less angry and more thoughtful. But these days, if you want to complain to a person or organization, you can usually find a message board or twitter feed in seconds. You can get that instant gratification, and moreover you can do it at the height of your own anger. Oh and Scott, I am going to respectfully disagree with one thing you said on this podcast. You said that publications like the AV Club's Podmass are overanalyzing podcasts, giving them more scrutiny than they should get considering what they are. I think that Podmass gives an absolutely perfect amount of coverage. Because they don't give them a true review--there is no rating, and it just gives a general sense of which ones were good this week, and which ones were skippable. I find it very useful to check up on podcasts that I like, but not enough that I want to listen to every single one. For example, when I saw the description for last week's "Who Charted?" with Howard playing his brother Lee, it didn't sound like something that would be able to stay funny for a whole hour. It was sitting in my mp3 player and I was debating whether to delete it or not. The article said, no, it actually doesn't get old and the character's humor holds out surprisingly well throughout the show. So I gave it a listen, and it's probably one of the best episodes I've heard yet. So yeah, I'd like to see more publications doing ratings like that. Nothing in detail, just general overviews that can help the casual fans determine which ones are "must listen" and which ones we might not want to bother with this week.

I think the F+ has a great concept, but also one that is difficult to make work. It's very hard to find a balance between too much reading (which can make it monotonous) and too much riffing (which can make it confusing). They also need more consistency with the format and better overall sound quality. The fact that they have so many different people makes it even harder, I think. I've listened to two episodes of the podcast and while the 3 minute limit is part of the problem for them, it's not the whole problem. I think they still have a ways to go in terms of making it sound like a polished, professional-sounding show that is easy to listen to and understand. They've actually improved quite a bit during the challenge, but I think the judges were right to disqualify them because they still have a ways to go. I think this podcast has more potential than any of the others, and I hope this challenge serves as a springboard to increase listenership and steadily improve the show. I do intend to listen in from time to time after the challenge is over. . Totally Laime has gotten some points for "cuteness" but I don't see why that's a bad thing. Having a charming, charismatic host is one of the things that makes a podcast fun to listen to. Elizabeth definitely has that, and even though she might not appeal to everyone, she does appeal to some people. I hate to play the "sexism card," but I think she might be more popular with women than men. Attracting a female audience is a good thing when podcasts are so male-dominated, and like people have said it helps them stand out. Still, charm will only get you so far and if Totally Laime continues to put in submissions like the last few weeks, they deserve to be eliminated.