Austin Improv

kbadr wrote:

mcnichol wrote:The last few posts have been merely mediocre. Seriously. I can't spent 10 minutes reading this thread.

Perhaps you just don't dig the online discussion style of arguing semantics. It's cool. To each his own.

Perhaps you are right... *ponders, pulling on fake goatee* Perhaps you are right...

mcnichol wrote:The last few posts have been merely mediocre. Seriously. I can't spent 10 minutes reading this thread.

You're just disappointed because Ratliff replaced George Plimpton, and Mo is doubling for Norman Mailer. Your expectations are too high.

shando wrote:

mcnichol wrote:The last few posts have been merely mediocre. Seriously. I can't spent 10 minutes reading this thread.

You're just disappointed because Ratliff replaced George Plimpton, and Mo is doubling for Norman Mailer. Your expectations are too high.

You are right -- I shouldn't expect much from writers, period.

nadine wrote:
It's like me getting insulted by a random stranger not liking my painting, who doesn't teach, professionally paint, or run an art gallery. Art is subjective anyways. And so is Improv.

You shouldn't have to be an expert or in the same profession to critique something though. I hate it when discussing a movie and someone says, "Yeah, well, how many movies have you made?" as if that's some reason I don't have the right to complain about the movie or critique it

Unless, of course, that was your point. In which case, er.... nevermind.

mcnichol wrote:The last few posts have been merely mediocre.

... and I still love you and your shoes.

I think that has been our point all along, right?

And, scene?

please?

I should mention at this point that I'm:

1. over-sensitive to other people's feelings/perceptions
2. obsessed with this thread now

shando wrote:Ah, here it was:

York99 wrote: Take the 3 For All and Double Feature shows at OoB. There is no question that they committed to characters/relationships/stories. They locked into the group mind, found the games, resolved the plots, had real, honest reactions, etc. etc. etc. While the part of me that appreciates impeccable improv enjoyed those shows, the part of me that likes to have a good time and laugh at an improv show thought they were as boring as church. The plots wrapped up exactly as I expected and there were no surprises throughout. If these were scripted plays, they would not be good. Their virtue rested in the fact that they were improvised.

Take my words with these grains of salt:
-I am not very much into "legitimate theatre"
-They were not attempting a comedy show

And I post these not because I disagree with Justin or don't think he should have the right to utter them. And again, these were again examples in a discussion about improv philosophy and technique, but what's the diff? What all of my posts have been about is the sudden attention to the permanent and public nature of forum posts that someone outside of our community might use to interpret as our not being humble and hospitable, when we have a decent track record of doing this to other, not nearly as famous, troupes.

I do find it ironic that Justin didn't appreciate me digging up and finding old quotes of his when the public nature of his comments and their ability to be interpreted poorly was the gist of his post in the first place.

1. The last two notes were to qualify where I was coming from -- not an appreciator of "legitimate" theatre -- so that they or anyone here would know that I do not claim to be an expert and THIS is the part that I did not enjoy.
2. I stated at the beginning all of the things that I DID like about them -- and that's the part where I do claim to have more expertise than the average audience member and THIS is the part that I did enjoy.
3. Again, that thread had nothing to do with a critique of that troupe. It was a discussion about the merits of improv for the sake of improv (this quote, not the one previously cited by Shannon), citing an example that most readers would be able to relate to. That context makes a big difference IMHO.

If I DID offend anyone, particularly that troupe, I apologize here and now.

What I didn't appreciate was that my quotes were taken out of context and, as a result, were open to even greater misinterpretation. And the gist of my post was NOT that things posted here could be interpreted poorly. That point has been made and is common knowledge. The gist was that RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW is a good time to REMIND OURselves of this fact. I am as guilty as anyone. In fact, I do regret some things that I've posted... about Harsh in particular.

shando wrote:

mcnichol wrote:The last few posts have been merely mediocre. Seriously. I can't spent 10 minutes reading this thread.

You're just disappointed because Ratliff replaced George Plimpton, and Mo is doubling for Norman Mailer. Your expectations are too high.

We broke open Norm's restricted diaries today at work and are having a field day! I think Ratliff's closer to Mailer in terms of being a cantakerous Americanist/ladykiller, whereas I've got more of the dandy dilettantism of G. Plimpton. Trust, Shannon, that if an assassin ever took aim at you in a crowded room, I'd tackle his ass to the ground!

I rate Justin's post average at best.

Continue.

Justin=Gore Vidal.

mcnichol wrote:I should mention at this point that I'm:

1. over-sensitive to other people's feelings/perceptions
2. obsessed with this thread now

And I'm obsessed with you playing loveable Italians, something I haven't seen in far too long.

mcnichol wrote:I rate Justin's post average at best.

Continue.

I can't tell if you're talking about York or me. I also can't tell if I should feel insulted or complimented.

Justin Davis wrote:

mcnichol wrote:I rate Justin's post average at best.

Continue.

I can't tell if you're talking about York or me. I also can't tell if I should feel insulted or complimented.

Um... both of you.

I think every awesome thread on this board involves some combination of: Justin, Shannon, Jeremy, and myself.

My apologies all.