top of your intelligence

[York99]

If you meet those expectations dead-on, they will be satisfied; if you meet them in a surprising way, they will be delighted; if you defy them, they will feel cheated.

I don't think you HAVE to meet audience expectations to delight them, in a surprising way or dead-on. Further, I think you can defy audience expectations and not have them feel cheated... as long as you replace what they expected in a way that is better than what they thought.

Come check out a ColdTowne show.

[kaci_beeler]

Roy, nepotism is not a big word.

Yes it is, nerd!

[shando]

Come check out a ColdTowne show.

So what happens if I do and feel cheated?

[kbadr]

Come check out a ColdTowne show.

So what happens if I do and feel cheated?

Come check out a Pgraph show

[York99]

Come check out a ColdTowne show.

So what happens if I do and feel cheated?

Check the variables in the equation. If you feel cheated, you are not a member of the audience.

Seriously though folks, if you feel cheated, then we did not replace the expectation with something better... or we failed on one of the other thousand metrics that one could use to evaluate an improv show. It happens.

[shando]

Come check out a ColdTowne show.

So what happens if I do and feel cheated?

Come check out a Pgraph show

[Miggy]

Roy, nepotism is not a big word.

Yes it is, nerd!

Says the member of parallelogramophonograph....

[acrouch]

...as long as you replace what they expected in a way that is better than what they thought.

That is the very definition of meeting someone's expectations in a surprising way.

[shando]

...as long as you replace what they expected in a way that is better than what they thought.

That is the very definition of meeting someone's expectations in a surprising way.

Exactly, Andy.

It seems like there are two very different things being implied here by 'audience expectations' where most of the apparent disagreement on this thread arise.

The first is saying that the audience wants something cheap, lame, or lowest-common-denominator. The goal then would be not to live down to those expectations and to deliver something that surprises and delights them.

The second, the one I and Andy and others seem to be putting forward, is that the audience is a nebulous thing made of individual tastes that are impossible to know in advance. The best we can do is treat them like intelligent people and put on show that we ourselves would be proud of and would want to see. And one that takes advantage of the fact that the audience is already going to read into things and make connections even when they aren't intended. It's nice to be aware of that even if your show is surreal or non-linear as hell.

These two definitions aren't in opposition. It just makes it hard to hear what someone using the other set of definitions means when they're talking about "audience expectations."

[York99]

Then what does it mean in opposition to a different school of improv?

Andy mentioned it in the first place to describe something that he thought was unique to Johnstonian improv. If "following expectations in a surprising way" can mean anything at all, including "surreal or non-linear as hell", how does that not fit in to other styles, methods, or whatever?

[erikamay]

That's one of the main differences I see in Johnstone versus other training styles. Johnstone loves to find new ways of creating that feedback loop, learning how to improvise in ways that delight the audience and your fellow players.

i could be wrong here, but i think andy meant that Johnstonian stuff has a focus on unique ways of creating a dialogue with the audience, vs. just "i'm going to get one suggestion and hope you dudes laugh at my make-em-ups".

I was taught that the audience is always several steps ahead of what we're doing onstage -- consciously or unconsciously, they have expectations for what will happen next. If you meet those expectations dead-on, they will be satisfied; if you meet them in a surprising way, they will be delighted; if you defy them, they will feel cheated.

i think this is absolutely true, and not to be confused with pandering to the audience. i'm really bothered when someone takes up my personal time as an audience member to lay out premises/scene/game set ups and then never take them to a natural - or suprising - conclusion. it leaves the audience feeling unsatisfied and teased, and it's selfish IMO.

[/quote]

[York99]

a natural - or suprising - conclusion.

Doesn't this just mean "any" conclusion? If it's not natural then, by default, it must be at the very least surprising. And since it's "any" conclusion, then you cannot very well attribute the idea of "concluding" a show "any" way to a specific approach to improv.

[shando]

That's one of the main differences I see in Johnstone versus other training styles. Johnstone loves to find new ways of creating that feedback loop, learning how to improvise in ways that delight the audience and your fellow players.

i could be wrong here, but i think andy meant that Johnstonian stuff has a focus on unique ways of creating a dialogue with the audience, vs. just "i'm going to get one suggestion and hope you dudes laugh at my make-em-ups".

Erika, this is definitely part of it. But there's another part that comes out in Johnstone inspired-classes. Not having gone through other training disciplines, I can't testify as to how much these things differ, but Johnstone is very very very concerned with what makes a scene work. Why these people? Why this particular moment? What did you initiate at the start of the scene that you better not forget at the very end or else the audience will think then why the fuck did you bring up pancakes at the beginning of the scene if it had nothing to do with what just happened? It's why a number of his formats are director heavy--like Micetro--he's very concerned with the scene on stage not being trivial. In this way, I doubt it's all that different from other schools of thought. It's just that Johnstone spends time on giving the performers a language to talk about the kinds of patterns that audiences are likely to see--and since audiences are human beings who are inherently pattern-recognizing beings, they're going to see all kinds of patterns in what we do whether we want those patterns to be there or not.

Or let's put it another way. Finding the game is a good way to make a scene pop. Johnstone would say that this is because games are patterns and that is inherently delightful to a viewer. From my understanding, other schools might place the focus a little differently, in that games allow for the player to get out of his or her head and to let the game play them.

And Justin, if this is something you're actually interested in, you should take classes from the BATS dudes next time they're in town.

[erikamay]

Doesn't this just mean "any" conclusion? If it's not natural then, by default, it must be at the very least surprising. And since it's "any" conclusion, then you cannot very well attribute the idea of "concluding" a show "any" way to a specific approach to improv.

this seems like circular logic to me. my point is - if you initiate a scene and lay out a game, follow that game (1, 2, 3) or heighten that game (original, heighten 2, heighten 3).

said another way, don't drop your shit.

[shando]

this seems like circular logic to me.

Welcome to the Thicket of York.....