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

theforeverlostsoul

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    83

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by theforeverlostsoul

  1. Posted

    it's truly remarkable that they didn't seem to have a complete grasp on the hollywood facts lyrics at any point during the episode, as the entire thing is seared into my brain for several lifetimes now

     

    It's the Chinese Theatre bit that is confusing I think. I think it's just 'then go walk in front of Chinese Theatre', but Samberg says it in a very specific way in the original version that isn't easy to replicate.

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    Really happy to hear they're doing more episodes. I hope they get PFT on again to ask him where he was the first time he heard the new album.

     

    It's so strange that neither Scott asked him when he'd first heard U2, or indeed that he didn't just tell them when he first appeared, so I hope they remember to ask, or he just tells them, when he first heard the new album if he's on again.

    • Like 1

  11. Posted

    What a glorious two hours! Good thing about the lack of microphones was that it prevented all the forces of good and evil from talking over each other, because there were a lot of them in the room.

     

    I'm hoping that some TV executives were listening, and are ready to get in touch with Don DiMello to get a live performance of Don DiMello Presents Disney's Frozen on television around Christmas. Would be fun for all the family, with something special for daddy.

    • Like 7

  12. Posted

    Can anyone explain how I found Harris' joke about not liking Larry Bird so funny? It really feels like it was not a good joke at all, but I laughed so much I worried my ass could become detached from my body.

     

    Also, I can't believe that when Harris mentioned the most controversial song on the album, he and Scott missed Mike's brilliant 'Cop Killer?' suggestion completely.

    • Like 6

  13. Posted

    The dog thing is amazing*! As they all agree during the podcast, there's no way the editors didn't notice it, so what made them keep it in? It looks like there was a lot of footage of Terry Hogan on his bike in various locations, surely they could have chosen another piece of footage?

     

     

    *By amazing, I mean horrifying

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    I mean, there's literally no reason for them not to do commentary on every other episode, is there?

     

    I think the episode they were(n't) commentating on was at just the right volume. It made this episode interactive with that episode, which generated some great bits, which I can't wait to hear about on everyone's favourite bit-related podcast, 'Great Bits'.

     

    And what are the chances of there being a moment's silence in the commentary just as Scott randomly said 'Dr. Seuss', which was the source of much hilarity.

    • Like 8

  20. Posted

     

    In fairnes Andy generally talks about them in the past tense, James' characters throw down mid show. Mind, I still find it hilarious, but I can see how the distiction would make it less palatable.

     

    That's definitely part of it for me. Daly is usually talking vaguely about un-named characters in the past tense, but it's often happening in the moment when Adomian does it. I think I would find it just as off-putting if a Daly character was doing 'things' with a female character in the studio, if not more so.

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    I don't think anything Adomian's characters have said have been as graphic as ANY of the Don Dimello appearances, which include about as graphic sexual (and violent) content as you can get .

     

    I am honestly not trying to be accusatory at all, but would the dislike have to do with James' characters often talking about gay sex acts?

     

    You're really telling me that you don't think any of the stuff that Paul Giamatti's been involved in during his numerous appearances was particularly graphic?

     

    It may just be that I don't like the Paul Giamatti character, or that I don't find Adomian as funny as I do Daly. I don't think it's as simplistic as being jokes/bits about straight sex or gay sex, more the way the are told and/or acted out. It just seems to me like more of Adomian's appearances end up going down that path and that it doesn't appeal to me. I may be wrong because I've only listened to a handful of CBB episodes more than once.

     

    I don't know what you'd be accusing me of if I had a dislike of bits about gay sex acts either. I don't see how it could be considered homophobic or whatever.

  23. Posted

    I am curious - do you have the same problem when Andy Daly's characters talk about repulsive sex acts?

     

    It doesn't feel to me like Andy Daly's characters do it as often as Adomian's do, or in such detail. Maybe it's the voices of the characters that make a difference, or that Adomian takes it further than Daly does. But no, I can't recall being put off by Daly's characters in the same way. And I do think Daly is funnier.

  24. Posted

    I thought the first half of this episode was brilliant. As Scott says, very much not what you normally expect from Comedy Bang Bang but refreshing and very interesting. But I was totally out when Paul Giamatti was introduced. I think James Adomian can be funny, and I enjoyed George W., but I find it impossible to enjoy his characters when they start talking about/doing repulsive sexual activity.

    • Like 1

  25. Posted

    I do think that Scott sounds kind of insane when he's trying to explain his theory about the ideal pubic toilets. I can kind of understand where he's coming from in certain aspects of it (namely the privacy part, because I always try to avoid uh, sitting down in public toilets...), but there's definitely a 'Wait, what?' element to the way he explains it.

×