MAKE IT STOP


holy awful

How can funny people like this combine to make something so terrible?

reply

I'll politely disagree - I can see how many people would find the humor not to their taste, but my favorite stuff is total absurdist, and this is practically the perfect definition.

I love it.

reply

I love the podcast.... but what happened, Aukerman?

reply

It's not really supposed to be the same thing... I'll have to find the quote from Scott about the Bang! Bang! concept as a whole... but basically, like the live Bang! Bang! is different from the podcast, this is different from both of those as well. I don't believe any of them are meant to be the same format at all.

reply

Seems like the podcast too me. He is a host/interviewer in both and has a main guest (normally an actor or a well known comedian), and then someone playing a character. Even the characters on the show are the same ones from the podcast(cake boss, bob ducca, lord webber, huell howser, etc.) and then throw in some short sketches.

Love the podcast and the show has its moments. I think Aukerman is hilarious but the show does seem like a more forced version of the podcast to me.

reply

Funny people + Scott Aukerman = not funny

reply

This is astoundingly awful. It's a shame for an IFC show.

reply

It's a shame for anywhere. They get a top actor like Jon Hamm, who has a demonstrated ability to play comedy, then don't let him say more than two mumbles while humorless sketches drag along. I left my air conditioned living room to wash dishes in the roasting kitchen when the actor playing an over the top Mexican DJ came in. I wandered back to see a sketch about a dog lawyer who didn't say or do anything funny, not even deadpan straight man lines. Did the same executives who green-lighted Portlandia approve this? Or was it the interns over Christmas break? Is this what "the kids" like?

Comedy Bang Bang isn't even train wreck funny.

reply

It's not funny to you, you mean. I get that that's your opinion. But I think it's great. And if it's what "the kids" like, then I'm proud to be a kid in my mid-30's. But this show is hardly a shame. It's just a bit outside the box. I like "Portlandia" as well, but it's much closer to mainstream humor than "CBB" is, so it's easier for more people to get into. they're simply different shows. But IFC is into trying different things, thus, we get a wide array of humor.

Not that you have to be, but I assume you're not a fan of the CBB podcast, or Nick Kroll, or "Reno 911!". Nick's been doing the Chupacabra character in his own standup, and on the podcast, and "Reno 911!" for years. It's actually one of my favorites.

Also, I get that you're exaggerating for effect (as Jon certainly had more than two mumbles), but Jon Hamm was great, and he's also been a part of CBB's extended comedy "family" for quite a while. He's pretty great when he appears on the podcast (and you have to understand that the stuff he did on Bang! Bang! this week reflects Jon's sense of humor in a big way), and when he performs with anybody from the somewhat more alternative comedy scene.

As I always say, I get that this show isn't really to everyone's taste, but it's meant to be absurdist humor, and it's done well here, in my opinion.

Comedy Bang! Bang! is incredibly funny.

reply

Plus Jon Hamm taking a backseat instead of being the main focus is a freaking bit. It's a fake talk show! So getting a big star and acting like it will be a straight interview, yet nothing comes of it... That's the point.

It seems like some people here just don't understand that. I've enjoyed every episode, and they've gotten progressively funnier to me each week.



Shaka Da Gnu

reply

You must like hilarious shows like saturday night live

reply

No, not particularly. SNL isn't really too much in my vein of humor these days. By the way, what a weird comment - SNL and CBB are nothing alike.

That comment made so much sense, I'll assume you're a fan of gut busting, laugh track-needing sitcoms like "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "Two and A Half Men". Sorry about the whole Charlie Sheen thing, man - but you probably prefer the refined comedy stylings of Ashton Kutcher anyway.

Good talk.

reply

Portlandia is a comedy show?

reply

I've only seen a few episodes but I liked the Hamm episode. Nick Kroll was hilarious as chupacabra (I had only heard him do it on the CBB podcasts), and the dog lawyer bit I found really funny for no reason at all, just the overall seriousness of the guy, and it also had a tiny little glimmer of Saul Goodman in his performance which I liked.

reply

I'd much rather them just show Mr. Show - Ben Stiller Show - Kids In The Hall - Zrock - and other good shows like that than this and that Bunk show

and bring back the asian girls show with the puppets

You have the same scowl your mother had... When I banged her... After I pulled the plug.

reply

[deleted]

substance over style

reply

That's the point.



Shaka Da Gnu

reply

I so agree!

Seth Rogen + Casey Wilson + Will Arnett +Topher Grace! How can that spell comedic nightmare?! The writing and the hosts, that's how.

Oh MY God! MAKE IT STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!

It was so bad, from the opening song to the final credits: pure torture. Your local access television has better programming than this!

How is this crap still on the air?!

reply

This is the type of comedy where you either get it or you don't. ATTABOY!

reply

[deleted]

So just where are you getting the ratings information? And how huge of a hit do you expect an IFC show to be?

Portlandia averages 250,000 people and that's a 'huge hit'.



Shaka Da Gnu

reply

[deleted]

Thanks for not answering my question. If you know the ratings, say them. I can't find any information on it.

These shows that IFC has been doing are at least as good as what Comedy Central has done, and at least they're trying new things. They care about working with the talent, give good notes, and allow creative freedom.

The podcast is great, the show is great, and the cheapness is a joke. If you think it looks lame because they didn't spend the money, you just won't get or like the show.

Your post was all opinion, and it's a smarter business move to create your own product than to only purchase rights and re-run stuff you didn't make. It lets the company grow.



Shaka Da Gnu

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I just asked the guy for specific ratings and he just shared his opinion. I wasn't asked for data so I shared my opinion about the stuff he brought up.

South Park and the Daily Show started last century, and Colbert is cut from the same Daily Show cloth. Comedy central hasn't make one worthwhile show in the past 5 years. In my opinion, they've put out 3 good original shows since Stella in 2005, Sarah Silverman Program, Sports Show, and Jon Benjamin Has a Van. Comedy Central is garbage, and they alienate a lot of comedians that have worked for them.

I know IFC give great notes and allow a lot of creative freedom because I listen to and read a lot about comedy. Straight from the mouths of comedians that have developed shows, or even just pilots for IFC. If someone like David Cross says great things about the executives he's worked with that says a lot. IFC is seemingly try and create an environment for comedy different to the normal network sitcom.



Shaka Da Gnu

reply

[deleted]

That gives no ratings information about Comedy Bang Bang, just IFC and two other channels. Dish isn't dropping 3 channels because of Comedy Bang Bang.




Shaka Da Gnu

reply

[deleted]

Don't try and turn this around on me.

You said the show was getting horrible ratings. I asked for proof. You didn't provide any, and now are acting like I'm claiming the show gets 15 million viewers.

Why don't you link another nonsense article to try and prove something.



Shaka Da Gnu

reply

"Comedy central hasn't make one worthwhile show in the past 5 years."

Jeselnik.

reply

We do get it. It's just not very funny.

reply

from the opening song


Hey now! I like the opening song....

______________________
Noah's Ark is a problem.

reply

[deleted]

I agree with the posts about Scott Aukerman not being funny. I enjoy the podcast in spite of him as long as the guests are funny. It boggles my mind that he has anything to do with "Between Two Ferns" beyond perhaps watering them.

The TV show is awful and I don't believe that anyone truly finds it funny including those on this board who insist that they do. I have news for you: just because something is on IFC doesn't automatically make it good and you don't have to pretend that it is. Say it with me: the emperor has no clothes.

reply

Why would you doubt that people who say they like the show, actually do? Who would waste time going on a message board to extol the virtues of something they don't enjoy? I know I don't have the time for falsely posing on an anonymous internet message board. What on earth would be the value in that?

I just defend it because I like it, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. I find it funny, and I find Scott funny as well, just my opinion. Recognize that people have them, and are allowed to be interested in something you may not be.

reply

Comedy Bang Bang is hilarious! And popularity (good ratings) means nothing as far as quality goes. Look at the garbage that gets good ratings nowadays.
It's all geared towards teens.
CBB is a completely scripted version of Fernwood Tonite (AKA America Tonite), which was one of my favorite shows. Martin Mull and Fred Willard did a lot of improvisation, but I don't think there's any improv on CBB.

reply

There's quite a bit of improv in CBB, during the interview segments.

The podcast is all improv if you haven't heard it.



Shaka Da Gnu

reply

There's Opie & Anthony ep where Patton Oswalt says "hey guys remember that show in the 1970s `Fernwood 2Night`?" ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PDOaKQExvo

So I looked up that first-episode clip and it was kinda painful, mostly because of how times have changed. But it's still actually funny at parts (maybe the studio audience assisted).

But CBB is not gonna be looked back fondly in 2040 ; it's like Scott's other production "Between Two Ferns" ... but somehow without stirring up laughter. (imo, obv. -- and I love KITH and Tim & Eric and Modern Family equally, so I ain't no "comedy elitist snob" :) )


- - -

Chipping away at a mountain of pop culture trivia,
Darren Dirt.

reply

I cant help but picture the people who have a deep hatred for this show as a bunch of elitist comedy snobs. They probably eat their salad with a salad fork and eat their meat with a meat fork, and so on...

It's understandable that some people may not like this show but it sucks that so much hate is being thrown towards Scott Aukerman. If you think the show sucks then it sucks but at least give credit to IFC for trying new things. It also sucks to come here and read about ratings and what not, it reads like a bunch of stuck up people talking about business and stock reports.

Comedy has many different forms and this show fills a niche. If its not something you like, then feel free to say so, and if possible, state it clearly. Why does everything have to devolve into trolling and maliciousness online?

reply

I think the people who enjoy CBB are actually Coemdy "Snobs" for lack of a better term, and I certainly fall into that demographic.

From what I've gathered, the people who like Comedy Bang Bang are usually much more into comedy than the average person; often comedians, improvisers, comedy writers, film/tv people, or just rabid comedy enthusiasts who consume everything they can.

Also look at the guests they get too. Will Forte, Zach Galifianakis, Adam Scott, Ed Helms...like Time & Eric Awesome Show: Great Job!, another extremely polarizing show, the guest list is a who's who in comedy.

This is not to say there can't be casual viewers who enjoy it, but it seems to appeal most to those who are rabid comedy fans.

And some of you I'm sure will take what I've written to mean that I think CBB fans know more about comedy than none CBB fans. I just want to assure you that yes, yes they do.

reply

I agree - I guess I'm kind of a comedy snob, and I love the show. I had no idea it had "haters" until I saw this thread, I assumed everyone found it as hilarious as I did. I think a lot of the people watching it don't understand that everything that happens on the show is intentional - everyone involved with this show - from the host to the guests to the writers - is an experienced comedian, anyone who thinks they're unintentionally sucking isn't giving them enough credit. The skits are intentionally surreal and silly, the guests are intentionally acting awkward, etc. All of these people are experienced comedians who know what they're doing, if a skit is stupid it's because it's meant to be stupid. If the show actually sucked then it wouldn't be getting all of these great guests. The show is the way it is ON PURPOSE.

reply

Don't worry, we all got that. Still doesn't make it funny.

reply

Trying new things? How is there anything new with this show? I've seen dozens of similar shows with similar humour through the years. They were funnier too.

reply

I agree...this show seems to be in a comedy void with a complete lack of energy. Their guests give the vibe that they would prefer to be anywhere else. As soon as they finish taping they want scurry to fire their agents by text.

I've kept watching trying to find a reason to root for this show, but is a source of nonviewing pleasure.

What do you think I asked you here for? Company?!?!?!?

reply

I also agree this show is garbage. I am a big Reggie Watts fan but he is wasted here. It is weird but not in a good way it is just awful in my opinion.

reply