Join 3,424 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Who's Fucking?
June 22, 2014 5:01 AM   Subscribe

Several couples reminisce about when and how they started fucking: Josh and Debra, Zack and Evan, Isaac and Doris.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (29 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite

 
Fucking funny.
posted by Xurando at 5:16 AM on June 22


This fails as satire because it's actually kind of sweet.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:19 AM on June 22 [14 favorites]


Man, that was a risky/brave move, Zack... rubbing up a married man in an elevator. Just think of the work place harassment that could have happened. A happy ending though!
posted by greenhornet at 5:20 AM on June 22 [1 favorite]


Literally.
posted by louche mustachio at 5:28 AM on June 22 [1 favorite]


They totally nailed the tone.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 5:33 AM on June 22 [2 favorites]


It took a minute to twig these are actors - but what are they parodying? Is there some US reality show / dating website that does these kind of adverts?
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 5:41 AM on June 22


what are they parodying?

Here you go.
posted by mstokes650 at 5:51 AM on June 22 [3 favorites]


More background: The Onion’s ‘Who’s F*cking?’ Nails the New York Times’ Wedding Announcements
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:14 AM on June 22 [1 favorite]


That's a lot of effort and good production values for something with exactly one joke, repeated many times.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:00 AM on June 22 [3 favorites]


Why do I always read the comments when I know I should never read the comments on YouTube?
posted by xingcat at 7:01 AM on June 22


That's a lot of effort and good production values for something with exactly one joke, repeated many times.

Well heck, if it ain't broke...
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:29 AM on June 22 [9 favorites]


That's a lot of effort and good production values for something with exactly one joke, repeated many times.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:00 AM on June 22 [+] [!]


You do know what fucking is, right?
posted by chavenet at 8:23 AM on June 22 [21 favorites]


Groundhog Day: That's a lot of effort and good production values for something with exactly one joke, repeated many times.
posted by maxsparber at 9:31 AM on June 22 [8 favorites]


Brandon Blatcher: I think that article has it backwards: "1 is NYT and 2 is the Onion, for those who must know." I'm pretty sure #1 is from the Josh and Debra video.
posted by rmd1023 at 9:47 AM on June 22


The Onion: exactly one joke, repeated many times.
posted by beerbajay at 11:09 AM on June 22 [2 favorites]


So usually The Onion stuff is one joke extended just a bit too long, but that Zack and Evan short is brilliant. It's got several beats, from working up to what "fucking" specifically means to a gay couple to the story about 'Dan" to the reveal about Paris. That last bit is hilarious and uncomfortable and way, way TMI. I'm still cringing. Nicely done.
posted by Nelson at 11:10 AM on June 22


The Onion: exactly one joke, repeated many times.

Well, yeah. In their writers' room, they pitch headlines. That's why the headline is the funniest part, and the article is usually filler. (I say this as someone with a deep love for The Onion.)
posted by jcreigh at 11:47 AM on June 22


I think that article has it backwards: "1 is NYT and 2 is the Onion, for those who must know." I'm pretty sure #1 is from the Josh and Debra video.

If it wasn't an intentional metajoke, I now retroactively declare it so on behalf of Vinnie Mancuso.
posted by Dr Dracator at 12:00 PM on June 22


And if you're not sure whether you're fucking or not, Reggie Watts will clarify it for you. This is my favorite song this week.
posted by tatiana131 at 1:07 PM on June 22 [7 favorites]


The Onion? Fuck yeah!
posted by Sleeper at 7:27 PM on June 22


good production values

Well TBH it's really just non-shitty lighting. It's not like there are explosions or stunts or meticulously constructed costumes or anything.
posted by Sara C. at 8:30 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]


Well TBH it's really just non-shitty
lighting.


These sketches are a lot more complicated than good lighting. They're spot on in parodying that wholesome, folksy psuedo shakey cam-and-zoom documentary style that's all too floating-head slick by either actually shooting multicam or simulating multicam with multiple takes and editing with rice-paper crisp outboard audio and post production and nearly perfect aperture, shutter and depth of field control.

The lighting is good, too, and probably uses multiple reflectors and softboxes.

These are not clips you shoot with a single consumer DSLR and some kit glass. There's a small truck or van full of gear behind this and good prime glass.

Which is part of the parody. Real life vignettes and interviews aren't as slickly produced as those eHarmony advertestimonials. That's broadcast commercial grade work, hyperreal and impossibly perfect.
posted by loquacious at 11:04 PM on June 22 [5 favorites]


locquacious, I'm talking about "production values", which usually means "the quality of the stuff you actually see on the screen". Not so much whether it's a good parody.

In terms of production value, you've got:

- actors who are appropriately cast and dressed

- lighting and camera work that isn't a hot mess

- competent sound mix

- that "Who's Fucking?" graphic is pretty good

It's a good parody, but it's not "a lot of effort and production values for one joke". This is pretty much what clever viral videos look like. If you have a DSLR, a window, and a shotgun mic, you can make this. I think you'd actually have to try to make it look shittier.
posted by Sara C. at 11:19 PM on June 22


If you have a DSLR, a window, and a shotgun mic, you can make this.

loquacious's comment suggests otherwise. I agree. There's a lot that went into these.
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:13 AM on June 23 [2 favorites]


There's zero need to go the "Well, to be honest..." route and attempt to prove you're right about something. Just let it go.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:18 AM on June 23 [3 favorites]


Why do I always read the comments when I know I should never read the comments on YouTube?

Because there are a few gems:

>I cried a bit.

>You're crying because of The Onion.

posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:49 AM on June 23 [3 favorites]


I guess I just don't get how showing up and pointing a camera at a thing is "too much production value for just one joke".
posted by Sara C. at 10:19 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]


Your list above is a lot more than a random person with a camera and is exactly what I was commenting on.

My joke above was mostly gently ribbing on the one note humor, I'm not sure how the production values turned out to be so controversial. They did a good job on the videos and the scripts, and deserve lots of credit if I found it a bit repetitive over all.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:35 AM on June 23 [2 favorites]


jcreigh: The Onion: exactly one joke, repeated many times.

Well, yeah. In their writers' room, they pitch headlines. That's why the headline is the funniest part, and the article is usually filler. (I say this as someone with a deep love for The Onion.)


Not significantly different from how (I understand) SNL sketches are chosen. Writers pitch an idea (headline); others comment on how it could run; if it's picked the writer fills out a sketch.

This isn't an "Onion fault"; it's simply the only feasible way to do sketch/article comedy for a regular episode/print deadline.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:33 AM on June 29


« Older Today at 6 PM Eastern, the United States plays Por...  |  Dylan Moran on the differences... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments