You Ever Notice...and What's the Deal...

[D'Snowth]

YouTube Poops that are ten hours long. I mean, what's the deal with that? The ten minute Poops were okay, the fifteen minute poops were meh (if some people are actually clever enough to throw in a split-second clip of something different in the mix), but do people seriously think others are like, "You know what? I've got ten hours to kill, why don't I watch the roommates from the Kayak commercial slap each others hands for ten hours straight?"

I actually have a sickening feeling that it's nut jobs like these that'll cause YT to drop the unlimited uploads again in the future...

 

[minor muppetz]

What's the deal with celebrities or works of fiction that only have one demographic but are hated by everyone else, even if that one demographic is the intended target audience? TV Tropes calls it periphery hatedome http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PeripheryHatedom But what's the point of only making it for one person? And what's the point of considering it or ones self a success if there's only one fan base, even if that fan base is large in numbers? Justin Bieber should consider himself a failure because only 13-18-year-old girls like him. The author of Twillight should consider those books and films flops because they only attract the same people as Justin Bieber. The creator of Barney should have known that'd be a flop because only pre-first grade people like that.

And on a more serious note, what's the deal with daylight savings time? Why must we change the time an hour ahead or behind just because the sun suddenly moves faster or slower? And how does it normally affect television? I know that one year TV Land decided to make up for lost television time by showing two episodes of Emergency at once (during a weekend-long Emergency marathon) via split screen and subtitles on one episode, but what do the other stations do?

And finally, what's the deal with the first Nickelodeon Movie being Harriet the Spy? That has nothing to do with anything on Nickelodeon (except that the star was a regular on Pete and Pete and that it had Rosie O'Donnel who seemed to appear in a lot of Nickelodeon stuff?). Why not have the first Nickelodeon movie be a movie version of one of its own shows? They were just using the Nickelodeon name to lure kids in, but there was never a Harriet the Spy series. And I wonder the same thing about the first MTV movie being Joe's Apartment as opposed to a movie of one of its shows or properties (well, I don't really know if it was or wasn't, as I've never been a big MTV watcher, but I assume it wasn't).

 

[Drtooth]

In A Christmas Carol, is the audience supposed to wonder why Scrooge isn't there in the future, or to suspect the dead person everybody is talking about is Scrooge? For years I thought they were talking about Tiny Tim, and in fact for a year after seeing The Muppet Christmas Carol (I'd seen a few other versions before but didn't really remember much) I didn't realize they were time traveling and was confused by Scrooge's name being on his tomb stone when he was obviously alive. And after he redeems himself, does he still die by the time of the future they traveled to, which couldn't be too many years into the future (as Tiny Tim's siblings don't look older, not do any of the Cratchets)?

You know what I hate? The fact that most of the Christmas Carol adaptions end with Scrooge crying over his own grave. Why? Simple. I know the point is that he died alone with no one to care about him, but it really seems like they do it in such a way that he's more upset that he died (he's old and it's an inevitability) than anything else, and wants to change, again, an inevitability. I applaud Mickey's Christmas Carol for going the extra distance and having the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come (Pete) pushing Scrooge into a fiery pit of eternal punishment, as well as other adaptions that show what he entailed for his miserly ways. After all, Marley said it himself... he's going to have to carry around chains in the afterlife and they'll be longer and worse than his. I don't see why everyone skips over that, as it makes it all the more vital that Scrooge change his tune.

YouTube Poops that are ten hours long. I mean, what's the deal with that? The ten minute Poops were okay, the fifteen minute poops were meh (if some people are actually clever enough to throw in a split-second clip of something different in the mix), but do people seriously think others are like, "You know what? I've got ten hours to kill, why don't I watch the roommates from the Kayak commercial slap each others hands for ten hours straight?"

YTP is, by nature, a mixture of postmodernism and Dadaism. It seems like some stupid comedy thing, but it does go deeper than that. You know how Andy Warhol made those day long weird films about nothing that are jarring to watch and no one ever powers themselves through the whole thing? That's the point exactly. They do it because they can. And if you want to discuss comedy terms, an overly long gag is something that starts out funny, becomes very annoying to the point of angry hatred, then all the sudden, when you least expect it, it gets funny again. Sometimes out of the absurdity that it became annoying in the first place. Of course, I don't really see them as full fledged poops, they're more like repeating footage for absurd amounts of time.

 

[minor muppetz]

What's the deal with that episode of King of the Hill in which the main characters are on a baseball team and play against a baseball champion who always gives his check to charity? I mean, they agreed that the other player would donate his winnings to the school so that the school can afford to have a baseball team, which is what Hank's team wants, and they decide to try to actually put some effort into the game so they can possibly beat the champ and donate the money anyway, expecting the school to get the money either way, and after they get a few points the champion starts to play really well and beats them, and because of how they played he decides to just keep the money, pointing out that he always donates the checks because he also always sells his own merchandise during the game, and didn't sell much because of how the main characters were playing?

Why would/should the fans not buy his merchandise because the opposite team was playing poorly? He was still winning. It's not like they were trying harder and he was playing lousy. Actually that might have been better... The main characters actually try to beat someone who normally succeed, and succeed at it for most of the game, causing the merchandise to not sell as well, but the champ ends up winning at the end (maybe by one point), and doesn't donate the check.

 

[Teheheman]

What's the deal with that episode of King of the Hill in which the main characters are on a baseball team and play against a baseball champion who always gives his check to charity? I mean, they agreed that the other player would donate his winnings to the school so that the school can afford to have a baseball team, which is what Hank's team wants, and they decide to try to actually put some effort into the game so they can possibly beat the champ and donate the money anyway, expecting the school to get the money either way, and after they get a few points the champion starts to play really well and beats them, and because of how they played he decides to just keep the money, pointing out that he always donates the checks because he also always sells his own merchandise during the game, and didn't sell much because of how the main characters were playing?

Why would/should the fans not buy his merchandise because the opposite team was playing poorly? He was still winning. It's not like they were trying harder and he was playing lousy. Actually that might have been better... The main characters actually try to beat someone who normally succeed, and succeed at it for most of the game, causing the merchandise to not sell as well, but the champ ends up winning at the end (maybe by one point), and doesn't donate the check.

Ok, first off, I like that episode. Second off, I think you're remembering it wrong. This guys team was pretty much the Harlem Globetrotters of baseball. He put on a show. He was a showman, and I believe he was more upset at the fact that they "ruined the show". The show was that they were gonna do a bunch of tricks, the local team showed up to lose but the money went to charity so it was ok. Hank decided to actually PLAY the game, which ticked that guy off, so he decided to actually play which caused Hank's team to get their BUTTS WHOOPED! I think it was more of an ego thing with the other guy. He didn't appreciate Hank's team "going off script" and that was one of the reasons that he kept the check.
The merchandise thing, I'm going to assume, would have been that people went there to see the show that he puts on. If they just played baseball the right way, then not as many people would have shown up to buy the stuff. You leave disappointed, you're not gonna want a souvenir of the game you didn't like.
Most of this is just my opinion, so I'm PRETTY sure I'm not right but it sounded REALLY good didn't it?

Daniel

 

[D'Snowth]

What's the deal with releasing "best of" or compilation sets of a TV show AFTER the individual season sets (or even a complete series set) has already been released? I really don't see the logic behind that... I mean, if best ofs and compilations are released BEFORE season sets, that makes sense, because those are the only releases available at the time, and if you're lucky, they may include episodes that you really like and would like to see, if you don't already have them in one form or another (VHS, computer file, etc.), plus, they usually have at least a couple of interesting little bonus features anyway.

But when the individual season sets are released, and that way, you pretty much all every episode from the series on DVD, then why would you need a new, barebones release of a few episodes thrown together for a compilation disc afterwards? Collector's value or something?

 

[Sgt Floyd]

Sets for people who aren't fans and have a few favorite episodes but they don't like the show enough to buy season sets?

But with that theory, you gotta wonder why they put some of the worst episodes on those single disk compilations. When I only had the first few seasons of the Simpsons, I had the Treehouse of Horror disk. it had like 5 episodes on it, but only 2 of them were even good. The other episodes were from the later, sucky seasons.

 

[minor muppetz]

I remember years ago I read parts of Hulk Hogan's autobiography and was surprised to see that the "loser" in a wrestling match is often determined in advance (Hogan referred to it as a "job", I guess that means a wrestler gets paid extra to lose on purpose). But then if wrestlers often get paid to lose, how do they truly know certain wrestlers are so strong? Wrestlers like Andre the Giant, Hulk Hogan, and Ultimate Warrior are all known for being among the strongest, and it was apparently a big deal for Hulk to defeat Andre in the first Wrestlemania, beating his large (I think 900) winning streak, and when Hulk Hogan decided to retire, they had Ultimate Warrior defeat him.

In fact I wonder why they felt the need for Hulk Hogan to be defeated when retiring. I think I heard that it's common for the best wrestlers to be defeated in their final matches before retirement, but why? Wouldn't it be more respectful to let them win their last game before leaving, to let them end their careers on a high note?

 

[D'Snowth]

Pro wrestling being fake isn't exactly a new concept.

 

[minor muppetz]

Pro wrestling being fake isn't exactly a new concept.

I knew it was fake, but I still find it weird that the supposed strongest/perfect wrestlers only win so much because the opponents are paid extra to lose. Who's to say they can't easily be beaten by supposed inferior wrestlers if the winner wasn't chosen?

I remember first hearing about wrestling being fake back in 1993 (around that time I was watching WWF wrestling a lot, but my fandom mainly lasted a year), not all the information jelled with me. I thought it meant they pretended to be fighting and yet still thought the strongest really were strongest (what a contradictory thought), thought that if they got hit by chairs or things those were light props, thought that if a wrestlers face was shown bleeding (I recall two wrestling matches where Hulk Hogan's face was bleeding by the end) they put face blood on and somehow had a way to do it without the audience seeing the fake blood.

And for some reason I never really noticed the staged "feuds", but if I did I would have probably thought the feuds were real.