linuslee

Based on a true story... Check. Keira Knightly as a Bounty Hunter... Check. Director Tony Scott at his most self-indulgent... Check. Platinum-grade turd.

From IMDB: A rap oriented re-make of "Rebel Without a Cause," with heavy emphasis on the fact that rap star Vanilla Ice has assumed the James Dean role.

Congratulations to Totally Laime. Got to echo the sentiments of others here, this kind of felt like a foregone conclusion. No conspiracy theory here, just the sentiment that's been felt on the boards for the last few weeks. Not sure why Scott was so insistent that their decision wasn't influenced by who was a more convenient fit? I don't think anyone would have been particularly upset if it had been. Was good to see the upfront statement this week that the criteria was solely about personal preference. The lack of clarity in previous episodes has often been frustrating, so glad to see that issue addressed. Got to say, the best part of this episode was the retrospective. Informative and entertaining. Looking forward to the follow up show!

Congratulations to Totally Laime. Got to echo the sentiments of others here, this kind of felt like a foregone conclusion. No conspiracy theory here, just the sentiment that's been felt on the boards for the last few weeks. Not sure why Scott was so insistent that their decision wasn't influenced by who was a more convenient fit? I don't think anyone would have been particularly upset if it had been. Was good to see the upfront statement this week that the criteria was solely about personal preference. The lack of clarity in previous episodes has often been frustrating, so glad to see that issue addressed. Got to say, the best part of this episode was the retrospective. Informative and entertaining. Looking forward to the follow up show!

Fantastic shows. Wonderful chemistry between Andy Daly & PFT. Also loved the 3 show bundle with only 1 guest rotating. Really makes the set of 3 fit together nicely. Don't think it would have had as much appeal had it been 3 random guests on each episode. 3 hours of PFT definitely sold me on the deal. If you're on the forum reading this and you haven't bought these yet: if you can afford it, do it!

Fantastic shows. Wonderful chemistry between Andy Daly & PFT. Also loved the 3 show bundle with only 1 guest rotating. Really makes the set of 3 fit together nicely. Don't think it would have had as much appeal had it been 3 random guests on each episode. 3 hours of PFT definitely sold me on the deal. If you're on the forum reading this and you haven't bought these yet: if you can afford it, do it!

Or ... "Where's the queef?"

Or ... "Where's the queef?"

@Jeff - That's a really interesting point. That's one point of difference between the Earwolf Challenge and say, American Idol. The Idol forums may be teeming with rage, but it seems highly doubtful that the producers are reading them. Even if they sneak a peek once in a while, they would never respond. I think the podcast medium may also have a compounding effect on this. Since with TV most people will watch it at the same time, if they're upset, there will be a spike in angry comments, but the thread will eventually settle down in tone. With podcasting, because the listener can choose when to consume it, and also do so while doing other things, people can enter the thread way after the initial posting and still be coming off the emotional charge of having only just listened. I re-read my first post on this thread -- which I must admit, I wrote *as* I was listening to the latest episode. Wow. Did I need to use bold and CAPS? That was rude, I'm sorry. But it was that genuine emotional response being transcribed in real time. You can see a similar pattern with most of the feedback in the thread today. Many people who posted multiple times seemed much more passionate and angry in their first posts than further along in the discussion. It's great that you, Scott and Matt have all posted in these threads. It means a lot that you are reading our feedback, especially because it's difficult to take. Nobody expects you to take every criticism on board. But it's encouraging to feel like we all have a stake in this. That's what makes this medium more interesting than traditional 1-sided broadcasting. That there is give and take. I'd love to hear a round table on the Wolf Den about handling online criticism in general. I'm sure if it came up as an organic topic of conversation among guys at the UCB, there must be many people in the podcasting world with anecdotes and perspectives. Again -- sorry for the tone of some of my comments. I've listened to Earwolf from the 1st episode of CDR-radio over at Indie-103.1 and it's been great to see you guys grow. It's great to see people taking risks and expanding what's possible with the medium. I really encourage you to keep doing it. Even if sometimes that means facing a mini-backlash. I think it will be worthwhile.

@Jeff - That's a really interesting point. That's one point of difference between the Earwolf Challenge and say, American Idol. The Idol forums may be teeming with rage, but it seems highly doubtful that the producers are reading them. Even if they sneak a peek once in a while, they would never respond. I think the podcast medium may also have a compounding effect on this. Since with TV most people will watch it at the same time, if they're upset, there will be a spike in angry comments, but the thread will eventually settle down in tone. With podcasting, because the listener can choose when to consume it, and also do so while doing other things, people can enter the thread way after the initial posting and still be coming off the emotional charge of having only just listened. I re-read my first post on this thread -- which I must admit, I wrote *as* I was listening to the latest episode. Wow. Did I need to use bold and CAPS? That was rude, I'm sorry. But it was that genuine emotional response being transcribed in real time. You can see a similar pattern with most of the feedback in the thread today. Many people who posted multiple times seemed much more passionate and angry in their first posts than further along in the discussion. It's great that you, Scott and Matt have all posted in these threads. It means a lot that you are reading our feedback, especially because it's difficult to take. Nobody expects you to take every criticism on board. But it's encouraging to feel like we all have a stake in this. That's what makes this medium more interesting than traditional 1-sided broadcasting. That there is give and take. I'd love to hear a round table on the Wolf Den about handling online criticism in general. I'm sure if it came up as an organic topic of conversation among guys at the UCB, there must be many people in the podcasting world with anecdotes and perspectives. Again -- sorry for the tone of some of my comments. I've listened to Earwolf from the 1st episode of CDR-radio over at Indie-103.1 and it's been great to see you guys grow. It's great to see people taking risks and expanding what's possible with the medium. I really encourage you to keep doing it. Even if sometimes that means facing a mini-backlash. I think it will be worthwhile.

Not that this thread needs any more filler: but I feel I put something out into the general conversation that is being misinterpreted. When I said this week "damaged the Earwolf brand", I was taking a term from the design/advertising world and putting it an thread without proper context. I now feel I should apologize for being a pretentious douche-bag. Sorry. I didn't to mean to imply a this week was a permanent blemish or an indelible tarnishing of the Earwolf name. Brands are damaged every day. In minor ways, like this, and in major ways like the Gulf Oil Spill damaging the BP brand. What I meant is that this challenge was not up the usual standard of Earwolf, and not consistent with what we had come to expect from the challenge. I felt it was relevant because this is intrinsically part of the judgement section of the Earwolf challenge. The Challenge was to find a podcast which best fit the brand values of Earwolf, and would sit inside the Earwolf family or brand, for a 1 year contract. Who is going to do the best job of keeping up that high standard associated with Earwolf and not embarrass the Earwolf name by being unfunny, or ill-conceived, or unprofessional, or having poor audio quality, etc. That's what validated the judges' feedback. The point was, the execution of this week's challenge did feel ill-concieved or poorly executed to many of the listeners. And your audience are the ones who perceive your brand and it's associations. When your audience's initial reaction is -- this is unfair, or this is frustrating, or this is unprofessional, of course that does damage. It's only if that reaction is repeated over time, that becomes the primary association with your brand and you have a major problem. I wasn't implying this week has changed anyone's entire perception of the Earwolf brand. But I felt it was pertinent to the discussion of why people had been so incensed with this week's challenge. Again, my apologies for adding to the confusion.

Not that this thread needs any more filler: but I feel I put something out into the general conversation that is being misinterpreted. When I said this week "damaged the Earwolf brand", I was taking a term from the design/advertising world and putting it an thread without proper context. I now feel I should apologize for being a pretentious douche-bag. Sorry. I didn't to mean to imply a this week was a permanent blemish or an indelible tarnishing of the Earwolf name. Brands are damaged every day. In minor ways, like this, and in major ways like the Gulf Oil Spill damaging the BP brand. What I meant is that this challenge was not up the usual standard of Earwolf, and not consistent with what we had come to expect from the challenge. I felt it was relevant because this is intrinsically part of the judgement section of the Earwolf challenge. The Challenge was to find a podcast which best fit the brand values of Earwolf, and would sit inside the Earwolf family or brand, for a 1 year contract. Who is going to do the best job of keeping up that high standard associated with Earwolf and not embarrass the Earwolf name by being unfunny, or ill-conceived, or unprofessional, or having poor audio quality, etc. That's what validated the judges' feedback. The point was, the execution of this week's challenge did feel ill-concieved or poorly executed to many of the listeners. And your audience are the ones who perceive your brand and it's associations. When your audience's initial reaction is -- this is unfair, or this is frustrating, or this is unprofessional, of course that does damage. It's only if that reaction is repeated over time, that becomes the primary association with your brand and you have a major problem. I wasn't implying this week has changed anyone's entire perception of the Earwolf brand. But I felt it was pertinent to the discussion of why people had been so incensed with this week's challenge. Again, my apologies for adding to the confusion.

@Jeff Ha ha, sure. Non-breaking space in combination with a line break. The forum code seems to ignore empty line breaks. I'm a typographer, so it's my niche. Hold Option + Space on a Mac. Much more painful on Windows, sorry.

@Jeff Ha ha, sure. Non-breaking space in combination with a line break. The forum code seems to ignore empty line breaks. I'm a typographer, so it's my niche. Hold Option + Space on a Mac. Much more painful on Windows, sorry.

@Jeff Thank you for replying and acknowledging it didn't work. That the sum total was poorly executed. Part of what's fuelled the rancor in the forums has been the show's own format. The Challenge is all about criticizing where podcasts fall short. And when the Challenge fell short of our expectations, it felt necessary to many listeners to make their critiques heard. If Who Charted or Sklarbro Country had a bad week, no one would feel like injustice had been done. Because those shows aren't about saying what is and is not a good podcast. Yes. This week hurt the Earwolf brand. But it didn't put a "pox" on it. Each good show builds your brand. And when you reply to fan feedback, you're helping to fix that damage. We want to feel like we've been heard. It would be great if not on this show, but perhaps on the Wolfden, you could discuss the feedback you got from the forums, particularly in the suggestions thread, and regarding this controversial week, and how you would plan to address that feedback in a Season 2. Most of us are on here giving feedback because we want the show to be better too. It was a success. We got down to the final 3 and people were passionate about the results. Ignore the conspiracy theorists, they're an in-built bug in every online forum. But for many of us, this week was the tipping point where the enjoyment of the podcast was overwhelmed by feeling of frustration with how the challenge was run, how judges were briefed, for the 8th week in a row, not understanding the challenge parameters, unclear/conflicting judging criteria, etc, plus the uncharacteristic callousness of pranking the contestants and then immediately asking them to address a challenge after revealing they'd been duped. The Earwolf Challenge is new ground for podcasting and for that, we thank you for being willing to take the risk of screwing it up. We realise you're going to do some learning by trial and error. This week pushed people's buttons. We gave harsh feedback. But we gave it so you could take it on board and avoid those mistakes again.

@Jeff Thank you for replying and acknowledging it didn't work. That the sum total was poorly executed. Part of what's fuelled the rancor in the forums has been the show's own format. The Challenge is all about criticizing where podcasts fall short. And when the Challenge fell short of our expectations, it felt necessary to many listeners to make their critiques heard. If Who Charted or Sklarbro Country had a bad week, no one would feel like injustice had been done. Because those shows aren't about saying what is and is not a good podcast. Yes. This week hurt the Earwolf brand. But it didn't put a "pox" on it. Each good show builds your brand. And when you reply to fan feedback, you're helping to fix that damage. We want to feel like we've been heard. It would be great if not on this show, but perhaps on the Wolfden, you could discuss the feedback you got from the forums, particularly in the suggestions thread, and regarding this controversial week, and how you would plan to address that feedback in a Season 2. Most of us are on here giving feedback because we want the show to be better too. It was a success. We got down to the final 3 and people were passionate about the results. Ignore the conspiracy theorists, they're an in-built bug in every online forum. But for many of us, this week was the tipping point where the enjoyment of the podcast was overwhelmed by feeling of frustration with how the challenge was run, how judges were briefed, for the 8th week in a row, not understanding the challenge parameters, unclear/conflicting judging criteria, etc, plus the uncharacteristic callousness of pranking the contestants and then immediately asking them to address a challenge after revealing they'd been duped. The Earwolf Challenge is new ground for podcasting and for that, we thank you for being willing to take the risk of screwing it up. We realise you're going to do some learning by trial and error. This week pushed people's buttons. We gave harsh feedback. But we gave it so you could take it on board and avoid those mistakes again.

@Bucho "How do you take Besser, Belknap and Anthony - three respected, established talents - and combine them into something which is no fun to listen to? You overcomplicate and convolute something which many previous Challenge judges have already said is best kept simple. If this week had been a four-way contest between the final three and The Challenge, then this week The Challenge - with all that firepower at its disposal - somehow contrived to finish fourth." Well said sir. @Brian On the other hand, though, using words like betrayed seems almost absurd. No one promised you anything, this is all completely free content. You have a right to enjoy what you want, you have a right to think and say what you feel, but no one owes you anything. I don't mean to sound like a real Dirk here, but the moment you think you deserve any of this, is the moment you have been given too much. I may be guilty of hyperbole by using the word betrayed, but it's a genuine emotional response. The podcaster / audience relationship is what this whole series has been about -- considering the audience, why should they listen to you over all the other podcasts out there? Why should they keep coming back? Prove to us you have what it takes to be endorsed under the Earwolf brand. The podcaster's relationship to their audience is about trust. You may be giving out content for free, true. But so is everyone else, with few exceptions. There's an opportunity cost. Why shouldn't a listener feel betrayed for investing hours of their attention keeping up with a podcast and it turns into something you didn't sign up for? People feel passionately, because they're invested. The reason anybody listened to the Earwolf Challenge is because we expect a certain quality from Earwolf. We expect a certain standard, associated with their brand. If the Earwolf brand was worth nothing, then the prize for the challenge would be worthless. This week's challenge has tarnished the brand and damaged that trust.

@Bucho "How do you take Besser, Belknap and Anthony - three respected, established talents - and combine them into something which is no fun to listen to? You overcomplicate and convolute something which many previous Challenge judges have already said is best kept simple. If this week had been a four-way contest between the final three and The Challenge, then this week The Challenge - with all that firepower at its disposal - somehow contrived to finish fourth." Well said sir. @Brian On the other hand, though, using words like betrayed seems almost absurd. No one promised you anything, this is all completely free content. You have a right to enjoy what you want, you have a right to think and say what you feel, but no one owes you anything. I don't mean to sound like a real Dirk here, but the moment you think you deserve any of this, is the moment you have been given too much. I may be guilty of hyperbole by using the word betrayed, but it's a genuine emotional response. The podcaster / audience relationship is what this whole series has been about -- considering the audience, why should they listen to you over all the other podcasts out there? Why should they keep coming back? Prove to us you have what it takes to be endorsed under the Earwolf brand. The podcaster's relationship to their audience is about trust. You may be giving out content for free, true. But so is everyone else, with few exceptions. There's an opportunity cost. Why shouldn't a listener feel betrayed for investing hours of their attention keeping up with a podcast and it turns into something you didn't sign up for? People feel passionately, because they're invested. The reason anybody listened to the Earwolf Challenge is because we expect a certain quality from Earwolf. We expect a certain standard, associated with their brand. If the Earwolf brand was worth nothing, then the prize for the challenge would be worthless. This week's challenge has tarnished the brand and damaged that trust.

This was even more upsetting to listen to than anticipated. Many people in forum raised the same criticism that the LHR and LDDC both used. Again the JUDGES DIDN'T KNOW THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE CHALLENGE! "We were told to make original content" "Oh, we didn't know that." WHY? How can you judge if you don't know that? Dave even said LDDC made him laugh the most -- contradicting what Matt told us was the criteria -- who was funniest. Why was the submission that made you laugh most in the bottom 2? It's been said over and over -- it will continue to be said this week: Left Handed Radio got fucked over. If this challenge was meant to be about professionalism -- they should have won. If this challenge was meant to be about producing *original* content in an extremely short time frame -- they had the hardest task by far, and they were not given any leeway for that. If this challenge was meant to be about being funniest -- Totally Laime had no place being the safe place. This challenge was bullshit from the start. I feel betrayed as a listener and pissed off for getting invested in this series. My only hope at this stage is that Matt and the producers address these criticisms in the final episodes, or some addendum. It's so sad because up until this week, this has been my favourite thing in podcasting. It's been inventive, really playing with the form, while providing commentary and insight. We've gotten to know the contestants and get emotionally invested in the outcome. Please don't make us regret that decision. At least give us some answers.

This was even more upsetting to listen to than anticipated. Many people in forum raised the same criticism that the LHR and LDDC both used. Again the JUDGES DIDN'T KNOW THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE CHALLENGE! "We were told to make original content" "Oh, we didn't know that." WHY? How can you judge if you don't know that? Dave even said LDDC made him laugh the most -- contradicting what Matt told us was the criteria -- who was funniest. Why was the submission that made you laugh most in the bottom 2? It's been said over and over -- it will continue to be said this week: Left Handed Radio got fucked over. If this challenge was meant to be about professionalism -- they should have won. If this challenge was meant to be about producing *original* content in an extremely short time frame -- they had the hardest task by far, and they were not given any leeway for that. If this challenge was meant to be about being funniest -- Totally Laime had no place being the safe place. This challenge was bullshit from the start. I feel betrayed as a listener and pissed off for getting invested in this series. My only hope at this stage is that Matt and the producers address these criticisms in the final episodes, or some addendum. It's so sad because up until this week, this has been my favourite thing in podcasting. It's been inventive, really playing with the form, while providing commentary and insight. We've gotten to know the contestants and get emotionally invested in the outcome. Please don't make us regret that decision. At least give us some answers.

I suppose Earwolf Challenge should be congratulated. This week's challenge has upset a lot of people. Probably the majority of people on this thread. Which means you succeeded in making us care enough to get on here and voice our opinion -- a few of us for the first time. The reason for the outcry is we feel betrayed. We've followed these contestants from the start. Seen them overcome the challenges week to week until now we're at the final 3. People actually care about who wins this competition. Let's be honest, it's not going to change anyone's life. But you still managed to make us care. But you took all that goodwill you built over the weeks and seemingly threw it away, with this ill-conceived, poorly executed stunt. The question has come up over and over. Why? If it was a test of professionalism, why was the judging criteria who was "funniest" as ruled by the judges? If that was the point, why not just give a straight challenge -- you have 30 mins to produce something, GO! Why the elaborate prank? And why let them in on the fact it was a prank beforehand? Surely it would have been better for them to think it was actually a schedule conflict so they could react to it like real situation? Instead we just see how the different teams handle being fucked with. We don't download the Earwolf Challenge to hear a bad version of Punk'd without hearing the reveal. We as listeners feel like we've been pranked too. The only way to save this one is to have the Skar Bros come down from the ceiling and scream -- YOU ... GOT ... BENCHED! Unfortunately, my hopes for tomorrow are pretty much at an all time low.

I suppose Earwolf Challenge should be congratulated. This week's challenge has upset a lot of people. Probably the majority of people on this thread. Which means you succeeded in making us care enough to get on here and voice our opinion -- a few of us for the first time. The reason for the outcry is we feel betrayed. We've followed these contestants from the start. Seen them overcome the challenges week to week until now we're at the final 3. People actually care about who wins this competition. Let's be honest, it's not going to change anyone's life. But you still managed to make us care. But you took all that goodwill you built over the weeks and seemingly threw it away, with this ill-conceived, poorly executed stunt. The question has come up over and over. Why? If it was a test of professionalism, why was the judging criteria who was "funniest" as ruled by the judges? If that was the point, why not just give a straight challenge -- you have 30 mins to produce something, GO! Why the elaborate prank? And why let them in on the fact it was a prank beforehand? Surely it would have been better for them to think it was actually a schedule conflict so they could react to it like real situation? Instead we just see how the different teams handle being fucked with. We don't download the Earwolf Challenge to hear a bad version of Punk'd without hearing the reveal. We as listeners feel like we've been pranked too. The only way to save this one is to have the Skar Bros come down from the ceiling and scream -- YOU ... GOT ... BENCHED! Unfortunately, my hopes for tomorrow are pretty much at an all time low.

@Caroline "This was a challenge of professionalism." If it been billed as such from the start, then I agree, it would be a challenge with some merit. Sadly, this has not been the clear objective. If Matt Besser had framed it as such, if the judges had said any such thing during this episode, that would be a worthwhile challenge. Instead, it's been merely hinted at. They tried to play it out like a bit or a prank in the coaching session. The judges haven't been clear what they're looking for -- instead it's just highlighted what has always been the frustrating shortcomings of this challenge from the beggining: lack of consensus and clarity on the organizers part. LDDC talked about what had happened to them in an entertaining way. The judges said -- why did they just go on about the situation? LHR stuck their heads down and wrote, recorded and edited a sketch. The judges said -- why didn't they address the situation? TL played around with what they had already prepared. The judges said -- we liked their husband & wife dynamic? It seems like nobody is giving the judges a back story as to what are the constraints and desired outcomes of each week's challenge. This is very frustrating as a listener to hear the same criticisms leveled week to week that are not really valid criticisms of the contestants, but of the mechanisms of the challenge itself. It would have been interesting to see a "time-crunch" challenge that was focused on being funny in a limited time frame for production without the pranking element. Or if this was a test of their professionalism, that being the clear objective, and hearing how they handled the news, and that being taken into account along with the submissions. As it stands it fills neither role, and instead is an unfocused and disappointing listen.

@Caroline "This was a challenge of professionalism." If it been billed as such from the start, then I agree, it would be a challenge with some merit. Sadly, this has not been the clear objective. If Matt Besser had framed it as such, if the judges had said any such thing during this episode, that would be a worthwhile challenge. Instead, it's been merely hinted at. They tried to play it out like a bit or a prank in the coaching session. The judges haven't been clear what they're looking for -- instead it's just highlighted what has always been the frustrating shortcomings of this challenge from the beggining: lack of consensus and clarity on the organizers part. LDDC talked about what had happened to them in an entertaining way. The judges said -- why did they just go on about the situation? LHR stuck their heads down and wrote, recorded and edited a sketch. The judges said -- why didn't they address the situation? TL played around with what they had already prepared. The judges said -- we liked their husband & wife dynamic? It seems like nobody is giving the judges a back story as to what are the constraints and desired outcomes of each week's challenge. This is very frustrating as a listener to hear the same criticisms leveled week to week that are not really valid criticisms of the contestants, but of the mechanisms of the challenge itself. It would have been interesting to see a "time-crunch" challenge that was focused on being funny in a limited time frame for production without the pranking element. Or if this was a test of their professionalism, that being the clear objective, and hearing how they handled the news, and that being taken into account along with the submissions. As it stands it fills neither role, and instead is an unfocused and disappointing listen.

The poor man's pirate DVD of the Butterfly effect. This train-wreck ran out of funding after one of the locations got severely flooded and took half the equipment & the budget with it. Released late, over budget and with appalling, not-even-close-to-post-production special effects.