New Show, Old Pros: Where have we seen these people before?

[senrik]

I'm on side with Daddio for this. I think it should be brand-new, previously undiscovered talent, period. Do a Night at the Improv type of show for the others who are already "pros".

Unfortunately, if you do that, mostly what you get are profoundly unfunny people.....

Like me...

[eric11]

Stand Up comedy is not like singing. it takes a lot of hard work and experience. If you've been in the buisness fourteen years, you either stink, or you have gotten somewhere. Very rarley there is an imbetween. If you are funny you will be found. Last year, the only person LCS found was Rob Cantrel, everyone else was a established comedein (excluding Dat)

[hepcat]

and here's the disclaimer (luckily i had it in my vcr)

Prior to the start of the contestant selection process, some talent scouts had verious levels of familiarity with some of the audtionioning applicants. NOt all performers were featured.

Contesant order fo apperance may have been changed for creative purposes. Juding was conducted at the time of taping.

Applicants were chosen to advance to the next round of audtions by the talent scouts in conjunction with the producers and NBC.

Thanks for this, Psi! You rock.

Wasn't there a second screen of disclaimers? Or did this include both?

[ConfusedONE]

Bert Kreischer had his own show on FX called Hurt Bert. It was the poor man's Jackass.

Also, in the New York audition a guy who was a regular on Chappelle's show was in the crowd trying to get on the show.

[JonasGrumby]

I am very upset with the first group. Why do they need to split the groups? Yes, I've recognized a few of the contestants in the first group. Todd i've seen twice, one of them in Jimmy Kimmel show and he did the same lame bit that he did tonight. Ant, i do not find funny, but most especially unfunny is Jessica. I don't get it with the judges, she just makes faces and try to be annoying, that's like being Tom Green, not funny. Kathleen I can't picture where I've seen her before. I guess Letterman show but probably StarSearch where I saw Alonzo. She wasn't that funny and the same with DC Benny. I think they could have done a better selection. Paul the Indian guy was great and Frank, my favorite, could have been better, he was great earlier but he should have used the same joke just like the others did. Oh yes, i almost forgot....that Sue Costello sucks!! Rich Vos was not even laughing, in fact, had a surprised-how-she-made-it-this-far look on his face.

[Dogbat]

I agree with all who think the mix of seasoned comics with a few newbies will make a better show. Nowhere did production say that this show was to be comprised of only amatures. I assume the open auditions were in hopes of catching a jewel they would ordinarily not see and throw them in a mix of familiar faces who are sure to entertain.

There are thousands of comics and actors and only a few make it to the top ranks. The established comics that were chosen are still not main stream. They all continually strive to come into focus as Ellen, Carlin, Seinfeld, Pryor, etc have.

[overthetop]

Amateurs vs established comedians


The objective of the show isn't to find new talent, but to make a good show that gets good ratings. Also, I think that, even if they tried to keep it only to amateurs, there'd have to be a definition of amateur. What would that be? Someone who's never been paid for comedy? Someone who's never been paid for stand-up only? (Actors and writers would be still amateurs then.)

Professional/established comedians have an advantage over new guys because the judges and producers know them by reputation. Many of you have argued that some have been put thru because they are friends with Mohr/Vos. Although that may be true, I think it's more likely that some that we didn't think were as funny as others in the 30-second bits we saw went through because they've been funny overall in their careers.

That said, overall I don't see the logic of separating the amateurs from the pros. No definition would work but, more, they want the funniest show possible. Even the Olympics have done away with the amateur distinction because the best is the best and that's it. It's silly to say--you're the best but because you've been paid for it you can't compete.

Seeing only 1/6th of their bits, also, is frustrating to us because we really can't judge. The show has practical restrictions (time), but it just leaves us all speculating. Was that person funnier in the bits we didn't see? Is that person going for a drink with Colin Quinn later? I hope that we get a funny show and that someone very funny who personally isn't a royal jerk (like this guy Jim Norton seems to be) wins.

Also, I do think that it's an advantage to be a woman. In the two 30-second bits we've seen, Kerri definitely isn't nearly as funny as her husband. But if you start out with, say 15 guys and 5 gals, but you want a mixed gender house, the producers need to narrow that group to 6 guys and 4 gals for that half of the final so the show can end up with 3 or 4 women (at least) in the house at the end.

I'm sure that the producers would like to stir up the flirting a bit in the house. Last year it was three women, and except for rumors that Tess and Rob were swell friends, there was a whole lot of nothing going on.

[toque]

Of two of the "knowns" mentioned, Durst and Norton, (correct me if I'm wrong), but only Norton made it through. That doesn't show unbiased favouritism.

For those who think that this show should be made up of unknowns, how would you draw the line between being "known" and "unknown"???
Would Mordal have made the "unknown" list? He was on Leno previous to LCS. I think the line is too difficult to draw. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the comic is funny, and could use the exposure... let them have a shot at it.

[toque]

Amateurs vs established comedians


The objective of the show isn't to find new talent, but to make a good show that gets good ratings. Also, I think that, even if they tried to keep it only to amateurs, there'd have to be a definition of amateur. What would that be? Someone who's never been paid for comedy? Someone who's never been paid for stand-up only? (Actors and writers would be still amateurs then.)

Professional/established comedians have an advantage over new guys because the judges and producers know them by reputation. Many of you have argued that some have been put thru because they are friends with Mohr/Vos. Although that may be true, I think it's more likely that some that we didn't think were as funny as others in the 30-second bits we saw went through because they've been funny overall in their careers.

That said, overall I don't see the logic of separating the amateurs from the pros. No definition would work but, more, they want the funniest show possible. Even the Olympics have done away with the amateur distinction because the best is the best and that's it. It's silly to say--you're the best but because you've been paid for it you can't compete.

and much better said.

[eny]

The Title is Last Comic Standing. Not best new amateur comic.

I don't watch a lot of comedy, mostly because I don't find a lot of the stuff these people churn out very funny. They are all new to me, and probably the general viewing public. Thats who they taylor the show for. They don't broadcast it for the comic "in" crowd who are whining about never getting the big break. If you are funny , it doesn't matter if you've had a month or a decade of "experience" I laughed at about three routines the whole night.

I also remember at lot of fighting and moaning in this forum last year , pretty much about the same thing. I hope the forum isn't ruined again this year.