They're just sayin'
December 2, 2008 9:54 AM Subscribe
Rex Sorgatz, the proprietor of Fimoculous, is the perpetrator of the I'm Just Sayin' Show, a series of 2-to-5-minute episodes featuring three hip and savvy women (Alisa, Jackie and Kristen), all of them "social media strategists" at New York dotcoms, in frenetic conversations over drinks on topics like language, New York City cops, identity theft, and what's cool, and iPhone apps they like. For your convenience, there are plot summaries like: "In less than 2 minutes: vampires, goth tattoos, Alisa's Mormon connection to Twilight, and True Blood."
My ears are bleeding now. Maybe it's the ice pick I jammed in there.
posted by tula at 10:10 AM on December 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by tula at 10:10 AM on December 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
"Social media strategists" is another way of saying "first against the wall."
posted by basicchannel at 10:13 AM on December 2, 2008 [8 favorites]
posted by basicchannel at 10:13 AM on December 2, 2008 [8 favorites]
Summary of entire show:
I mean like I live in New York and I'm surrounded by the whole, like, era of cool, you know? But people in like Minnesota (no offence) or like...Arkansas...they don't know and they're probably thinking like, "This is cool." And I'm like: NO.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:15 AM on December 2, 2008 [3 favorites]
I mean like I live in New York and I'm surrounded by the whole, like, era of cool, you know? But people in like Minnesota (no offence) or like...Arkansas...they don't know and they're probably thinking like, "This is cool." And I'm like: NO.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:15 AM on December 2, 2008 [3 favorites]
This instantly reminded me of everyones favorite episode of this. And I dont like being reminded of that. GTFO!
posted by ElmerFishpaw at 10:23 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by ElmerFishpaw at 10:23 AM on December 2, 2008
Alcohol + Talking Over Each Other + Constant Giggling = Ahhhhhh!!!
posted by ericb at 10:23 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by ericb at 10:23 AM on December 2, 2008
....huh.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:23 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:23 AM on December 2, 2008
Ah, Rex. I don't think New York has been good for you. There's just no nice way to say it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:37 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:37 AM on December 2, 2008
Does anyone know the exact date that New York City decriminalized public masturbation? I know it was at least 10 years ago, but I can't find a cite.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:37 AM on December 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:37 AM on December 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
This is why the word "insufferable" was invented.
posted by signalnine at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by signalnine at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2008
I'm sure Rex is a little sick of butting heads with me, but cute girls drinking and talking about nothing? It should be called I'm a girl rex wants to fuck.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
In less than 3 minutes: like, like, like, like, totally, like, um, like, like fuck, like.
posted by jason's_planet at 10:55 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by jason's_planet at 10:55 AM on December 2, 2008
Please tell me this is some kind of joke that I just don't get.
posted by owtytrof at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by owtytrof at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2008
It's post-conversation. Very hip!
posted by carter at 11:10 AM on December 2, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by carter at 11:10 AM on December 2, 2008 [3 favorites]
You know, like, uh, like, um excuse me?
posted by lumpenprole at 11:13 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by lumpenprole at 11:13 AM on December 2, 2008
I'm sure Rex is a little sick of butting heads with me, but cute girls drinking and talking about nothing? It should be called I'm a girl rex wants to fuck.
Your buddy needs to raise his standards.
posted by jason's_planet at 11:14 AM on December 2, 2008
Your buddy needs to raise his standards.
posted by jason's_planet at 11:14 AM on December 2, 2008
Well, far be it for me to argue questions of fuckability, which is a little off topic, anyway. But he does need to raise his standards for what makes interesting Web conversation.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:17 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:17 AM on December 2, 2008
Huh. I guess my midwestern city is hipper than I thought.... we have tons of questionably-coiffured drunk girls in superhero t-shirts talking inarticulately!
Seriously, what am I missing here?
posted by Monsters at 11:22 AM on December 2, 2008
Seriously, what am I missing here?
posted by Monsters at 11:22 AM on December 2, 2008
They're not in New York.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:23 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:23 AM on December 2, 2008
all of them "social media strategists" at New York dotcoms
At least three VC firms out there should be more careful about who they're giving their money to.
posted by ook at 11:23 AM on December 2, 2008
At least three VC firms out there should be more careful about who they're giving their money to.
posted by ook at 11:23 AM on December 2, 2008
Coming from Rex these videos seem to just be tribute videos. I mean, ideally Rex loves himself so much that he'd be content just fucking himself but, realizing that branching out never hurts, fucking these women would still be like fucking himself. I'm just sayin'
posted by Waitwhat at 11:47 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by Waitwhat at 11:47 AM on December 2, 2008
Rex: Jackie thinks my old media collection is hilarious. (”Books? What are those”)
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:54 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:54 AM on December 2, 2008
Is there a word for favoriting something perversely, just because it's so bad you want to be able to find it again and point it out to someone as a sign of the imminent collapse of our civilization? Because I just did that.
posted by mai at 11:55 AM on December 2, 2008
posted by mai at 11:55 AM on December 2, 2008
I love how they're talking right to the dude: "Is this vapid enough for you boss?" It's pretty gross that anyone thinks smart women really talk like this or would be interested in hearing them do it. The whole joint plays like a verbal version of HCWD.
On preview, oh my, how awkward. This is a small internet I see.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:04 PM on December 2, 2008
On preview, oh my, how awkward. This is a small internet I see.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:04 PM on December 2, 2008
We haven't gone anywhere, Rex.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:08 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:08 PM on December 2, 2008
Man, I really enjoy Fimoculous, but that 3 minutes on Twilight et al was fucking painful. It's like these are the three least-informed chicks in a bar, talking about shit they don't know a single thing about.
posted by graventy at 12:09 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by graventy at 12:09 PM on December 2, 2008
I know people like this. Only they aren't as boring seeming because I know them and sometimes they talk about people that I know or me. And they don't talk about what's cool as much. And they say douchebag less.
posted by I Foody at 12:15 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by I Foody at 12:15 PM on December 2, 2008
I've always been impressed by the aplomb with which New York City cops handle idiots, but in this case I really wish the officer would have slapped that girl.
posted by JaredSeth at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by JaredSeth at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2008
The blonde looks like Garth from Wayne's World in way too many angles.
posted by ubiquity at 12:26 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by ubiquity at 12:26 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
You say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:28 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:28 PM on December 2, 2008
/walk out on porch, shake fist, holler at kids
/repeat as necessary
posted by willmize at 12:54 PM on December 2, 2008
/repeat as necessary
posted by willmize at 12:54 PM on December 2, 2008
I've gone and watched a few of these. I maintain my "...huh" reaction. Neither offended nor enthralled, I'm just sort of confused. Why does this exist? There's nothing wrong with light conversation, but there's no hook. It's not even like they're the most boring human beings on the planet - seems like pretty average conversation, considering - it's just that there's a reason these sorts of "unscripted, just talkin', man" shows aren't more-watched or better-regarded. I'm not coming back to watch any more of these. What's the point? I assume this is just a hobby, which is fine?
The comments are strange, too, because the ladies seem very into responding to the comments, but even on that interactive level, it's a shallow pool. Comments divide neatly into two categories. First category is of people saying "WE LOVE U!!!" and then one of the video people responds with "THANX!!!" and that's fine. Second category is of people saying "MY CONSCIOUSNESS HAS NOT EXPANDED! YOU ARE STUPID-EVIL!!!" and then one of the video people responds with "YOU HAVE WASTED YOUR TIME BY REGISTERING YOUR DISGUST! ALSO YOU ARE FAT-HAVING BRAIN-LACKER."
Typical, I guess, but I guess what confuses me slightly is not only that people take the time to personally criticize them for not having more interesting or substantive conversations, but that the response from the video folk is, "What? You want me to talk about Universal Grammar and how I see the web as a paradigm of streams instead, huh? Because that's what I do ALL DAY."
Because you know what? YES. I would PREFER for you to talk about Universal Grammar and how you see the web as a paradigm of streams instead. Maybe there's a reason why people pay you to do that thing whereas this other thing is what you do for fun. One of the ladies has a somewhat interesting blog, but my mind is currently consumed with finals completely unrelated to her sphere and therefore not in a headspace where I can give it more than a quick glance. That said, I did, indeed read her post on how she sees the web as a paradigm of streams, and I thought, "OK, we have something here," and then that post linked to an even more interesting NYTimes article, so it was not a total loss.
The comparisons up top to Nathan Barley are funny. There's the obvious reason why it's funny, but there's also the matter of how trashbat.co.ck - not the promo page actually on the web, but the website as it existed in the universe of the show itself - had more invention, genuine interactivity, popularity, and return value than this site does. If trashbat.co.ck were a real website, I would keep up with it and follow Nathan Barley's career, even while sneering at it. Nathan Barley is a better social media strategist than any of them are, and he is a fictional cunt. This is just a vlog, just like you have on YouTube, except this one is on Vimeo.
And now I've gone and written a few paragraphs about this vlog and linked to one of the vlogger's blog. Have I wasted my time? Sure I have, I've got a CivPro exam this Friday. However, if I wasn't wasting my time this way right now, I'd only be doing something else. And that's what I'll be doing tomorrow, while on a break from studying - something else.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:04 PM on December 2, 2008 [4 favorites]
The comments are strange, too, because the ladies seem very into responding to the comments, but even on that interactive level, it's a shallow pool. Comments divide neatly into two categories. First category is of people saying "WE LOVE U!!!" and then one of the video people responds with "THANX!!!" and that's fine. Second category is of people saying "MY CONSCIOUSNESS HAS NOT EXPANDED! YOU ARE STUPID-EVIL!!!" and then one of the video people responds with "YOU HAVE WASTED YOUR TIME BY REGISTERING YOUR DISGUST! ALSO YOU ARE FAT-HAVING BRAIN-LACKER."
Typical, I guess, but I guess what confuses me slightly is not only that people take the time to personally criticize them for not having more interesting or substantive conversations, but that the response from the video folk is, "What? You want me to talk about Universal Grammar and how I see the web as a paradigm of streams instead, huh? Because that's what I do ALL DAY."
Because you know what? YES. I would PREFER for you to talk about Universal Grammar and how you see the web as a paradigm of streams instead. Maybe there's a reason why people pay you to do that thing whereas this other thing is what you do for fun. One of the ladies has a somewhat interesting blog, but my mind is currently consumed with finals completely unrelated to her sphere and therefore not in a headspace where I can give it more than a quick glance. That said, I did, indeed read her post on how she sees the web as a paradigm of streams, and I thought, "OK, we have something here," and then that post linked to an even more interesting NYTimes article, so it was not a total loss.
The comparisons up top to Nathan Barley are funny. There's the obvious reason why it's funny, but there's also the matter of how trashbat.co.ck - not the promo page actually on the web, but the website as it existed in the universe of the show itself - had more invention, genuine interactivity, popularity, and return value than this site does. If trashbat.co.ck were a real website, I would keep up with it and follow Nathan Barley's career, even while sneering at it. Nathan Barley is a better social media strategist than any of them are, and he is a fictional cunt. This is just a vlog, just like you have on YouTube, except this one is on Vimeo.
And now I've gone and written a few paragraphs about this vlog and linked to one of the vlogger's blog. Have I wasted my time? Sure I have, I've got a CivPro exam this Friday. However, if I wasn't wasting my time this way right now, I'd only be doing something else. And that's what I'll be doing tomorrow, while on a break from studying - something else.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:04 PM on December 2, 2008 [4 favorites]
HAY LOOK AT US! WE"RE SO FULFILLED!! WE CAN'T WAIT TIL' THE INTERNET HEARS ABOUT THIS!!
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:29 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:29 PM on December 2, 2008
This is why I listen to metal.
posted by Snyder at 1:31 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Snyder at 1:31 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Good lord, what the fuck is a "social media strategist"?
/walk out on porch, shake fist, holler at kids
/repeat as necessary
Save some room on that porch for me.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:32 PM on December 2, 2008
/walk out on porch, shake fist, holler at kids
/repeat as necessary
Save some room on that porch for me.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:32 PM on December 2, 2008
I think this snippet from this interview about "I'm Just Sayin" pretty much says it all:
Tilzy.TV: Does the web really need more attractive girls having casual conversations in front of a camera?
Rex: Um… doy!
Ouch.
posted by hubs at 1:39 PM on December 2, 2008
Tilzy.TV: Does the web really need more attractive girls having casual conversations in front of a camera?
Rex: Um… doy!
Ouch.
posted by hubs at 1:39 PM on December 2, 2008
Doyzone, amirite?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:49 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:49 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Thanks, Sticherbeast, for taking the time to consider this, and the comment. A few observations:
+ I've always found it interesting how the internet works from an audience consumption perspective. Everyone seems to think that everything was made for them, or at least for people like them. But no one randomly punches channel 287 on their tv to critique, or picks up a magazine from a section of the newsstand they would never wander into.
+ To say this isn't made for the average MeFi user should be pretty self-evident. Neither are The Hills or Project Runway or Sex and the City or Gossip Girl. My point? Most of these shows are reprehensible to many on MeFi, but they're quite interesting to other people. (Let me get the criticism out there for you: shallow, image-obsessed, nyc people!) I'd like a discussion of Universal Grammar too -- perhaps we can request it from Hot For Words. That you desire something like that from our show illustrates something perplexing with how the internet works -- can we also request it of Blair Waldorf? Diggnation? Katie Couric?
+ The girls are all exceptionally smart. I know everyone here has a precocious niece who's, like, ten times smarter than all these girls' wedding ring fingers put together -- okay! But seriously -- I've seen them interact with other girls their age and they're the kind of people that others look up to. I realized that saying this is just sharpening the sarcasm knives for you, but they're all going to be ridic successful.
+ Some of these episode are better than others. (The most recent one kinda sucks. It was filler becasue we haven't shot for a while.) We're still working it out.
I know this all sounds a little defensive. It's my way of just sayin -- hey, if you don't like this show, that's fine. There's a lot of 22-year-old girls who think Diggnation is disgusting, self-absorbed, talking-over-each-other, giggly drivel too. They watch one epp and move on.
Good luck on your exam!
posted by rex at 1:51 PM on December 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
+ I've always found it interesting how the internet works from an audience consumption perspective. Everyone seems to think that everything was made for them, or at least for people like them. But no one randomly punches channel 287 on their tv to critique, or picks up a magazine from a section of the newsstand they would never wander into.
+ To say this isn't made for the average MeFi user should be pretty self-evident. Neither are The Hills or Project Runway or Sex and the City or Gossip Girl. My point? Most of these shows are reprehensible to many on MeFi, but they're quite interesting to other people. (Let me get the criticism out there for you: shallow, image-obsessed, nyc people!) I'd like a discussion of Universal Grammar too -- perhaps we can request it from Hot For Words. That you desire something like that from our show illustrates something perplexing with how the internet works -- can we also request it of Blair Waldorf? Diggnation? Katie Couric?
+ The girls are all exceptionally smart. I know everyone here has a precocious niece who's, like, ten times smarter than all these girls' wedding ring fingers put together -- okay! But seriously -- I've seen them interact with other girls their age and they're the kind of people that others look up to. I realized that saying this is just sharpening the sarcasm knives for you, but they're all going to be ridic successful.
+ Some of these episode are better than others. (The most recent one kinda sucks. It was filler becasue we haven't shot for a while.) We're still working it out.
I know this all sounds a little defensive. It's my way of just sayin -- hey, if you don't like this show, that's fine. There's a lot of 22-year-old girls who think Diggnation is disgusting, self-absorbed, talking-over-each-other, giggly drivel too. They watch one epp and move on.
Good luck on your exam!
posted by rex at 1:51 PM on December 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
The girls are all exceptionally smart. I know everyone here has a precocious niece who's, like, ten times smarter than all these girls' wedding ring fingers put together -- okay! But seriously -- I've seen them interact with other girls their age and they're the kind of people that others look up to.
This may be true, Rex, but you have filmed them in the worst light possible. They do not come off as smart in these short films. Just self-infatuated.
To say this isn't made for the average MeFi user should be pretty self-evident.
What is the average MeFi user? And what is your niche audience here? People who enjoy watching semi-drunk girls babble gormlessly about nothing in particular?
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:56 PM on December 2, 2008
This may be true, Rex, but you have filmed them in the worst light possible. They do not come off as smart in these short films. Just self-infatuated.
To say this isn't made for the average MeFi user should be pretty self-evident.
What is the average MeFi user? And what is your niche audience here? People who enjoy watching semi-drunk girls babble gormlessly about nothing in particular?
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:56 PM on December 2, 2008
Good lord, what the fuck is a "social media strategist"?
I think it's something to do with pimping your employer's content/whatever on blogs/social networking sites/whatever.
Or as they probably say, strategically leveraging Web 2.0 crowd clouds/whatever.
posted by carter at 1:57 PM on December 2, 2008
I think it's something to do with pimping your employer's content/whatever on blogs/social networking sites/whatever.
Or as they probably say, strategically leveraging Web 2.0 crowd clouds/whatever.
posted by carter at 1:57 PM on December 2, 2008
From a production standpoint, it might be cool to have the girls change outfits every once in awhile. You know, to at least give the impression that these are taped regularly and not just churned out like hot buttered shit.
posted by dhammond at 1:57 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by dhammond at 1:57 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
That you desire something like [a discussion of Universal Grammar] from our show illustrates something perplexing with how the internet works -- can we also request it of Blair Waldorf? Diggnation? Katie Couric?
That would be an excellent start.
posted by rusty at 1:59 PM on December 2, 2008
That would be an excellent start.
posted by rusty at 1:59 PM on December 2, 2008
And the "if you don't like it, just don't watch it" response that the girls, and Rex, stated above, seem to favor?
OF COURSE. But that doesn't preclude criticism, and seems a pretty juvenile response. You put it out there, you take your lumps, like everyone else.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:05 PM on December 2, 2008
OF COURSE. But that doesn't preclude criticism, and seems a pretty juvenile response. You put it out there, you take your lumps, like everyone else.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:05 PM on December 2, 2008
@ Astro Zombie: The girls were very close friends before we ever thought of doing this show (and actually, Jackie thought up this particular show -- not me). So forgive me if this sounds defensive... To suggest that I've chosen to frame them in some kind of light is really missing the spontaneity of the show. I turn on the camera and they talk. How would I like you to perceive them? That's your call, but I see them as girls in their early-20s struggling to figure out their lives, which are crammed with boys and cellphones and scumbags and the internet. Are they "self-infatuated"? No, I actually think they're a little vulnerable. I think you can tell they're trying to figure out how to live in this stupid fucked up solipsistic city and stay a normal human being. I think you can tell they want to be confident, because it's a city that demands it, but that they realize there's no hiding behind clothes and blogs and sarcasm. I think you can see them dealing with the pressure of constantly trying to satisfy men who are a decade older, in their work and in their play, and completely resenting that. I think you can see them talking like other girls their age about things that matter immensely to them now, but might not matter in a few years. That's how I see them.
@dhammond: It's interesting that many people have said this. But it would feel totally contrived to me, as though we've been planning how to dress and what to talk about. The show is truly spontaneous, there are no scripts. (Yes, yes, I know -- that's so obvious.)
posted by rex at 2:16 PM on December 2, 2008
@dhammond: It's interesting that many people have said this. But it would feel totally contrived to me, as though we've been planning how to dress and what to talk about. The show is truly spontaneous, there are no scripts. (Yes, yes, I know -- that's so obvious.)
posted by rex at 2:16 PM on December 2, 2008
rex's points don't make a lot of sense to me. That these women are smart seems plausible but totally beside the point. There are plenty of "smart" people, whatver that means, who go about having inane conversations. Myself sometimes included, I'm sure.
And while we often don't bother to register our disgust at Blair Waldorf (who is, to my understanding, a fictional character), she does not advertise herself as "being hip and savvy," having "frenetic" conversations. Rex claims that it should be self-evident that these conversations are not aimed at the average metafilter user, but actually these girls look a lot like me and talk about some of the topics I talk about, albeit while saying "like" a lot more often. I identify with them just enough to feel justified in my irritation. So, yeah, Blair Waldorf can go on doing what she does and so can these women, but I don't have to like it.
And while I'm at it, I think I'll just go ahead and lump these videos in with gossip girl and register some disgust at the whole thing, not because it's on topic, but because it's getting me kind of pissed off. There is a terrible dearth in our media of presentations of women having conversations with each other, especially about topics other than men. But then to think that when such conversations are presented, that I have to settle for such a low standard of discourse, well, it disappoints me terribly.
posted by mai at 2:16 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
And while we often don't bother to register our disgust at Blair Waldorf (who is, to my understanding, a fictional character), she does not advertise herself as "being hip and savvy," having "frenetic" conversations. Rex claims that it should be self-evident that these conversations are not aimed at the average metafilter user, but actually these girls look a lot like me and talk about some of the topics I talk about, albeit while saying "like" a lot more often. I identify with them just enough to feel justified in my irritation. So, yeah, Blair Waldorf can go on doing what she does and so can these women, but I don't have to like it.
And while I'm at it, I think I'll just go ahead and lump these videos in with gossip girl and register some disgust at the whole thing, not because it's on topic, but because it's getting me kind of pissed off. There is a terrible dearth in our media of presentations of women having conversations with each other, especially about topics other than men. But then to think that when such conversations are presented, that I have to settle for such a low standard of discourse, well, it disappoints me terribly.
posted by mai at 2:16 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
and Rex, your first comment above mine, which I didn't see before preview, is actually kind of illuminating. I can see the tension between confidence and insecurity, and between self-respect and on the other hand being in a position of having to or wanting to please men. I have felt these tensions myself. But just out of curiousity, are you the one behind the camera, and don't you think that you yourself are implicated in some of those tensions surrounding men? I sense an odd cross of sympathy and patronization in your comment, which may not be intended. . .
posted by mai at 2:22 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by mai at 2:22 PM on December 2, 2008
@ Astro Zombie: Oh, no, that wasn't my point -- criticize away! I mean, it's completely understandable that this ends up on MeFi and gets debated on its aesthetic merits... go for it! All I'm saying is that I also completely understand why it wouldn't jibe with this crowd.
@mai: Your point about "a terrible dearth in our media of presentations of women having conversations with each other, especially about topics other than me" is very interesting to me. If you care to check in again later, I think you'll see some more "serious conversations" soon. (Alisa wants to talk about the implications of Facebook Connect this week. I hope you like it.)
posted by rex at 2:23 PM on December 2, 2008
@mai: Your point about "a terrible dearth in our media of presentations of women having conversations with each other, especially about topics other than me" is very interesting to me. If you care to check in again later, I think you'll see some more "serious conversations" soon. (Alisa wants to talk about the implications of Facebook Connect this week. I hope you like it.)
posted by rex at 2:23 PM on December 2, 2008
@mai are you the one behind the camera, and don't you think that you yourself are implicated in some of those tensions surrounding men? Yes, this is absolutely a tension! And watch as they occasionally cut me into little pieces and make fun of me. This is definitely part of the tension of the show... and of their lives.
posted by rex at 2:27 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by rex at 2:27 PM on December 2, 2008
You put it out there, you take your lumps, like everyone else.
Unless it's specifically not for you (the hater).
I'd hazard to guess that most folks who get bad reviews on something they made could reply "then it's not for you" to the reviewers. Sure, it could have an intended audience, but once it's public, anyone can point and laugh.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:27 PM on December 2, 2008
Unless it's specifically not for you (the hater).
I'd hazard to guess that most folks who get bad reviews on something they made could reply "then it's not for you" to the reviewers. Sure, it could have an intended audience, but once it's public, anyone can point and laugh.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:27 PM on December 2, 2008
AT rex: Any subject at all would be an improvement. I think one of the problems besides the fact that they have no direction is that they seem to end up just snarking about whatever rather than talking about stuff that they like and care about. I've basically been doing the same thing into a microphone for years and me and my partner realized that whenever we started talking about something we didn't understand or like our show became unlistenable (as opposed to just brain-crumblingly offensive), but that whenever we ran out of stuff to talk about or didn't prepare we'd slide right into that mode: "Ugh have you heard about X, it sucks." Young women don't like filler any more than that balding MeFites.
Sorry, that was unclear, they HATE filler, they LOVE balding Mefites. In my experience at least.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:28 PM on December 2, 2008
Sorry, that was unclear, they HATE filler, they LOVE balding Mefites. In my experience at least.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:28 PM on December 2, 2008
The girls were very close friends before we ever thought of doing this show (and actually, Jackie thought up this particular show -- not me). So forgive me if this sounds defensive... To suggest that I've chosen to frame them in some kind of light is really missing the spontaneity of the show.
The spontanaity of the show is making them look like idiots, Rex. If that has happened as the result of not really thinking about how to do the show, then it should be reconsidered, but spontaneity is not their friend here. And it's not because the show is not geared toward the average MeFite. It's because the form itself lends itself to shallow conversation. They are spontaneously babbling about stuff without having really prepared beforehand, and drinking, and giggling a lot, and few people do really well in that sort of off-the-cuff environment, especially without a lot of experience at it.
I just don't think this show is doing them any favors. It's easy to plop three people you think are cute and smart and have something to say in front of a camera with almost no work done ahead of time and shoot something and put it online. From my experience, that's the perfect way to make them look bad.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:29 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
The spontanaity of the show is making them look like idiots, Rex. If that has happened as the result of not really thinking about how to do the show, then it should be reconsidered, but spontaneity is not their friend here. And it's not because the show is not geared toward the average MeFite. It's because the form itself lends itself to shallow conversation. They are spontaneously babbling about stuff without having really prepared beforehand, and drinking, and giggling a lot, and few people do really well in that sort of off-the-cuff environment, especially without a lot of experience at it.
I just don't think this show is doing them any favors. It's easy to plop three people you think are cute and smart and have something to say in front of a camera with almost no work done ahead of time and shoot something and put it online. From my experience, that's the perfect way to make them look bad.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:29 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
The girls are all exceptionally smart.
So why did you go to such deliberate lengths to make them look like vapid bubbleheads?
I'm certain that if I drank a lot and then chattered aimlessly about nothing on camera, I'd look every inch a fool, too. But your explanation is self-contradictory, it comes off like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too: they're not just self-absorbed gossips, they're really smart people making a show that happens to be aimed at a really lowest-common-denominator audience, so we're making them look like self-absorbed gossips! But they could be smart! If they wanted to be!
I'm glad Sticherbeast posted his comment, because otherwise I would never have seen that Alisa at least does appear to have some ideas and knowledge worth talking about, because the videos were so inane that I would never have looked further. If these three are going to be "ridic successful," more power to them. But these videos are going to be a hurdle they'll have to overcome in order to do that, because it makes them look like idiots.
To turn the question around, if you really wanted to make a lowest-common-denominator show -- which would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, it's a large niche -- why waste the talents of intelligent people to do it?
posted by ook at 2:32 PM on December 2, 2008
So why did you go to such deliberate lengths to make them look like vapid bubbleheads?
I'm certain that if I drank a lot and then chattered aimlessly about nothing on camera, I'd look every inch a fool, too. But your explanation is self-contradictory, it comes off like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too: they're not just self-absorbed gossips, they're really smart people making a show that happens to be aimed at a really lowest-common-denominator audience, so we're making them look like self-absorbed gossips! But they could be smart! If they wanted to be!
I'm glad Sticherbeast posted his comment, because otherwise I would never have seen that Alisa at least does appear to have some ideas and knowledge worth talking about, because the videos were so inane that I would never have looked further. If these three are going to be "ridic successful," more power to them. But these videos are going to be a hurdle they'll have to overcome in order to do that, because it makes them look like idiots.
To turn the question around, if you really wanted to make a lowest-common-denominator show -- which would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, it's a large niche -- why waste the talents of intelligent people to do it?
posted by ook at 2:32 PM on December 2, 2008
Please hold still, rex. I'm trying to light you on fire with my mind.
posted by loquacious at 2:33 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by loquacious at 2:33 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
I should say that I don't really blame them. I'm 40 and am just now learning to say "Well, that's something I don't really know that much about, so I am going to decline to comment." But, then, when I was 20, my half-assed pronouncements were only heard by a few people at a bar, and they were all making half-assed pronouncements of their own.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:33 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:33 PM on December 2, 2008
Sometimes, the creator or topic of a MeFi post shows up and it's awesome and it get sidebarred.
Sometimes, it just leads to a bunch of defensive thread-babysitting.
Just sayin'.
posted by absalom at 2:34 PM on December 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
Sometimes, it just leads to a bunch of defensive thread-babysitting.
Just sayin'.
posted by absalom at 2:34 PM on December 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
Good point. I think I'll bail on trying to defend the show. I've made my points and if anyone chooses to check in again later, thanks.
posted by rex at 2:39 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by rex at 2:39 PM on December 2, 2008
Wait, wait! I want to say just ONE more thing. For anyone who doesn't appreciate 3 minutes of drinky babbly drivel by people who say "like" a lot, I present 47 minutes of... you get the idea:
http://revision3.com/diggnation/bradsavedus/
(I love Diggnation, btw.)
Okay, I'm really out now.
posted by rex at 2:49 PM on December 2, 2008
http://revision3.com/diggnation/bradsavedus/
(I love Diggnation, btw.)
Okay, I'm really out now.
posted by rex at 2:49 PM on December 2, 2008
Yes. 47 minutes of drinky babbly drivel would also be annoying, and considerably more so.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:59 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:59 PM on December 2, 2008
Oof. I watched the "What's Cool" episode and it ... um ... was not cool. Do me a favor, skip it and spend the three minutes reading about anti-rockism instead.
posted by ourobouros at 3:17 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by ourobouros at 3:17 PM on December 2, 2008
rex: "girls in their early-20s"
Those are called "women."
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:19 PM on December 2, 2008 [8 favorites]
Those are called "women."
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:19 PM on December 2, 2008 [8 favorites]
They usually are. These particular ones are more accurately described as Sparkly Vampires.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:22 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:22 PM on December 2, 2008
To suggest that I've chosen to frame them in some kind of light is really missing the spontaneity of the show.
But you have chosen to frame them in a particular way: by your choice of format (or lack thereof) for the show. You've chosen a free-form, unscripted, unmoderated format for three hosts whose talents do not lie in improvisational entertainment. I mean, I wouldn't do any better, but I know that, so I don't do that kind of show.
This reminds me of a show that used to be on the local college radio station. It was called Girl Talk, and it consisted of a group of vapid college girls sitting in the studio and...talking. About nothing. They'd talk over top of each other; they'd play with their cell phones, their frat-boy boyfriends would call in and act hard on the radio, they'd broadcast dead air for uncomfortably long periods of time when they ran out of stuff to talk about...and even when you could understand what they were saying, it was just a bunch of giggly nonsense. I have no idea how they got the idea that anyone wanted to hear that.
I'm sure your hosts are smart; why not give them a chance, then, to exhibit those smarts, and perhaps provide something of value to the audience? Even with the sessions edited down to the interesting bits (as you appear to have done), it's...not very interesting.
posted by greenie2600 at 3:24 PM on December 2, 2008
But you have chosen to frame them in a particular way: by your choice of format (or lack thereof) for the show. You've chosen a free-form, unscripted, unmoderated format for three hosts whose talents do not lie in improvisational entertainment. I mean, I wouldn't do any better, but I know that, so I don't do that kind of show.
This reminds me of a show that used to be on the local college radio station. It was called Girl Talk, and it consisted of a group of vapid college girls sitting in the studio and...talking. About nothing. They'd talk over top of each other; they'd play with their cell phones, their frat-boy boyfriends would call in and act hard on the radio, they'd broadcast dead air for uncomfortably long periods of time when they ran out of stuff to talk about...and even when you could understand what they were saying, it was just a bunch of giggly nonsense. I have no idea how they got the idea that anyone wanted to hear that.
I'm sure your hosts are smart; why not give them a chance, then, to exhibit those smarts, and perhaps provide something of value to the audience? Even with the sessions edited down to the interesting bits (as you appear to have done), it's...not very interesting.
posted by greenie2600 at 3:24 PM on December 2, 2008
Addendum: anything proclaimed to be "cool" by a person with 70s bangs and clunky non-prescription glasses is automatically not.
Then again, at 31, I guess I'm approaching the "omg ur so old lol" demographic they're complaining about in the first place.
posted by greenie2600 at 3:27 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Then again, at 31, I guess I'm approaching the "omg ur so old lol" demographic they're complaining about in the first place.
posted by greenie2600 at 3:27 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
I've seen them interact with other girls their age and they're the kind of people that others look up to.
Maybe there isn't any point to getting back on Wellbutrin. Or to anything. Ever.
posted by The Whelk at 4:05 PM on December 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
Maybe there isn't any point to getting back on Wellbutrin. Or to anything. Ever.
posted by The Whelk at 4:05 PM on December 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
The bit where they smirk knowingly at the mention of Peaches Geldof pretty much marked the end of irony for this civilisation. Back to slapstick and knob jokes for me...
posted by i_cola at 4:05 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by i_cola at 4:05 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm Just Sayin, Who Are These People and Why Should I Care About Them?
posted by ericb at 4:13 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by ericb at 4:13 PM on December 2, 2008
Y'know what'd be really cool? To see these three doing this again when they're 34. Maybe reviewing some of their earlier work. Then it'd be funny as hell.
posted by i_cola at 4:15 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by i_cola at 4:15 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
From a production standpoint, it might be cool to have the girls change outfits every once in awhile. You know, to at least give the impression that these are taped regularly and not just churned out like hot buttered shit.
At least game show hosts and contestants do so during a day of marathon taping.
posted by ericb at 4:16 PM on December 2, 2008
At least game show hosts and contestants do so during a day of marathon taping.
posted by ericb at 4:16 PM on December 2, 2008
All I'm saying is that I also completely understand why it wouldn't jibe with this crowd.
Any why is that?
posted by ericb at 4:20 PM on December 2, 2008
Any why is that?
posted by ericb at 4:20 PM on December 2, 2008
I realized that saying this is just sharpening the sarcasm knives for you, but they're all going to be ridic successful.
Wrong coast, but likely outcome.
posted by ericb at 4:35 PM on December 2, 2008
Wrong coast, but likely outcome.
posted by ericb at 4:35 PM on December 2, 2008
You know, if you squint a little bit this looks just like the Algonquin Round Table. There's Robert Benchley on the left, that's Dorothy Parker in the middle, and George S. Kaufman is on the right. And they're cheerfully trading bon mots over a drink or two.
Wait, did I say "squint a little bit"? No, that's not right. If you poke your eyes out, stuff corks in your ears, and hit yourself in the head with a hammer. Yes, that's it. Ah.... culture.
posted by twoleftfeet at 5:41 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wait, did I say "squint a little bit"? No, that's not right. If you poke your eyes out, stuff corks in your ears, and hit yourself in the head with a hammer. Yes, that's it. Ah.... culture.
posted by twoleftfeet at 5:41 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Any why is that?
Presumably, we're too smart for it. The shows he compared it to (The Hills, etc) are mass market drivel. This isn't modeled after The Wire, after all.
posted by graventy at 6:06 PM on December 2, 2008
Presumably, we're too smart for it. The shows he compared it to (The Hills, etc) are mass market drivel. This isn't modeled after The Wire, after all.
posted by graventy at 6:06 PM on December 2, 2008
What is this?
A fimoculous is a micro-organism that consumes its own waste for sustenance. Draw your own metaphors.
posted by jason's_planet at 7:50 PM on December 2, 2008
A fimoculous is a micro-organism that consumes its own waste for sustenance. Draw your own metaphors.
posted by jason's_planet at 7:50 PM on December 2, 2008
Watched the twilight episode.
I don't think this is for me.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:41 PM on December 2, 2008
I don't think this is for me.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:41 PM on December 2, 2008
And yes, I realize how unbelievably condescending my comment sounds, but seriously, did you try to watch this? Drivel.
posted by graventy at 8:42 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by graventy at 8:42 PM on December 2, 2008
Intelligent women talking? Basically a win-win.
Except.
Look, I know it's getting there, but being on camera is not natural and the number of people who are interesting for more than one or two consecutive comments is exceedingly small. We all benefit from a little structure to bring out our good side. Just as, if I write down what I had for breakfast every day and post it as part of my blog or vblog or novel - it is not inherently interesting or munificent. Oh how dearly, dearly I wish it was, but (three years later) it turns out it really isn't.
If these women are so smart they should pick one topic to talk about per episode, a topic they are smart about, and talk about that. If it's not a topic they know a lot about then they should approach it from a position they are smart about - "Uggs" boots, say, I'm sure there are smart things to be said about the way trends spread out into populations and the way marketers exploit that and retailers benefit but all I got was "I wear my pink Uggs ironically" which I can hear from any hipster chick.
As it is I have no way of knowing these women are smart other than your saying so. Which is too bad because Intelligent women talking = win.
Also, on a technical note, Jackie should not be in the middle, she talks too much and I can barely ever hear the other two when they do have anything to offer.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:36 AM on December 3, 2008
Except.
Look, I know it's getting there, but being on camera is not natural and the number of people who are interesting for more than one or two consecutive comments is exceedingly small. We all benefit from a little structure to bring out our good side. Just as, if I write down what I had for breakfast every day and post it as part of my blog or vblog or novel - it is not inherently interesting or munificent. Oh how dearly, dearly I wish it was, but (three years later) it turns out it really isn't.
If these women are so smart they should pick one topic to talk about per episode, a topic they are smart about, and talk about that. If it's not a topic they know a lot about then they should approach it from a position they are smart about - "Uggs" boots, say, I'm sure there are smart things to be said about the way trends spread out into populations and the way marketers exploit that and retailers benefit but all I got was "I wear my pink Uggs ironically" which I can hear from any hipster chick.
As it is I have no way of knowing these women are smart other than your saying so. Which is too bad because Intelligent women talking = win.
Also, on a technical note, Jackie should not be in the middle, she talks too much and I can barely ever hear the other two when they do have anything to offer.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:36 AM on December 3, 2008
So counter-culture became consumer culture in 1993?
They're just dumb kids, pretending they know shit and hoping nobody calls them on it. It's one thing to do that in a bar or with your friends, but recording it and putting it on the internet is *really* going to embarrass them when they get old enough to evaluate this with a bit of grown-up perspective on it.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:53 AM on December 3, 2008
They're just dumb kids, pretending they know shit and hoping nobody calls them on it. It's one thing to do that in a bar or with your friends, but recording it and putting it on the internet is *really* going to embarrass them when they get old enough to evaluate this with a bit of grown-up perspective on it.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:53 AM on December 3, 2008
Anyone still care about this thread? Didn't think so, but today's episode is slightly more serious, so you might want to give it a try. Or not, it's cool.
posted by rex at 12:17 PM on December 3, 2008
posted by rex at 12:17 PM on December 3, 2008
« Older avert your eyes, cratediggers | Whole Foods looking to subpoena competitors... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ardgedee at 10:08 AM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]