Dan was the man. I 'm not getting this, apprently it's not about the talent, it's about who will put up a good cat fight /pissing match in the house. ...... maybe it's just my funny bone, but some of the best have already left the building. HOWEVER, if Sue was to have made it I too would have gone.
So maybe theres hope. :ohno
I'm so confused.
I finally got a chance to watch Wednesday's show last night. I thought Naturman was one of the funniest comics on the show.
Queeny, if it WAS all about who would put up a good cat fight in the house, Dan's tirade after being eliminated showed that he would have been perfect. But I don't think that's what it's all about. In watching him over the last two weeks, I get the feeling that he'd be a difficult person to work with. Last week when his name was called, I think he made some aggravated comment about it being "about time", and his attitude when he wasn't picked was, IMHO, incredibly immature. There were several comics that should have advanced that didn't, but from what we were shown, none of them were uncooperative with the cameras, and none of them threw tantrums.
My guess is that the producers (and yes, I thought the old smarmy guy that we saw talking with Carey and Norton was, well, smarmy) saw in Naturman a guy with the potential to be a royal pain in the rear, and hence didn't advance him.
But the guy had me laughing as much as anyone last night. :nod
This is the best explanation I've heard. It was blatantly obvious to me that particular scene was edited in. I don't see Drew Carey or Brett Butler just accepting this guys explanation like they showed.
Originally Posted by Wayner
I agreed with Drew about just using their names.
Well I loved the guy...
But that voice...that voice is SO familiar...and it's driving me CRAZY because I can't think of where I've heard it before...maybe he does voiceovers for cartoon characters???
Again, this makes a base assumption that they are being honest in describing how, to what extent, with what degree of honesty, and WHEN they took control of the constestant selection.
Originally Posted by Wayner
And even if they are being accurate, they've also ignored the contradiction in an explanation that Jay Mohr gave Jimmy Kimmel a few days ago--that the producers HAD to pick several contestants themselves, because only 7 comedians had a majority of celeb-scout votes. That means that they had at least 3 spots to fill without fooling around with people who DID have a majority. Why trumpet the fact that they did this and also show Drew Carey CONFIRMING that Naturman had 3 votes? I just don't get it.
I'm wondering if they showed the controversy just to peak interest, similar to American Idol. I'm assuming LCS doesn't have as large an audience as Idol or the CBS shows, and that the producers want us talking around the watercooler about how so and so was robbed. I know there was a lot of people like myself who hadn't heard Drew Carey's remarks prior to the show, so showing them would elicit conversation. I believe they did the same thing with Fame. They could've quietly covered up the fact that Harlemm was older than he said, but no, they put it on shout. Harlemm looked taken aback when they said it publicly.
It didn't work with Fame. Who's heard of Harlemm now? Honestly, in the end nobody cared.
LCS may only be a half-step above that, if that. Certainly, again, who cared after the fact about Dat Phan? But even more than that, were most people eagerly awaiting LCS? I doubt it. I missed talking about it here more than the actual show. Or maybe I missed Dave Mordal's baths with Rich Vos. I get those two confused sometimes.
Based on my own experience, I'm inclined to say no. On the other hand, the ratings would indicate yes.
But even more than that, were most people eagerly awaiting LCS?
I was personally devastated when Star Search cut out the comedy portion of its show last season, and really am glad that there is another vehicle for the stand-up comic. HBO does have its specials, and there is always Comedy Central, but the more...the better for me. Not to say that it couldn't be improved, but I like the format of LCS once it gets going. One of my favorite parts of last year's show was being privy to what the participants had to say in the booth each week.
Originally Posted by MyNameIsKenny
Yeah, I was disappointed with the outcome of LCS1, but I definitely was looking forward to this season.
I watched Dan on Jimmy Kimmel. His jokes were funny, but his segues were clumsy, almost as if he blanked for 2 secs before each new bit. Then he'd remember, and become a pro again. My guess is it was due to being thrown off by the TV studio location. Yes, he was on TV in NY, Vegas, and the initial audition club, but those are all stage venues, not a TV studio, which he's probably not used to.
Here's something you may not have thought about:
In editing, it's easy to make a bad set look good, but difficult to make a good set look bad.
I just watched the repeat on Comedy Central of that last show, and during Ant's set, if you watch carefully, there's no wide shots of both Ant and the audience right after his punchlines. There are plenty of closeups of audience members laughing, but who's to say those shots aren't from elsewhere in the show, during some other comic's set? So, unless they include a shot that shows both Ant on stage, and the audience cracking up at the same time, we really don't know how well his act went over. Close shots of the audience cracking up can be cut from other comic's sets and dropped onto the video track of the Ant edit, which has Ant's audio on a separate track. (I do desktop video editing, so I guarantee all this is easily possible with the simplest gear). And additional tracks can be added as needed, including a separate audio track with laughter from another comic's set, or simply from any canned audio track the producers care to purchase or create.
Conversely, however, it's rather tricky to do the opposite. That is to edit a comic who had the audience rolling in the aisles to sound as if their act is flopping. Since the comic's voice is sharing the same tape as the laughter, it's very difficult to turn the volume of laughter down without reducing the comic's gain as well. And you can't just clip right before the laugh, or it would sound incredibly obvious that the tape was fiddled with.
This is why the reaction to Dan's set, as for any other "reject's" set had to be shown truthfully. But if there was a comic who made it into the house whom you found not to be very funny, it's entirely possible their performances were "sweetened" in the editing room in order to better justify their making the cut.
"Click and drag" sound and video editing has made it easier than ever before to make so-called "live" events look and sound way more exciting than they really are. It's done all the time. Watch Oprah. Watch the audience when she comes out. Yes, they are standing and applauding. But if you look close, only a few of them look like their shouting, cheering, and squealing. But we hear that sort of noise as if hundreds were doing it. Michael Jackson's self-produced concerts have no shame at all with this sort of blatant sweetening.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.