sean
Posts: 7382
|
 |
« Reply #105 on: April 08, 2008, 04:12:57 PM » |
|
Also, I believe that the inclusion of Juno supports my "It's an Oscar-nominated movie characters sketch" theory. I didn't argue that the characters weren't in Oscar-nominated movies, I argue that the sketch made no jokes related to the Oscars in any way at all. You could do so much with the idea of these two sociopathic characters being the Oscar front-runners. Well, okay, probably not "so much", but *something*. Instead, they did a sketch which was about quoting the movies they were in. I completely disagree with the idea that, just because those quotes were also used in an Oscar telecast a day or a week later, they were somehow less dated. How far does that rule get extended? Can I write a sketch where I shout "Freedom!!" and strangle my friend with a pillow while "My Heart Will Go On" plays and air it Oscar weekend and say it's not dated? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Strang
Posts: 1232
|
|
« Reply #106 on: April 08, 2008, 04:13:23 PM » |
|
This thread is pretty hilarious. But was it written with that intent and/or are the people around you also laughing? This is what will tell me whether or not you are right. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #107 on: April 08, 2008, 04:13:51 PM » |
|
This thread is pretty hilarious. I like how, since we all agreed the Walken episode was great -- even by Walken-episode standards, I'd say that was really, really strong -- we had to find something to argue about in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Amusing Pseudonym
Posts: 4417
|
|
« Reply #108 on: April 08, 2008, 04:13:52 PM » |
|
Honestly, I thought the joke there was "Next week, the pregnant girl from Juno" who was actually hosting the next week's show. You know, a meta type thing. It works on so many levels. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #109 on: April 08, 2008, 04:20:21 PM » |
|
But was it written with that intent and/or are the people around you also laughing? I can only speak for myself, but pretty much everything I write on the Internet is written with the intent of making at least me laugh, and with the hope that others will laugh as well. So my stuff is *definitely* hilarious. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nate.3.0
|
|
« Reply #110 on: April 08, 2008, 04:23:47 PM » |
|
Guys. Take a breather. Go play some Laser Cats in 3-D: the Game. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor."
|
|
|
Randy
Posts: 1067
You had me at meat tornado.
|
|
« Reply #111 on: April 08, 2008, 05:33:42 PM » |
|
Who would've thought a crappy SNL skit from a month ago would get more dissected than the Zapruder film.
- rando
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dan
Posts: 3325
|
|
« Reply #112 on: April 08, 2008, 05:46:03 PM » |
|
This thread is pretty hilarious. Sketch idea: Dude playing Brian Lynch hosts a show on linens entitled "This Thread is Pretty Hilarious" in which he peruses a crafts store, finding out which threads are the most hilarious and constantly turning to the camera and saying "this thread is pretty hilarious". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Donnacha
Posts: 2851
I like you.
|
|
« Reply #113 on: April 08, 2008, 06:14:40 PM » |
|
They should do a sketch with the precept that was shot in 1987, so all it is is the characters from Platoon, A Room With A View and Children of A Lesser God quoting themselves out of context.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LpF
Posts: 3869
|
|
« Reply #114 on: April 09, 2008, 04:59:42 AM » |
|
How far does that rule get extended? Can I write a sketch where I shout "Freedom!!" and strangle my friend with a pillow while "My Heart Will Go On" plays and air it Oscar weekend and say it's not dated? My "taking you seriously" answer: Only if those quotes are to be used in that particular Oscar telecast. I could be wrong, but I think there's a difference between "this year" and "ten years ago." My "you're obviously using reductio ad absurdum to undercut me" answer: Well, at this point I definitely know where to look if I want some good old-fashioned condescension. Jackass. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #115 on: April 09, 2008, 11:43:11 AM » |
|
You have a way of turning even the most fun conversation angry at the drop of a dime.
The way to respond to reductio ad absurdum is to be absurd back, not to engage in argumentum ad hominem.
Stupid!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LpF
Posts: 3869
|
|
« Reply #116 on: April 09, 2008, 12:32:36 PM » |
|
You have a way of turning even the most fun conversation angry at the drop of a dime. Can you tell it's a pet peeve of mine? In spite of that, I'm not "angry," per se. I just thought you were being a jackass, so I said so. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jew Askew
Posts: 496
|
|
« Reply #117 on: April 09, 2008, 12:45:35 PM » |
|
Wow... You guys are really gonna hate I DRINK YOUR MOVIE a delightful summertime romp in which Daniel Plainview traverses silver screen history, sharing laughter and smiles (and milkshakes) with some of cinemas most beloved personalities.
On the Waterfront? On the Milkshake I say!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #118 on: April 09, 2008, 12:57:40 PM » |
|
You have a way of turning even the most fun conversation angry at the drop of a dime. Can you tell it's a pet peeve of mine? Fun conversation? Check. In spite of that, I'm not "angry," per se. I just thought you were being a jackass, so I said so. If you call somebody a jackass, it comes off as angry. If you make somebody look absurd, it's not only fun, but they'll keep coming back for more, no matter how much you mock them. It's really awesome. BTW, I don't have to reduce an argument about a month-old SNL sketch very far to make it absurd. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DerickA
Posts: 9494
|
|
« Reply #119 on: April 09, 2008, 02:23:57 PM » |
|
Guys, I really loved the first puppy I had when I was a kid. Can you dissect the memory of him in long paragraphs until I absolutely hate him?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
