I love Film Sack. Before starting ATW9K, I was seriously considering doing a similar show that I would have called "Netflops." I held back, though, because there was nothing at all novel that I could bring to the market.
I love Film Sack. Before starting ATW9K, I was seriously considering doing a similar show that I would have called "Netflops." I held back, though, because there was nothing at all novel that I could bring to the market.
I do like how they go over the filmography of the main characters and timeline to put it into perspective on when the movie was film vs the time in the actor's lives. Just comparing both Red Sonjas, both podcasts said almost the same exact thing.
I dunno. I feel that Film Sack might be copying, but it could be just coincidence.
Also Film Sack will NEVER be as awesome when Dave & Joel guest host wit Paul Chapman.
Does anyone else listen to the groups of podcasts on Spill.com? I absolutely love those guys, because even though they focus on films, they've really been branching well into other topics. And I love their Let's Do This Podcast, just because it's great for bullshitting and they tell AMAZING stories. I love how they became their own things and even their members, or lesser hosts have been doing their own podcasts. They are all natural born comedians and conversationalists.
Does anyone else listen to the groups of podcasts on Spill.com? I absolutely love those guys, because even though they focus on films, they've really been branching well into other topics. And I love their Let's Do This Podcast, just because it's great for bullshitting and they tell AMAZING stories. I love how they became their own things and even their members, or lesser hosts have been doing their own podcasts. They are all natural born comedians and conversationalists.
The physical office I work in used to be their office. Never talked to them.
Does anyone else listen to the groups of podcasts on Spill.com? I absolutely love those guys, because even though they focus on films, they've really been branching well into other topics. And I love their Let's Do This Podcast, just because it's great for bullshitting and they tell AMAZING stories. I love how they became their own things and even their members, or lesser hosts have been doing their own podcasts. They are all natural born comedians and conversationalists.
The physical office I work in used to be their office. Never talked to them.
Oh really? That's pretty fascinating. What year was that? Because their group in New York that owns them now is Hollywood.com with R&S; Investments. Before that, they were apart of MIVA.
But I don't think you would of meant any of the actual crew members in New York, they are based and live in Austin, TX. And I'm happy for that, because they tell some of the most interesting stories that make me want to GO to Austin. Right now, they are covering SXSW.
Oh really? That's pretty fascinating. What year was that? Because their group in New York that owns them now is Hollywood.com with R&S; Investments. Before that, they were apart of MIVA.
Broadway.com, who I work for, was also owned by Hollywood Media Corp until recently. Hollywood Media owns Hollywood.com. When they still owned us, there was an area of our office that those hollywood.com/spill.com people were working in. I think they were subletting that one part of the office or whatever. They left many months ago, and now my desk is in their former area. Yeah, none of those people were podcasters, they were all office people.
Here are some podcasts I enjoy that I haven't seen mentioned yet: [Citation Needed] A podcast about some of the sillier unverified Wikipedia articles out there. It's occasionally a bit too literal, but still fun ANNCast An almost never boring podcast that is mostly interviews with people in the anime industry Giant Bombcast A silly podcast about videogames from the people who run giantbomb.com, compared favorably with Fast Karate by Dave himself Rebel FM Another great podcast about videogames that occasionally delves into cat talk and more often delves into crazy relationship issues from letters written by the listeners Weekend Confirmed A slightly more serious podcast about videogames and as best I can tell the last bastion of the old 1up Yours style game podcast
That's a dangerous name to be mentionin' round here, boy. Nah, just kidding. Though it was pretty interesting to hear their side of the whole late show thing, when they told it. It appears that they(RT and Scrym) were both trying to make the best of a bad situation. Both fucked it up some, but it was pretty entertaining in the end, so can't really complain too much. I'd like to see it done again, personally, but with less clusterfuck. I actually met Geoff down in Sydney recently, he's not a bad guy.
That's a dangerous name to be mentionin' round here, boy. Nah, just kidding. Though it was pretty interesting to hear their side of the whole late show thing, when they told it. It appears that they(RT and Scrym) were both trying to make the best of a bad situation. Both fucked it up some, but it was pretty entertaining in the end, so can't really complain too much. I'd like to see it done again, personally, but with less clusterfuck. I actually met Geoff down in Sydney recently, he's not a bad guy.
I'd agree with that. It was pretty interesting hearing about the show from both sides, and I'd love to see it redone with both sides at their best, as I really enjoy listening to both groups (not to mention they tend to have quite different viewpoints, and it'd be interesting to see that interaction). I also met Geoff and Gus at PAX East last year, and they're pretty cool guys (just don't sit a drunk Geoff in front of a bowl of candy)
That's a dangerous name to be mentionin' round here, boy. Nah, just kidding. Though it was pretty interesting to hear their side of the whole late show thing, when they told it. It appears that they(RT and Scrym) were both trying to make the best of a bad situation. Both fucked it up some, but it was pretty entertaining in the end, so can't really complain too much. I'd like to see it done again, personally, but with less clusterfuck. I actually met Geoff down in Sydney recently, he's not a bad guy.
I'd agree with that. It was pretty interesting hearing about the show from both sides, and I'd love to see it redone with both sides at their best, as I really enjoy listening to both groups (not to mention they tend to have quite different viewpoints, and it'd be interesting to see that interaction). I also met Geoff and Gus at PAX East last year, and they're pretty cool guys (just don't sit a drunk Geoff in front of a bowl of candy)
Give us some time to practice video and live interviews. Nothing like this will happen again until skills are leveled up substantially. ^_~
Give us some time to practice video and live interviews. Nothing like this will happen again until skills are leveled up substantially. ^_~
Having heard both sides, It's about a third your fault, a third theirs, and about a third the fault of things outside your control, from memory - with the last of those being the most important factor. Frankly, Had the situation been a bit different for both parties, I have absolute confidence that it would have gone extremely well, even if you're not used to Video and live interviews. Even in their side of the story - though I don't think they remember your names so well, they don't speak too badly of you, they mostly speak of the clusterfuck of a situation that led to the whole deal going as it did.
I'm not joking - I'd really like to see Scrym hosting another PAX late show, with the RT lads(and/or Griffon) at a future PAX. Once you guys level up a little with your live interviewing skills - You're really not that bad as it stands, but you could do better - and the lessons learned from the last show are put into practice, it'll be excellent.
Even if we could repeat with less problems, and even if the RT guys aren't really all that bad, and everyone is sober, we really just don't have much in common with them, or to say to them. We don't really know or care much about what they do. We're not fans of theirs, and we don't think their stuff is funny or entertaining. Even if we cooperated, planned, and acted professionally, there's no spark or energy in our combination that would generate entertainment. Compare that to other Internet entertainment folks like Fast Karate, AWO, Cinemassacre, CollegeHumor, Penny Arcade, etc. We could go on all day with those kinds of people because we have something we share and can get a rise out of.
Even if we could repeat with less problems, and even if the RT guys aren't really all that bad, and everyone is sober, we really just don't have much in common with them, or to say to them. We don't really know or care much about what they do. We're not fans of theirs, and we don't think their stuff is funny or entertaining. Even if we cooperated, planned, and acted professionally, there's no spark or energy in our combination that would generate entertainment. Compare that to other Internet entertainment folks like Fast Karate, AWO, Cinemassacre, CollegeHumor, Penny Arcade, etc. We could go on all day with those kinds of people because we have something we share and can get a rise out of.
Give us some time to practice video and live interviews.
This.
I mean does David Letterman have something in common with everyone he interviews? A good interviewer is able to interview anyone. But I've already said my piece on this subject.
That and you should have done the late show at East not Prime :-p
Even if we could repeat with less problems, and even if the RT guys aren't really all that bad, and everyone is sober, we really just don't have much in common with them, or to say to them. We don't really know or care much about what they do. We're not fans of theirs, and we don't think their stuff is funny or entertaining. Even if we cooperated, planned, and acted professionally, there's no spark or energy in our combination that would generate entertainment. Compare that to other Internet entertainment folks like Fast Karate, AWO, Cinemassacre, CollegeHumor, Penny Arcade, etc. We could go on all day with those kinds of people because we have something we share and can get a rise out of.
As a fan of both groups, I disagree, however, that's entirely your prerogative - you're the host, after all, and you know your style better than I do.
I take slight issue with that it's a problem - I mean, look at many of the people famous for doing interviews such as Letterman, Conan, Craig Ferguson, Graham Norton, Rove McManus, and so on - If they were Interested or cared that much about what every person they interviewed did, they would have literally the most diverse taste in entertainment on the planet. Interviewing people isn't so much about you, or what your interviewee does or has done, as it is about the people you're interviewing - Yeah sure, there is a reason they're on that stage, so on, so on, but that's not meant to be the point of the interview.
For example - Geoff, You're not a fan of his work, you don't have much in common, so on. But, you watch a few RVB videos, and maybe the short run of Immersion videos and some AH. From those, you can glean all sorts of information that could lead to an interesting and entertaining discussion - For example, Geoff was a Photographer in the Army, if I remember rightly, and a viable question would be something along the lines of - "So, Looking over Immersion, in some of the videos you mention you were once in the army, Does that really affect the way you look at the slew of recently popular war games?" Or, of course, you could ask them about the process they use to make their web series - always a good fallback for these sorts of things while you gather yourself - or for stories from the series. And by now, they have multiple series of RVB behind them, as well as Immersion, RT shorts, AHWU, AH, Fails of the Weak, Achivement Horse(Which doesn't actually have anything to do with achivements) just to name a few - just getting the overview of those would fill quite a few minutes while you think of something else, and I don't doubt you have the skill to make it entertaining.
You're the interviewer, the trick to learn is to make the Interviewee do as much, if not more of the work, than you do, without getting too lazy, and guiding the interview where required. A good interview isn't about your interest in a person's work, or what you like, It's about reading your guest, and trying to pose questions to them that would elicit an interesting response. As much as you are not so interested in RT stuff, these guys are generally funny for a living, so you can somewhat rely on them to be funny on their own in a way palatable to a larger audience - particularly the audience at PAX, who are pretty much the exact description of their target demographic. You and Rym are not so bad yourselves, so it wouldn't be too hard for the pair of you to do the same.
Further, you're there for the audience's entertainment. So, Sure, you might not give a fuck about these guys, but I'm confident that You and Rym are skilled enough and smart enough to be able to beat some entertaining natter for the audience out of just about anybody, particularly some dudes who make their coin entertaining the demographic that said audience resides squarely in - And I'm confident you can do it without just becoming a bland mirror for them to look good in. Were you to manage entertainment, but drop your own styles and personalities in the process, I'd actually be rather disappointed in you.
It's not just technical skill, it's kinda something you have to get a feel for.
Short version: You say that now, but I know you have the capability to do it, and make it excellent, with RT or anyone else. None of this When we level up nonsense, just fucking rock it out, learn from the mistakes you made, and keep rolling through, before you know it, you'll be fucking masters.
It is true that I could go and research just about anyone and then give them a better interview. That's what the Lettermans of the world do. Of course, they are probably briefed as opposed to doing research on their own.
The difference is that those people are all being paid to do these interviews. They either legitimately care, or pretend to care, because that's their job. I have very little motivation or incentive to pretend to care about something. Not that I couldn't, but I also feel that it's not right. A real late night talk show is about providing exposure for the guests. What GeekNights is about is honesty. We won't tell you something is good when it sucks. We won't act excited about something we aren't excited about. We're not afraid to bash our closest allies or praise our enemies when it is deserved. We tell it like we see it, though others often see differently. That's what we're about. That's what free Internet media allows us to do that you aren't going to get on TV and such. If we're not going to stay blatantly honest, then that eliminates most of the reason for us even existing.
We won't tell you something is good when it sucks. We won't act excited about something we aren't excited about. We're not afraid to bash our closest allies or praise our enemies when it is deserved. We tell it like we see it, though others often see differently. That's what we're about. That's what free Internet media allows us to do that you aren't going to get on TV and such. If we're not going to stay blatantly honest, then that eliminates most of the reason for us even existing.
As a podcast, that's a great deal of what I love about GeekNights. It's always interesting when suddenly there's an acknowledgment that a great evil has done good, or vice versa; also, I tend to get excited about a great deal of similar things, and thus the podcast appeals to my interests as well. However, in a scenario like the PAX Late Show, are you not there for the audience? I'm not entirely familiar with the details of your hosting the show, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't intended to be "GeekNights Live!" It was a show for the PAX attendees, designed to show off and get a better glimpse into the lives of some of the more prolific and popular personalities at the con. I would agree with Churba here, that in a scenario like this, it could have been quite possible to make an entertaining show for the audience about asking them about their work - the RT guys have plenty of stories, and would certainly be able to fill most of that time on their own with just a bit of prompting (they prove this pretty well on their podcast).
That said, Scott, you make a good point about researching into their background. Some kind of information on each guest should definitely have been provided to you by PAX to facilitate said prompting, and would certainly have made the experience go more smoothly for all involved. So again, every party was culpable in some aspect or another, but I still stand by my point that if certain key issues were addressed, this could really be a great show.
It's true that late show is not GeekNights, so an exception could be made. However, being honest is also part of me, as well as part of the show. I don't really want to pretend to be someone I'm not regardless of the context. Rym is the guy who will lie all the time and have people believe him. Scott will always tell the truth, though people believe him far less often. That's how it goes.
The difference is that those people are all being paid to do these interviews. They either legitimately care, or pretend to care, because that's their job. I have very little motivation or incentive to pretend to care about something. Not that I couldn't, but I also feel that it's not right. A real late night talk show is about providing exposure for the guests. What GeekNights is about is honesty. We won't tell you something is good when it sucks. We won't act excited about something we aren't excited about. We're not afraid to bash our closest allies or praise our enemies when it is deserved. We tell it like we see it, though others often see differently. That's what we're about. That's what free Internet media allows us to do that you aren't going to get on TV and such. If we're not going to stay blatantly honest, then that eliminates most of the reason for us even existing.
That's Fair. I'm still saying you could do it - As in, that you have the capability to perform the action, and Again, I disagree that you guys have nothing in common - But, if you feel that compromises you as an entertainer, don't do it. That's cool, and the integrity is refreshing, considering damn near every late night show out there - About the only one that doesn't count under that is Furguson, because if he doesn't like a guest, or what they do, he will not give any false impressions. His adversarial interviews are just as good as those where he enjoys it, sometimes better, as he takes it as an opportunity to make jokes at their expense while doing the interview.
However, that's not what I was talking about. I'm not saying you have to wave pom-poms and chant at the crowd to spell out their names, or fluff them backstage out because you're just that enthusiastic to meet them - just that you are making out that interviewing requires all these things. It doesn't. You can have a conversational interview, sure, but that does not mean that an interview cannot work without you pretending to love something, or pretending to connect on some deep level. All you have to do is Make them talk, and be entertaining at roughly the same time in the same place. An argument between you and Geoff about Achievements would be entertaining, even though you completely disagree on the topic, and would get adversarial. A chat about production techniques is also something you could trivially make entertaining - For fuck's sake, man, you and Rym made a discussions of CPU architecture and how the internet works on a basic level into entertainment, I'm sure you can manage it.
I'm not holding a gun to your head - I'm just saying that you certainly could do it, and do it well, despite your protestations. If you do it or not, that's your decision, but as a regular consumer of your media and someone who interacts with you on an almost daily basis on the forums, it is my opinion that you would do very well at this. Is my display of of confidence in your ability and praise of your skills so unusual that you think I'm joking or fucking you about here? You're not the only one who runs on the straight honesty card.
Scott can't act. He can't script anything. He won't tell a joke he's told before even if there is zero overlap in the audience. He call me out for "re-using" jokes in front of new people. He gets visibly disturbed if he ever hears the same story twice. He hates it when fans want his picture or autograph. If we come up with a good joke ahead of a show, he refuses to tell it again and groans on-air if I do.
Comments
I dunno. I feel that Film Sack might be copying, but it could be just coincidence.
Also Film Sack will NEVER be as awesome when Dave & Joel guest host wit Paul Chapman.
But I don't think you would of meant any of the actual crew members in New York, they are based and live in Austin, TX. And I'm happy for that, because they tell some of the most interesting stories that make me want to GO to Austin. Right now, they are covering SXSW.
[Citation Needed] A podcast about some of the sillier unverified Wikipedia articles out there. It's occasionally a bit too literal, but still fun
ANNCast An almost never boring podcast that is mostly interviews with people in the anime industry
Giant Bombcast A silly podcast about videogames from the people who run giantbomb.com, compared favorably with Fast Karate by Dave himself
Rebel FM Another great podcast about videogames that occasionally delves into cat talk and more often delves into crazy relationship issues from letters written by the listeners
Weekend Confirmed A slightly more serious podcast about videogames and as best I can tell the last bastion of the old 1up Yours style game podcast
Nah, just kidding. Though it was pretty interesting to hear their side of the whole late show thing, when they told it. It appears that they(RT and Scrym) were both trying to make the best of a bad situation. Both fucked it up some, but it was pretty entertaining in the end, so can't really complain too much. I'd like to see it done again, personally, but with less clusterfuck. I actually met Geoff down in Sydney recently, he's not a bad guy.
I'm not joking - I'd really like to see Scrym hosting another PAX late show, with the RT lads(and/or Griffon) at a future PAX. Once you guys level up a little with your live interviewing skills - You're really not that bad as it stands, but you could do better - and the lessons learned from the last show are put into practice, it'll be excellent.
I mean does David Letterman have something in common with everyone he interviews? A good interviewer is able to interview anyone. But I've already said my piece on this subject.
That and you should have done the late show at East not Prime :-p
I take slight issue with that it's a problem - I mean, look at many of the people famous for doing interviews such as Letterman, Conan, Craig Ferguson, Graham Norton, Rove McManus, and so on - If they were Interested or cared that much about what every person they interviewed did, they would have literally the most diverse taste in entertainment on the planet. Interviewing people isn't so much about you, or what your interviewee does or has done, as it is about the people you're interviewing - Yeah sure, there is a reason they're on that stage, so on, so on, but that's not meant to be the point of the interview.
For example - Geoff, You're not a fan of his work, you don't have much in common, so on. But, you watch a few RVB videos, and maybe the short run of Immersion videos and some AH. From those, you can glean all sorts of information that could lead to an interesting and entertaining discussion - For example, Geoff was a Photographer in the Army, if I remember rightly, and a viable question would be something along the lines of - "So, Looking over Immersion, in some of the videos you mention you were once in the army, Does that really affect the way you look at the slew of recently popular war games?"
Or, of course, you could ask them about the process they use to make their web series - always a good fallback for these sorts of things while you gather yourself - or for stories from the series. And by now, they have multiple series of RVB behind them, as well as Immersion, RT shorts, AHWU, AH, Fails of the Weak, Achivement Horse(Which doesn't actually have anything to do with achivements) just to name a few - just getting the overview of those would fill quite a few minutes while you think of something else, and I don't doubt you have the skill to make it entertaining.
You're the interviewer, the trick to learn is to make the Interviewee do as much, if not more of the work, than you do, without getting too lazy, and guiding the interview where required.
A good interview isn't about your interest in a person's work, or what you like, It's about reading your guest, and trying to pose questions to them that would elicit an interesting response. As much as you are not so interested in RT stuff, these guys are generally funny for a living, so you can somewhat rely on them to be funny on their own in a way palatable to a larger audience - particularly the audience at PAX, who are pretty much the exact description of their target demographic. You and Rym are not so bad yourselves, so it wouldn't be too hard for the pair of you to do the same.
Further, you're there for the audience's entertainment. So, Sure, you might not give a fuck about these guys, but I'm confident that You and Rym are skilled enough and smart enough to be able to beat some entertaining natter for the audience out of just about anybody, particularly some dudes who make their coin entertaining the demographic that said audience resides squarely in - And I'm confident you can do it without just becoming a bland mirror for them to look good in. Were you to manage entertainment, but drop your own styles and personalities in the process, I'd actually be rather disappointed in you.
It's not just technical skill, it's kinda something you have to get a feel for.
Short version: You say that now, but I know you have the capability to do it, and make it excellent, with RT or anyone else. None of this When we level up nonsense, just fucking rock it out, learn from the mistakes you made, and keep rolling through, before you know it, you'll be fucking masters.
The difference is that those people are all being paid to do these interviews. They either legitimately care, or pretend to care, because that's their job. I have very little motivation or incentive to pretend to care about something. Not that I couldn't, but I also feel that it's not right. A real late night talk show is about providing exposure for the guests. What GeekNights is about is honesty. We won't tell you something is good when it sucks. We won't act excited about something we aren't excited about. We're not afraid to bash our closest allies or praise our enemies when it is deserved. We tell it like we see it, though others often see differently. That's what we're about. That's what free Internet media allows us to do that you aren't going to get on TV and such. If we're not going to stay blatantly honest, then that eliminates most of the reason for us even existing.
That said, Scott, you make a good point about researching into their background. Some kind of information on each guest should definitely have been provided to you by PAX to facilitate said prompting, and would certainly have made the experience go more smoothly for all involved. So again, every party was culpable in some aspect or another, but I still stand by my point that if certain key issues were addressed, this could really be a great show.
However, that's not what I was talking about. I'm not saying you have to wave pom-poms and chant at the crowd to spell out their names, or fluff them backstage out because you're just that enthusiastic to meet them - just that you are making out that interviewing requires all these things. It doesn't. You can have a conversational interview, sure, but that does not mean that an interview cannot work without you pretending to love something, or pretending to connect on some deep level. All you have to do is Make them talk, and be entertaining at roughly the same time in the same place. An argument between you and Geoff about Achievements would be entertaining, even though you completely disagree on the topic, and would get adversarial. A chat about production techniques is also something you could trivially make entertaining - For fuck's sake, man, you and Rym made a discussions of CPU architecture and how the internet works on a basic level into entertainment, I'm sure you can manage it.
I'm not holding a gun to your head - I'm just saying that you certainly could do it, and do it well, despite your protestations. If you do it or not, that's your decision, but as a regular consumer of your media and someone who interacts with you on an almost daily basis on the forums, it is my opinion that you would do very well at this. Is my display of of confidence in your ability and praise of your skills so unusual that you think I'm joking or fucking you about here? You're not the only one who runs on the straight honesty card.
It's a little annoying. ;^)