We Report, You Decide -- Saturday Night You Bull Sessions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:25:58 07/07/04 Wed
Author: CCS
Subject: We Report, You Decide
In reply to: Patrick Lonergan 's message, "REVIEWS: Matt LeBlanc 06/26/04" on 00:47:48 06/29/04 Tue

Like anyone, I have prejudices. Using certain styles, with some characters or concerning specific topics, I'll just be predisposed to not find humor or to over-analyze. I figure the safest way to deal with these prejudices is just to be plain and honest about which ones I have. If you see a "stock preface" before your sketch, it means I probably have a block that's going to keep me from enjoying this sketch as much as the average person. Criticisms in these areas should really be considered as to whether they are a result of my prejudices or not. I'm quite liable to have attacked and criticized something that's fine as it stands. Not all comedy is for everybody, and it's just bound to happen that stuff will appear that I simply won't get. This isn't a problem with your writing in any way.

----presidential roast----

For a roast, Bush sure did talk a lot. You had a funny concept here; what hurt the sketch were the non-roastish sections - particularly the opening Bush address bit. I think you became better in writing the sketch as it went onward, as I found the demeanor of Cheney's section stronger than Powell's. Perhaps this is because you let Cheney use similes and had Bush interrupting less. I enjoy reading sketches where the writer is clearly trying to do something different and I think this worked.

----matt leblanc's monologue----

Stock preface #1: It is very difficult to write an original and funny monologue. Most ideas of what can be done with the space have been used, and devices used to invite other people onto the stage often seem hackish.
This monologue rests on the standard fall-back: Hosts makes fun of previous work. Since our host hasn't done anything of note but this one sitcom, the range is unfortunately a tad limited. You could go the way of making up stuff (Barrymore's recent monologue) or dredging up minor projects no one remembers, but I prefer your choice of working into the theme song. The song parody part wasn't terrific, but it still was a better direction.

----ryme or reason furniture----

Too often sketches get caught going along with formulas. It seemed too easy to make this sketch last just three letters, so I made an effort to run a bit longer. If this sketch were competing for airtime, there is now doubt in my mind that I'd have to cut at least one letter.

----midnight phone calls from a drunken willie nelson----

This is a good "crazy character" two-person piece. It got a bit disgusting at one point, with the condom, but otherwise played really well with some good old-fashioned screwball hilarity. I especially liked: I can�t seem to get a hold of my pals Linda and Julio. Given your Spears disposition, it doesn't surprise me that you're a fan of early Madonna. If I could make one recommendation, don't get too silly with side comments in the stage directions. During the "Borderline" bit, you address the reading audience with what it is you're doing. I'd recommend you just let it be, people will recognize the lyrics once the chorus hits.

----a day in the life...of microsoft employees----

Stock preface #28: As one already firmly entrenched in various aspects of geek culture, I find it hard to relate to a sketch of this sort. Your average person will laugh at the references; I am prone to sit and analyze whether the references are good, appropriate or timely.
I don't know anyone that still plays D&D. The problem is, D&D comes from a time when it was KING or RPGs. Now, there's just so many options. You could have used Everquest, Final Fantasy, or a horde of other games. If you wanted to capture true geekery, the game of choice would probably be Vampire: The Masquerade. But outside of people who play it, how many actually know about it? It's a fractioning joke that only allows one side of the table to laugh. As (I'm assuming) a non-nerd yourself, you went with makes you laugh. Can't fault that, even though I just tried. I liked the Nerd 3 nomenclature. I found myself not liking the Supervisor character, besides his bratty attitude, he acted for a large part of the sketch as a medium - transferring the words of Bill Gates onto lesser, if still high-ranking nerds. In that aspect, I think it would have been better if you found some way for Bill Gates to make his presence known. Perhaps he hacked the digital watch of one of the lesser nerds, and they all read what Bill has to say off that ("But I just installed a new firewall on it last night!"). This would also allow the Supervisor to act like more of a straight man, which I felt this sketch needed. I appreciated his condescension towards the nerds, but the Blah, blah, blah! I�m not listening to you! seemed too annoying to be funny. Enjoyed most of the off-the-wall comments the nerds made and also the awesome use of the word "domino." Aces!

----last comic standing----

Stock preface #7: Stand-up just doesn't come out the same way on paper, especially in a sketch format.
The stand-up stylings of the two contestants seemed similar. The reason for this is fairly obvious to me, they're both working your material. In terms of parody, I think you would have been better off making this just a standard stand-up showdown over the big finale, which at time of submission was still a month off. I enjoyed the use of pretaped bits to mimic the show. The Next Action Star parody went on too long on too weak a premise, I thought, especially with a NAS parody appearing in our previous episode. Heh, funny thing about that, one of the NBC stations round here gave up on Next Action Star in favor of rerunning last week's LCS. Anyway, I thought some of the stuff in the stand-up bits was funny, but some was just too much like (to use something that's in no way a cliche) beating a dead horse. Dat Phan and William Hung have both already been pummelled incessantly, and while I'm not justifying their "work," I just felt you didn't bring anything new to the table on those issues.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: We Report, You Decide, The Deuce -- CCS, 23:51:29 07/07/04 Wed