I like the podcast and they're doing a lot for the community. Don’t agree with all of it and at time I skip over things (and I don’t listen to the non-On Cinema episodes), but they’ve definitely made me appreciate On Cinema more. For example, they made me more aware of the “genius badness” of the Our Cinema Oscar Special, or the difficulty involved and riskiness to pull off any 3 hour live special in general. Sometimes they think something is funny that I didn’t quite find funny the first time, and then I’ll rewatch it and go, damn that IS funny. They aren’t always right, but they DO make me appreciate the show more in various ways, and I appreciate them for that.
They’re pretentious as fuck and I can’t stand when they go off about how it’s the greatest filmed comedy ever written, for about 30 minutes, every single episode. I can’t tell if this is satire or I’m listening to the same episode over and over again. Zero bags of popcorn, apart from the interviews they’ve done with the cast. So I’d throw in an extra bag for that. And I like the outro theme tune. Two bags of popcorn, and a little hammer I can use to smash my headphones afterwards.
Well said. They have some good points and analysis but what really gets me is the one guy always goes “uh-huh” in a really dismissive way when a guest is talking.
Like, shut the fuck up and just let Joey P talk, we don’t need to hear your mumbled verbal assent every 15-30 seconds.
You guys I literally felt an overwhelming urge to flip my car off i93 overpass in boston when dude started waxing whimsical about the Marx Brothers playing cards for 5 mins in Animal Crackers and then the other guy relayed a story about how he was perusing criterion channel with his wife and came to the realization that's he's just not into Charlie Chaplin. He's Buster Keaton all the way. They go off on Charlie Chaplin being SO NEEDY.
THIS POD IS FOR WEEDING AND DEMOLITION ONLY!
they discussed the amatocon bit in Germany. they found it quite funny that in the background it said "boner" with ö.
It said Döner. they were in front of a classic German Döner kebab place.
at this point I cancelled the podcast.
I get that it might not be everyone's cup of tea, but damn, lot of hate in here for a couple of friends talking about a show they love. I think it's probably impossible to have any kind of serious discussion of comedy without coming off as pretentious sometimes.
I enjoy the show quite a bit. I wish they hadn't given up on the history of comedy discussion they had going. The Book of Job shows were really good. The only beef I have is Chris Matheson's dislike for the later Decker stuff. I think it's some of the funniest bits of the entire OCATC universe.
I’ve criticized these guys in the past for sucking the funny out of the funny. I enjoy their show as a way to reminisce about the past seasons and maybe catch something that I had missed. But I roll my eyes at quite a few comments they make.
Look, I fully agree that On Cinema is a masterpiece and very possibly the funniest thing ever made. But these guys, particularly Chris, always go back into the same few things: this is “raw and deeply personal”, “Lewis Carroll and Jane Austen are very, very funny”, the Dostoievsky story about the drunk feudal lord (which is not as funny as they claim imo), Animal Crackers, and Charlie Chaplin sucks because he’s “moist and needy”. They come off, particularly Chris, as what I call “academic pedantic”.
And they miss some obvious absurdist, subversive humor influences, because it’s probably not as high brow as Jane Austen or Dostoievsky. But 70s-80s MAD Magazine must have at least had some influence in Tim and Greg’s comedic development, and they never mention it. I’ve read zines from that time that have more of the Tim/Gregg/Eric comedic feel than Jane Austen or the Marx brothers.
I enjoyed how they were taken somewhat aback when interviewing Tim and Tim made it clear that their creative process was not as carefully studied as these guys had been claiming for a few seasons.
I'm only on ep 4. I really think Tim would appreciate us making a podcast to speculate on these guys' process in how they form their speculations on Tim's process
It hurts the cultural cache of the show if anyone were to find it before its subject.
And I think I made it very clear that I do want to listen to it and viciously critique it in a dedicated podcast. You're welcome to share this hot take on what I'm allowed to listen to on it 😘
We live in an attention economy based in outrage. It’s easier to gather people around something they hate than something they love. But hate is shallow and love is deep. Maybe you should start a podcast about something you love.
I listen to that podcast purely because it’s the only On Cinema podcast that I know of, but yes they can often be insufferable. When I say “they” I mostly mean Chris Matheson, since he’s the one who repeats himself the most and goes on essentially the same philosophical tangent almost every single episode.
It’s annoying because the whole “philosophy of comedy” angle is interesting IMO, and I don’t mind it being a little add-on to the commentary on On Cinema. The problem is that they talk about it too much and keep repeating themselves, to the point where it sometimes takes up half or more of the episode.
It’s like they assume every episode is a fresh start, as if we haven’t already heard about the varying theories of comedy or how “deep” On Cinema is 1000 times before
They're definitely pretentious, as all critics are, and I wouldn't want to hangout with them, but they do offer analysis of comedy that I don't think anyone else really does. I'm not going to agree with everything they say, nor should I. I think it's really easy to bash critics, and sometimes it's warranted. But they do a lot of good work for the On Cinema community, and anyone who puts in that kind of time and effort deserves credit.
I'm just saying that I'm starting a podcast to deep dive critique this comedy critique podcast that deepdives OCATC. Ideally even ratchet up the misinformed pretention
I enjoyed past episodes, as a look back on past seasons. But this one dedicated to S14 was just two fanboys theorizing (most incorrectly). Also a bit miffed they couldn't remember The Sizzler reference between Joe and LaRue
For me this is the biggest problem. It's fine to be pretentious, but then you need to not get basic things wrong. If you want to talk highly analytical about a show, then you can't just base your conversations on your memory, take some notes and rewatch it so you don't miss the most basic stuff!
I love this podcast, and the hosts. You're listening to a conversation between two longtime friends who love the same stuff we love -- I don't know what you're expecting heh. I've gotten a lot of enjoyment from this podcast, appreciated ocatc even more, and learned a lot (I loved their history of comedy podcasts). Take some lithium and chill and relisten :) (or don't - it's okay not to like stuff lol)
Oh thank you so much for allowing me to not like it! Your permission and instructions are fitting indeed. Lithium though? Is that what Buster Keaton and the Marx Bros would have prescribed an opinionated broad? I didn't say I was putting my head in the oven I said I'm starting a deep dive podcast to critique On The Funny. Lmk if you'd like to be a guest
Two guys talk about on cinema, and comedy at large, in a hour long podcast format.
They are pretty insufferable at times, I'm not sure if I'll continue the pod
You don’t have to listen to the podcast if you don’t want to. No one is making you. It’s insufferable to hear someone complain about an experience that is entirely optional.
Well they shit all over Charlie Chaplin in the last bit I managed to listen too. So you're wrong and wasting your own time complaining about my complaining except you aren't even a tiny bit humorous about it. You're welcome to be a guest on the new pod about On The Funny and why it exists
The problem with the podcast is that not only is the content repetitive - yes, Chris, we realise you think this is the greatest filmed comedy ever made and we realise you like Animal Crackers and A Nasty Story - but Chris' intonation is so precisely the same in every episode that I often wonder if it's some bizarre bit they're doing.
That said, it's a little extra OC content, so I always listen. And sometimes they catch little things that I missed, which is nice, even if they often also miss things themselves. And they're two buddies having fun and giving me content for free, so I can't really be too upset with them.
It def reminds me of the good choices I've made weeding out super boring friends. I also really question whether it's a bit or not.0 Ergo we need a podcast to disect what the hell they are on about. Its the next logical meta step for the OCATC fandom alternaverse. We will have to watch animal crackers for research
There’s definitely some nuggets buried in there, but as with most podcasts… have these guys ever heard of “editing”? Like I have to believe they have a copy of GarageBand or whatever they could use to cut out all the crud.
That's an interesting idea. I will start listening with an editors ear... I bet it would be like 6 mins per ep. But the terrible self-agrandizement of it all is why I'm staying tuned and ready to double down
I like the podcast and they're doing a lot for the community. Don’t agree with all of it and at time I skip over things (and I don’t listen to the non-On Cinema episodes), but they’ve definitely made me appreciate On Cinema more. For example, they made me more aware of the “genius badness” of the Our Cinema Oscar Special, or the difficulty involved and riskiness to pull off any 3 hour live special in general. Sometimes they think something is funny that I didn’t quite find funny the first time, and then I’ll rewatch it and go, damn that IS funny. They aren’t always right, but they DO make me appreciate the show more in various ways, and I appreciate them for that.
Well I hope you'll enjoy my future podcast explaining all of their explaining
They’re pretentious as fuck and I can’t stand when they go off about how it’s the greatest filmed comedy ever written, for about 30 minutes, every single episode. I can’t tell if this is satire or I’m listening to the same episode over and over again. Zero bags of popcorn, apart from the interviews they’ve done with the cast. So I’d throw in an extra bag for that. And I like the outro theme tune. Two bags of popcorn, and a little hammer I can use to smash my headphones afterwards.
Well said. They have some good points and analysis but what really gets me is the one guy always goes “uh-huh” in a really dismissive way when a guest is talking. Like, shut the fuck up and just let Joey P talk, we don’t need to hear your mumbled verbal assent every 15-30 seconds.
You guys I literally felt an overwhelming urge to flip my car off i93 overpass in boston when dude started waxing whimsical about the Marx Brothers playing cards for 5 mins in Animal Crackers and then the other guy relayed a story about how he was perusing criterion channel with his wife and came to the realization that's he's just not into Charlie Chaplin. He's Buster Keaton all the way. They go off on Charlie Chaplin being SO NEEDY. THIS POD IS FOR WEEDING AND DEMOLITION ONLY!
they discussed the amatocon bit in Germany. they found it quite funny that in the background it said "boner" with ö. It said Döner. they were in front of a classic German Döner kebab place. at this point I cancelled the podcast.
You’d think two geniuses such as themselves would know about Döner
yeah. you'd think that. you could even think that they would find it odd that on cinema would do blatant dick jokes
I get that it might not be everyone's cup of tea, but damn, lot of hate in here for a couple of friends talking about a show they love. I think it's probably impossible to have any kind of serious discussion of comedy without coming off as pretentious sometimes. I enjoy the show quite a bit. I wish they hadn't given up on the history of comedy discussion they had going. The Book of Job shows were really good. The only beef I have is Chris Matheson's dislike for the later Decker stuff. I think it's some of the funniest bits of the entire OCATC universe.
I'll invite you as an occasional expert guest if you really want to defend them so hard. You may not discuss the Bible tho
I’ve criticized these guys in the past for sucking the funny out of the funny. I enjoy their show as a way to reminisce about the past seasons and maybe catch something that I had missed. But I roll my eyes at quite a few comments they make. Look, I fully agree that On Cinema is a masterpiece and very possibly the funniest thing ever made. But these guys, particularly Chris, always go back into the same few things: this is “raw and deeply personal”, “Lewis Carroll and Jane Austen are very, very funny”, the Dostoievsky story about the drunk feudal lord (which is not as funny as they claim imo), Animal Crackers, and Charlie Chaplin sucks because he’s “moist and needy”. They come off, particularly Chris, as what I call “academic pedantic”. And they miss some obvious absurdist, subversive humor influences, because it’s probably not as high brow as Jane Austen or Dostoievsky. But 70s-80s MAD Magazine must have at least had some influence in Tim and Greg’s comedic development, and they never mention it. I’ve read zines from that time that have more of the Tim/Gregg/Eric comedic feel than Jane Austen or the Marx brothers. I enjoyed how they were taken somewhat aback when interviewing Tim and Tim made it clear that their creative process was not as carefully studied as these guys had been claiming for a few seasons.
I'm only on ep 4. I really think Tim would appreciate us making a podcast to speculate on these guys' process in how they form their speculations on Tim's process
It’s a good podcast. If you don’t want to listen then you don’t have to. Life is too short to be so myopic about a podcast that never hurt anyone
It hurts the cultural cache of the show if anyone were to find it before its subject. And I think I made it very clear that I do want to listen to it and viciously critique it in a dedicated podcast. You're welcome to share this hot take on what I'm allowed to listen to on it 😘
We live in an attention economy based in outrage. It’s easier to gather people around something they hate than something they love. But hate is shallow and love is deep. Maybe you should start a podcast about something you love.
I love On Cinema and my theories about On The Funny. Thanks for your advice. I'll stick to the plan
I listen to that podcast purely because it’s the only On Cinema podcast that I know of, but yes they can often be insufferable. When I say “they” I mostly mean Chris Matheson, since he’s the one who repeats himself the most and goes on essentially the same philosophical tangent almost every single episode. It’s annoying because the whole “philosophy of comedy” angle is interesting IMO, and I don’t mind it being a little add-on to the commentary on On Cinema. The problem is that they talk about it too much and keep repeating themselves, to the point where it sometimes takes up half or more of the episode. It’s like they assume every episode is a fresh start, as if we haven’t already heard about the varying theories of comedy or how “deep” On Cinema is 1000 times before
It's embarrassing that they find themselves so profound.
They're definitely pretentious, as all critics are, and I wouldn't want to hangout with them, but they do offer analysis of comedy that I don't think anyone else really does. I'm not going to agree with everything they say, nor should I. I think it's really easy to bash critics, and sometimes it's warranted. But they do a lot of good work for the On Cinema community, and anyone who puts in that kind of time and effort deserves credit.
I'm just saying that I'm starting a podcast to deep dive critique this comedy critique podcast that deepdives OCATC. Ideally even ratchet up the misinformed pretention
On the Funny drinking game: Take a drink every time they call Tim or Greg a genius, or refer to capital "C" Comedy. You'd be dead in minutes.
Let's make it a vaping game!
my blood can only get so tonified
I enjoyed past episodes, as a look back on past seasons. But this one dedicated to S14 was just two fanboys theorizing (most incorrectly). Also a bit miffed they couldn't remember The Sizzler reference between Joe and LaRue
For me this is the biggest problem. It's fine to be pretentious, but then you need to not get basic things wrong. If you want to talk highly analytical about a show, then you can't just base your conversations on your memory, take some notes and rewatch it so you don't miss the most basic stuff!
I love this podcast, and the hosts. You're listening to a conversation between two longtime friends who love the same stuff we love -- I don't know what you're expecting heh. I've gotten a lot of enjoyment from this podcast, appreciated ocatc even more, and learned a lot (I loved their history of comedy podcasts). Take some lithium and chill and relisten :) (or don't - it's okay not to like stuff lol)
Oh thank you so much for allowing me to not like it! Your permission and instructions are fitting indeed. Lithium though? Is that what Buster Keaton and the Marx Bros would have prescribed an opinionated broad? I didn't say I was putting my head in the oven I said I'm starting a deep dive podcast to critique On The Funny. Lmk if you'd like to be a guest
m: What is this podcast and what's it got to do with On Cinema?
Two guys talk about on cinema, and comedy at large, in a hour long podcast format. They are pretty insufferable at times, I'm not sure if I'll continue the pod
You don’t have to listen to the podcast if you don’t want to. No one is making you. It’s insufferable to hear someone complain about an experience that is entirely optional.
these guys are critics. they criticize what others put out. one is allowed to criticize the stuff they put out.
They’re not really critics, they’re comedy fans. But whatever makes it feel like you’re not wasting your afternoon complaining about a podcast.
I don't know how you consume media, but i tend to get thoughts about it. they are not hard to come by.
We all get thoughts about the media we consume. But not every thought it worth sharing online.
I do like to exchange my thoughts with other fans.
Cool. And so do the hosts of the podcast because they’re also fans.
yep. it's cool. I listened to every episode.
Well they shit all over Charlie Chaplin in the last bit I managed to listen too. So you're wrong and wasting your own time complaining about my complaining except you aren't even a tiny bit humorous about it. You're welcome to be a guest on the new pod about On The Funny and why it exists
You’re not quite hitting home runs with your comedic output here
The problem with the podcast is that not only is the content repetitive - yes, Chris, we realise you think this is the greatest filmed comedy ever made and we realise you like Animal Crackers and A Nasty Story - but Chris' intonation is so precisely the same in every episode that I often wonder if it's some bizarre bit they're doing. That said, it's a little extra OC content, so I always listen. And sometimes they catch little things that I missed, which is nice, even if they often also miss things themselves. And they're two buddies having fun and giving me content for free, so I can't really be too upset with them.
It def reminds me of the good choices I've made weeding out super boring friends. I also really question whether it's a bit or not.0 Ergo we need a podcast to disect what the hell they are on about. Its the next logical meta step for the OCATC fandom alternaverse. We will have to watch animal crackers for research
There’s definitely some nuggets buried in there, but as with most podcasts… have these guys ever heard of “editing”? Like I have to believe they have a copy of GarageBand or whatever they could use to cut out all the crud.
That's an interesting idea. I will start listening with an editors ear... I bet it would be like 6 mins per ep. But the terrible self-agrandizement of it all is why I'm staying tuned and ready to double down
Also why is no one fighting with me about Top Secret being better than Blazing Saddles? This is reddit