Austin Improv

vine311 wrote:

Dave wrote:my latest pet peeve is when people in the lighting booth cut the lights solely based on a pre-determined run time, rather on the crest of a good scene's laugh or a sweet callback.

if the show is slotted for 25 minutes, I'd rather have the lights go out on an awesome laugh at 20 minutes (or even 27! or hell, 18 would be fine), than on the end of a weak scene or in the middle of a scene that just happened to cross that 25 minute threshold.

thank you for reading this.

Word to all of this. I'd also like to add not playing music during the blackout at the end of the show.

Word to ALL of this.

bradisntclever wrote:

vine311 wrote:

Dave wrote:my latest pet peeve is when people in the lighting booth cut the lights solely based on a pre-determined run time, rather on the crest of a good scene's laugh or a sweet callback.

if the show is slotted for 25 minutes, I'd rather have the lights go out on an awesome laugh at 20 minutes (or even 27! or hell, 18 would be fine), than on the end of a weak scene or in the middle of a scene that just happened to cross that 25 minute threshold.

thank you for reading this.

Word to all of this. I'd also like to add not playing music during the blackout at the end of the show.

Word to ALL of this.

Outdated slang term to all of this too.

A pet peeve of mine that I sometimes have is when someone comes on from the side solely to end a scene, usually with a wipe, but doesn't start the next one. There are times it doesn't matter because the hole gets filled quickly enough, but often it leaves a blank stage with confused performers wondering who's going to start the next scene. If you cut a scene, start the next one.

Justin D. wrote: A pet peeve of mine that I sometimes have is when someone comes on from the side solely to end a scene, usually with a wipe, but doesn't start the next one. There are times it doesn't matter because the hole gets filled quickly enough, but often it leaves a blank stage with confused performers wondering who's going to start the next scene. If you cut a scene, start the next one.

Oh god yes, thank you. And if you're on the sidelines and you see that about to happening, jump on the grenade of that empty stage, for chrissakes. Or if the scene just ended with everyone leaving, and people are just standing there wondering who's going to step up next, or basically any time there's an uncomfortable empty stage sitting there with the crickets chirping for more than a half second. Someone, anyone, stepping out there with no idea what they're doing or why they're there is a billion times better than awkward dead air.

This may be a corollary to one of my favorite improv wisdom quotes, "If you're standing there thinking that a scene needs to be edited, [or someone needs to get on stage/do something/anything] you're right, and the person that needs to do it is you. Immediately." Step up with an empty mind and no fear, and you can't go wrong. Support that shit!

majcher wrote: This may be a corollary to one of my favorite improv wisdom quotes, "If you're standing there thinking that a scene needs to be edited, [or someone needs to get on stage/do something/anything] you're right, and the person that needs to do it is you

I guess this is why I don't have a problem with people editing and then not starting the next scene. I'd rather them follow their gut and edit the scene, even if they don't want to go out / have nothing for the next scene. I mean, ideally they should just jump out with nothing, but I'd rather have them edit and trust their troupemates to start the next scene than to do nothing.

when an improviser starts a scene with an accent and then comments on how they're failing at doing the accent correctly.

shando wrote:Being disengaged in the wings. Not cool.

Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I don't sit on a bench or chair in the wings. Too easy to stay there instead of jumping in the scene, offer support, or edit.

ratliff wrote:

kbadr wrote:Pop culture references in any shape or form.

You forgot to add ". . . from any decade later than the 1950s."

Ha!

While I'm not usually a fan of throwing pop culture references out there just for the heck of it, I'm fine with them as long as they make sense for the character and the scene. In fact, I've felt it was awkward at a few shows when someone didn't call out what I thought was an obvious reference because they were actively trying not to call out pop culture references. That can make it just as unnatural feeling.

Roy Janik wrote:I'd rather them follow their gut and edit the scene, even if they don't want to go out / have nothing for the next scene. I mean, ideally they should just jump out with nothing, but I'd rather have them edit and trust their troupemates to start the next scene than to do nothing.

Hm, I can see that. Halfway is better than no way, I suppose. Still, peeve. Go all way!

majcher wrote:

Roy Janik wrote:I'd rather them follow their gut and edit the scene, even if they don't want to go out / have nothing for the next scene. I mean, ideally they should just jump out with nothing, but I'd rather have them edit and trust their troupemates to start the next scene than to do nothing.

Hm, I can see that. Halfway is better than no way, I suppose. Still, peeve. Go all way!

I'm with Roy on this one though. I think its ok for someone to edit and not be in the next scene. I'd rather them edit if they feel the impulse... Still, they should keep an eye out to see if anyone is coming out behind the hole that you might be leaving. I can see how running away from said hole in fear is no good either.

halfway, indeed. The balance of being willing to be in the next scene, but not making it a necessity.

beardedlamb wrote:when an improviser starts a scene with an accent and then comments on how they're failing at doing the accent correctly.

"I'm not going to commit to this choice because I am afraid I won't do it right. Instead, I will pass off my non-commitment to it as a choice, and hope that no one judges the failure I have telegraphed"

TexasImprovMassacre wrote:

majcher wrote:

Roy Janik wrote:I'd rather them follow their gut and edit the scene, even if they don't want to go out / have nothing for the next scene. I mean, ideally they should just jump out with nothing, but I'd rather have them edit and trust their troupemates to start the next scene than to do nothing.

Hm, I can see that. Halfway is better than no way, I suppose. Still, peeve. Go all way!

I'm with Roy on this one though. I think its ok for someone to edit and not be in the next scene. I'd rather them edit if they feel the impulse... Still, they should keep an eye out to see if anyone is coming out behind the hole that you might be leaving. I can see how running away from said hole in fear is no good either.

halfway, indeed. The balance of being willing to be in the next scene, but not making it a necessity.

Okay, all true. I change my pet peeve to minor annoyance.

TexasImprovMassacre wrote:"I'm not going to commit to this choice because I am afraid I won't do it right. Instead, I will pass off my non-commitment to it as a choice, and hope that no one judges the failure I have telegraphed"

This is what I'm talking about with the editing bit. If you're going to wipe a scene, commit to making the new scene look smooth and sweet, whether it's starting it yourself, or making damn sure that someone else is on it. Otherwise, it's not an edit, it's just you telling people to get off the stage. And yeah, ideally, you'll be working with a sweet group that always has your back and immediately jumps in on a dead spot, but I've seen it happen too often - even with tight groups of good people, sometimes - to let that assumption ride. All IMO, of course, but still a peeve.

Justin D. wrote:Okay, all true. I change my pet peeve to minor annoyance.

NO DUDE! DON'T BACK DOWN! If it's your peve that's what makes it pet. You can agree with Roy if you want, but you can also hate something that he loves. Like dinosaurs. Or Beeler. Uhhhg... Beeler.

DollarBill wrote:

Justin D. wrote:Okay, all true. I change my pet peeve to minor annoyance.

NO DUDE! DON'T BACK DOWN! If it's your peve that's what makes it pet. You can agree with Roy if you want, but you can also hate something that he loves. Like dinosaurs. Or Beeler. Uhhhg... Beeler.

I think its still a perfectly valid pet peeve.

When I get the themes to "Star Wars", "Superman" and the Indiana Jones flicks all mixed up in my head. Damn you John Williams!!!

Oh, and the same bloody thing with "The Godfather, "Summer of '42" and "Fur Elise".

Is this just me?

TexasImprovMassacre wrote:

DollarBill wrote:

Justin D. wrote:Okay, all true. I change my pet peeve to minor annoyance.

NO DUDE! DON'T BACK DOWN! If it's your peve that's what makes it pet. You can agree with Roy if you want, but you can also hate something that he loves. Like dinosaurs. Or Beeler. Uhhhg... Beeler.

I think its still a perfectly valid pet peeve.

Ok, I'll change my minor annoyance back to a pet peeve.

Unless you think I should keep it?

Should I keep it?

Maybe I should change it back?

Hmmm.

(is acting out so many people's pet peeve right now)

Seriously, it does still annoy me, but Roy had a good point about trusting others in the show to fill the gap. Still, more times than not, no matter how experienced the troupes or improvisers are, I've seen someone edit a scene and no one walk on because they're expecting the editor to start a new one based on how decisively he or she killed the last one. That can only happen so many times.

Also, a woman putting herself in subservient or sexual roles in virtually every show. I've seen a few that do this regularly. Someone I was in a class with used to complain that women would always get marked as a stripper, whore, or some variant where she was from by the men in the show, but I've seen women do this to themselves more often than not. It's not even (or just) a matter of a woman constantly playing a sexual or subservient character, but that the woman is playing the same type or status too often. Hell, that's a good pet peeve.

Improvisers who play the same type of character or status too often.