KRUNK is a Krunkin' cool word!
sout...@vax.sonoma.edu
Krunk - its sweeping the nation!
Conan's finally got a buzzword
That training vido was soooooo great
My answering machine is the National Krunk Hotline
It's not a lot really but its cool
We're working on it!
(707) 586-7840 is the number.
I love this word - itUs a requirement to use that word occasionally in my
house
So far my favorite Krunk phrase is this: "Your Mother Sucks Donkey Krunk!"
We need to start a Krunk file on here!
As Always My Inner Child Thanx You
Father TOm
Dean Adams
In article <1994Feb15...@vax.sonoma.edu> sout...@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>Conan's finally got a buzzword
Yes he does... and its LOSER!!
I can't believe ANYONE is "entertained" by that!!!!!!!!!
Sadly, I saw several big chunks of the show this week and it
was even worse than I thought it would be. Absolutely and
*totally* UNFUNNY! conan is AMAZINGLY BAD! The fact that he
is now more "confident" make him come off infinitely WORSE.
The ONLY laughs at all on the show were from
a few of Andy's straight lines... thats IT!
Conan is AWFUL! He had on a couple of people I actually
wanted to see, and the "interviews" were totally dull.
He didn't ask any even remotely interesting questions.
I'd say they are probably VERY close to being canceled.
Put this dog out of its misery!!
Michael James Gebis
>In article <1994Feb15...@vax.sonoma.edu> sout...@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>>Conan's finally got a buzzword
>Yes he does... and its LOSER!!
No, it's KRUNK. You're obviously not paying attention.
>I can't believe ANYONE is "entertained" by that!!!!!!!!!
Everyone on last night's show used it, including Ice-T. And Charleton
Heston. :) Personally, when that last comedian used "Mother-Krunking",
it almost didn't stick out in my mind. Normally, cute inside jokes are
annoying, but they're actually making this one interesting. Let's just
hope that they don't show that B&W clip a thousand times.
>The ONLY laughs at all on the show were from
>a few of Andy's straight lines... thats IT!
I still think Andy's probably one of the best things on the show. He
always gets laughs when he's "in the hunt."
>Conan is AWFUL!
No he's not.
>He had on a couple of people I actually
>wanted to see, and the "interviews" were totally dull.
No they weren't.
>He didn't ask any even remotely interesting questions.
Yes he did.
>I'd say they are probably VERY close to being canceled.
No you don't.
>Put this dog out of its misery!!
A puppy smelling a flower!
--
Mike Gebis m-g...@uiuc.edu Mean people suck.
http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~mg7932/mike.html
Elson Trinidad
>Put this dog out of its misery!!
Okay Deanie, as you wish. But as much I hate to admit it, if we did
kill you, we'd grudgingly miss you.
-- 30 --
::::::::::::::::::::::::::: / :::::::::: ::::::
E l s o n T r i n i d ::::::::::::::::: / ::: :
etri...@scf.usc.edu a d \ \ : /
Unive sity of So thern Ca \ / / : / ---
L An eles, C fo li \ ____ / __ __
os g ali r i a f a / . . ...
n orni /
r u /
This .sig is condemned due to quake damage.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Elson Trinidad
>dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
>>In article <1994Feb15...@vax.sonoma.edu> sout...@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>>>Conan's finally got a buzzword
>
>>Yes he does... and its LOSER!!
>
>No, it's KRUNK. You're obviously not paying attention.
>
>>I can't believe ANYONE is "entertained" by that!!!!!!!!!
Krunk you, Deanie, you mother-krunkin krunk hole. Eat krunk, because
that's all you got in your krunkin' head. Krunk, if I had the krunkin'
opportunity, I'd beat your krunkin' flabby mass so bad, you'd be so krunked
up like there's no tomorrow.
Truly Deanie, there's no need to go on this
incessant anti-Conan campaign. I mean, if he's truly THAT bad, everyone
would know that and you'd have no need to tell anyone.
So get the krunk outta here. Really. I mean, I hate Rush Limbaugh, but you
don't see ME making an krunk-hole out of myself in the .rush groups, do you?
I thought the Ice-T interview was krunkin' good. Ice was so down to earth.
I couldn't picture him being like that on Letterman or Leno, though.
Dean Adams
>dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
>No, it's KRUNK.
NOW its PUKE!!!
> You're obviously not paying attention.
You obviously are paying way, WAY too much "attention" if you are
actually *repeating* mindless (totally UNFUNNY) stupid crap like that!
>>I can't believe ANYONE is "entertained" by that!!!!!!!!!
>Everyone on last night's show used it, including Ice-T. And Charleton
>Heston. :)
You left out the ONLY decent guest and the ONLY reason I was
watching that night: Amanda Pays. But (of course) conehead
delivered a totally uninteresting and boring excuse for an
"interview". He really sucks... An even more blatant example
was when Jennifer Tilly was on earlier in the week. Once again
it was lousy, despite her attempts to liven things up... conan
always brought it back down. Geez, even the awful Assenio can
do a GOOD interview with her! But no, not conehead.
>>The ONLY laughs at all on the show were from
>>a few of Andy's straight lines... thats IT!
>I still think Andy's probably one of the best things on the show.
I suppose that i'd have to agree with that.
> He always gets laughs when he's "in the hunt."
Hmm... thankfully(?) I don't know what that means.
>>Conan is AWFUL!
>No he's not.
>>He had on a couple of people I actually
>>wanted to see, and the "interviews" were totally dull.
>No they weren't.
>>He didn't ask any even remotely interesting questions.
>Yes he did.
Wow... So you are saying I was 100% correct? OK...
>>Put this dog out of its misery!!
>A puppy smelling a flower!
Sure, ANYTHING would be better than conan!!
Michael James Gebis
>In article <2k2lnq$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> mjg5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael James Gebis) writes:
>>dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
>>>Yes he does... and its LOSER!!
>>No, it's KRUNK.
>NOW its PUKE!!!
Oh man, I missed this? When did they change it?
> > You're obviously not paying attention.
>You obviously are paying way, WAY too much "attention" if you are
>actually *repeating* mindless (totally UNFUNNY) stupid crap like that!
You obviously are paying way, WAY too much "attention" if you are
actually *repeating* mindless (totally UNFUNNY) stupid crap like that!
Doh! There I go again, repeating mindless stupid crap. Sorry. Ignore
that last paragraph.
>>>Put this dog out of its misery!!
>>A puppy smelling a flower!
>Sure, ANYTHING would be better than conan!!
Late Night with a puppy smelling a flower! Cool.
he...@hulaw1.harvard.edu
dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) spewed forth the following bile:
>>dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
>>>Yes he does... and its LOSER!!
> NOW its PUKE!!!
> You obviously are paying way, WAY too much "attention" if you are
> actually *repeating* mindless (totally UNFUNNY) stupid crap like that!
>>>I can't believe ANYONE is "entertained" by that!!!!!!!
> [blah blah blah] Amanda Pays. But (of course) conehead
> delivered a totally uninteresting and boring excuse for an
> "interview". He really sucks... An even more blatant example
> was when Jennifer Tilly was on earlier in the week. Once again
> it was lousy, despite her attempts to liven things up... conan
> always brought it back down. Geez, even the awful Assenio can
> do a GOOD interview with her! But no, not conehead.
>>>Conan is AWFUL!
>>>Put this dog out of its misery!!
> Sure, ANYTHING would be better than conan!!
Go away. Go far away. You are clearly the most annoying person I have ever
met and believe me I have met some annoying people. Get a job. Get a hobby.
Do anything but post in this newsgroup. Move to Buffalo where Conan's show
isn't on. Better yet, move to a deserted island in the Arctic Ocean without a
television set or a phone line.
The entire point of having such a great number of newsgroups is that everyone
can find something they are interested in to talk about with other people. If
you do not like the conversation here, MOVE ON AND DON'T BITCH ABOUT IT. Go
find alt.i.have.no.life or something. Ask your system adminstrator for
counseling. But GET OUT. If you must take out your frustrations, buy a
punching bag and not a net hookup.
Gary Michael Rosen
>
>Sadly, I saw several big chunks of the show this week and it
>was even worse than I thought it would be. Absolutely and
etc. etc.
Once again, Dean has some excuse for just happening to watch
a show he claims to hate. If I don't like a TV show (or movie
or record or whatever) I just don't watch/listen to it. Most
people with 3-digit IQ's and/or a life have figured out how
to accomplish this by now.
- Gary Rosen
Dean Adams
In article <2k9qjh$o...@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> ga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Michael Rosen) writes:
>In article <dadamsCL...@netcom.com>, Dean Adams <dad...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Sadly, I saw several big chunks of the show this week and it
>>was even worse than I thought it would be.
>
>a show he claims to hate.
Hardly an "excuse"... they somehow managed to snag a couple
of GUESTS that I wanted to see. Geez, get a clue!
> If I don't like a TV show (or movie or record or whatever)
> I just don't watch/listen to it.
I'm not going to let Conehead keep me from seeing somebody I like,
despite the fact that he almost certainly will totally throw away
any possibilty of doing a decent or interesting interview.
Assenio for example has had tons of people i've wanted to see over
the years (I have over a hundred archived on tape to prove it).
But i'm certainly never going to watch any OTHER part of his show!
The difference is that I *have* tried to watch other parts of Coneys
show (and suffered for it), also.. he almost certainly will never
get the number of good guests Assenio could in his heyday...
rus...@ac.dal.ca
the KRUNK think COULD funny. The idea of coming up with a new swear word
has possibilities, but they simply didn't follow through. Everyone used it,
yes, but it just wasn't funny. Andy saying something like, look, are those
two people krunking? Childish. Low level of "humor". It was another
pathetic attempt at trying something that has been done before (Dave coming
up with a new catch phrase)
THe thing about Conan is that they draw attention to the jokes. Dave doesn't
do that. Dave is UNDERSTATED, more subtle.
And your answers to the criticisms could be better than just negativing
them. PROVE your point.
People like Charleton Heston do the show because it is on the circuit of
shows to do when they are promoting something. It's obvious they HATE
doing the show. The same guest will shine on Dave but look awkward on
Late Night (and they shouldn't have kept the name)
And Conan complimenting Dick Clark on his wonderful hair. Isn't that a
toupee? I'd be surprised if it isn't. Dick sure wanted to get off that
topic quickly.
Michael James Gebis
[Some deletia by Mike Gebis]
>In article <2k2lnq$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mjg5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael James Gebis) writes:
>>>Conan is AWFUL!
>> No he's not.
>>>He had on a couple of people I actually
>>>wanted to see, and the "interviews" were totally dull.
>> No they weren't.
>>>He didn't ask any even remotely interesting questions.
>> Yes he did.
>>>I'd say they are probably VERY close to being canceled.
>> No you don't.
>>>Put this dog out of its misery!!
>> A puppy smelling a flower!
>And your answers to the criticisms could be better than just negativing
>them. PROVE your point.
No they couldn't.
Felix C. Chen
actually HAVING a 3-digit IQ or a life (outside of his Letterman
fantasy world) . . .
Felix
>- Gary Rosen
Michael S Lewis
[some stuff deleted]
>
>THe thing about Conan is that they draw attention to the jokes. Dave doesn't
>do that. Dave is UNDERSTATED, more subtle.
Nothing's more subtle than the cast of Cats running into the studio and
jumping all over the stage. Nothing's more subtle than "Can a guy in a bear
suit get a hug from a total stranger?" Is Dave's show funnier? Yes. Is it more
subtle? Hardly.
>And your answers to the criticisms could be better than just negativing
>them. PROVE your point.
See above.
>
>People like Charleton Heston do the show because it is on the circuit of
>shows to do when they are promoting something. It's obvious they HATE
>doing the show. The same guest will shine on Dave but look awkward on
>Late Night (and they shouldn't have kept the name)
>
On the other hand, recall the Kelsey Grammer interviews. He was on Dave one
night, then Conan the next night (or maybe it was the other way around).
Kelsey was witty but reserved on Dave's show. He was outright hilarious with
Conan. It was obvious he would much rather be on Late Night.
>And Conan complimenting Dick Clark on his wonderful hair. Isn't that a
>toupee? I'd be surprised if it isn't. Dick sure wanted to get off that
>topic quickly.
>
I missed this, but you're probably right. It's gotta be a toupee. Of course,
this means that Conan was straying from the preset questions that the staff
works out with the guests. This is a good sign, since I remember the early
days when they had cue cards for him that said "We'll be right back." He's
obviously getting into the swing of things a little more. Not that the preset
questions are necessarily a bad thing. Dave's interview with Siskel and Ebert
a week or two ago, when he ended up telling their story for them because they
were fighting over who could tell it best, had me howling with laughter. Never
could have happened without those pre-show interviews. But that doesn't mean
that the interviewer can't stray from it a little.
Michael Lewis
msl...@iastate.edu
mli...@husc.harvard.edu
>In article <2k2lnq$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mjg5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (
Michael James Gebis) writes:>>>>Conan's finally got a buzzword
>>
>>
>>>Conan is AWFUL!
>> No he's not.
>>>He had on a couple of people I actually
>>>wanted to see, and the "interviews" were totally dull.
>> No they weren't.
>>>He didn't ask any even remotely interesting questions.
>> Yes he did.
>>>I'd say they are probably VERY close to being canceled.
>> No you don't.
>>>Put this dog out of its misery!!
>> A puppy smelling a flower!
>the KRUNK think COULD funny. The idea of coming up with a new swear word
>has possibilities, but they simply didn't follow through. Everyone used it,
>yes, but it just wasn't funny. Andy saying something like, look, are those
>two people krunking? Childish. Low level of "humor". It was another
>pathetic attempt at trying something that has been done before (Dave coming
>up with a new catch phrase)
No, no, no!!! You just don't understand. CONAN isn't like other television
shows. The whole idea of using low-level humor is that you can laugh with
them and at them at the same time. And, you have got to have a brain the
size of a really small thing if you think Conan won't keep developing KRUNK.
>THe thing about Conan is that they draw attention to the jokes. Dave doesn't
>do that. Dave is UNDERSTATED, more subtle.
Exactly. That's why they are so funny. The thing about Dave is that when
he makes a bad joke, he just ends up looking like a dork (fortunately that's
not too often).
>And your answers to the criticisms could be better than just negativing
>them. PROVE your point.
Oh! I forgot! It's Mr. Stupid Wrong Guy again! That's right, its the guy
who thinks that "negativing" is a word. And he doesn't realize that there
can be no proofs about humor since it's a matter of taste (which he doesn't
have) and he doesn't realize that NEGATING was not meant to be an
intelligent argument, since we've all realized by now that D__n A__ms is so
stupid that he needs another labotomy.
>People like Charleton Heston do the show because it is on the circuit of
>shows to do when they are promoting something. It's obvious they HATE
>doing the show. The same guest will shine on Dave but look awkward on
>Late Night (and they shouldn't have kept the name)
Ok, Mr. Stupid Wrong Guy, then why did Bob Dole come on the show? Hint: it
WASN'T to announce his plans to run for president.
-Moses
mli...@husc.harvard.edu
>Subject: Re: Conan KRUNKS
>From: mjg5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael James Gebis)
>Date: 22 Feb 1994 01:16:37 GMT
Mike, what other newsgroups are you on? Your flames are the best around
here.
-Moses
Jeremy Morse
"Krunk"-- an inside joke between Conan and the real fans. But I think it
detracts from the humor of it when they have to explain it every other show,
and especially when they keep showing clips from the training film, which was
funny the first time but get tiring fast.
--
Jeremy Morse jer...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (708)332-7031 "It looks like your
digital watch is telling you the time when actually its memory has blanked
and sends a constant 8:88 to the little screen. But the liquid crystal
monitor has malfunctioned and diplays only random parts of the eights."
rus...@ac.dal.ca
> In article <Mr. Stupid Wrong Guy> rus...@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <2k2lnq$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mjg5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (
> Michael James Gebis) writes:>>>>Conan's finally got a buzzword
>>>
>>them. PROVE your point.
>
> Oh! I forgot! It's Mr. Stupid Wrong Guy again! That's right, its the guy
> who thinks that "negativing" is a word. And he doesn't realize that there
> can be no proofs about humor since it's a matter of taste (which he doesn't
> have) and he doesn't realize that NEGATING was not meant to be an
> intelligent argument, since we've all realized by now that D__n A__ms is so
> stupid that he needs another labotomy.
> -Moses
Sorry, but negativing IS a word. Pronounced neg-a-tyving. I shouldn't
have used it, as it means the same thing, but it's used a lot in law,
and I have been brainwashed. I, however, REFUSE to use the following
hip "law" words:
ambit: means scope
advert: means to refer to
Mr. Smart Right Guy, at least on this point
KERRIGAN JOHN M
>> No he's not.
>>>He had on a couple of people I actually
>>>wanted to see, and the "interviews" were totally dull.
>> No they weren't.
>>>He didn't ask any even remotely interesting questions.
>> Yes he did.
>>>I'd say they are probably VERY close to being canceled.
>> No you don't.
>>>Put this dog out of its misery!!
>> A puppy smelling a flower!
Scary how much this exchange sounds like a typical Conan interview isn't it?
--Scratchy
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** John Kerrigan a.k.a. jmke...@vela.acs.oakland.edu **
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mli...@husc.harvard.edu
>Subject: Re: Conan KRUNKS
>Date: 28 Feb 1994 20:31:54 GMT
>>>>Conan is AWFUL!
>>> No he's not.
>>>>He had on a couple of people I actually
>>>>wanted to see, and the "interviews" were totally dull.
>>> No they weren't.
>>>>He didn't ask any even remotely interesting questions.
>>> Yes he did.
>>>>I'd say they are probably VERY close to being canceled.
>>> No you don't.
>>>>Put this dog out of its misery!!
>>> A puppy smelling a flower!
>Scary how much this exchange sounds like a typical Conan interview isn't it?
No. It doesn't.
-Moses
Rob Warenda
DD> Conan is AWFUL! He had on a couple of people I actually
DD> wanted to see, and the "interviews" were totally dull.
DD> He didn't ask any even remotely interesting questions.
One thing I do like about Conan's show is that he very seldom has guests
on that I want to see, therefore, I don't have to watch his show.
I'm totally amazed that the NBC affiliate in Buffalo has decided to put
Bonehead back on. I'd really like to know which executive thinks Bonehead
is going to pull in better ratings than the Infomercials they were airing
at that time.
* RM 1.3 * Eval Day 59 * Conan's show makes me miss Chevy Chase.
Rob Warenda
GG> Once again, Dean has some excuse for just happening to watch
GG> a show he claims to hate. If I don't like a TV show (or movie
GG> or record or whatever) I just don't watch/listen to it. Most
GG> people with 3-digit IQ's and/or a life have figured out how
GG> to accomplish this by now.
I watch Bonehead's show for the same reason people slow down to watch a bad
accident or drink milk that they know has gone bad. I don't watch it too
often, but when I do, I know I've just watched a bad accident. I watched
his show when Dave was on, but I haven't seen it since. I don't usually
get through a whole episode when I do watch. I just tune in to see if he
has an interesting guest on, but those are few and far between.
I can't even see someone with a 3-digit IQ purposely tuning in to
Bonehead's show and expecting to enjoy it. We don't have cable access
shows in Canada, but for some reason, that phrase just runs through my
head when I see LNwBO. The only difference is that most cable access
shows, from what I've seen, are better than LNwBO.
Evan Schlesinger
Rob Warenda <rob.w...@bville.gts.org> wrote:
>References: <dadamsCL...@netcom.com> <1994Feb15...@vax.sonoma.edu>
>
>DD> Conan is AWFUL! He had on a couple of people I actually
>DD> wanted to see, and the "interviews" were totally dull.
>DD> He didn't ask any even remotely interesting questions.
>
> One thing I do like about Conan's show is that he very seldom has guests
> on that I want to see, therefore, I don't have to watch his show.
Even though some people feel that it is good that Conan's guests are of
B-level, I think he has too many of those B-level guests.
But wow, Kathy Ireland.
>
> I'm totally amazed that the NBC affiliate in Buffalo has decided to put
> Bonehead back on. I'd really like to know which executive thinks Bonehead
> is going to pull in better ratings than the Infomercials they were airing
> at that time.
A smart one. For one thing, there is a large amount of college students who
watch Conan's show. So while ratings don't reflect what is watched in the
dorms, there are contingents of students who seem to know what a good show
truly is. I saw both Leno's and Conan's show tonight (missed Letterman cause
it was a repeat) and once again, Conan's show was far better.
Leno's attempt at "Satellite News" was pathetic. While Leno may have the best
monologue, he has little else and I'm getting tired of him.
EVAN
No taglines necessary.
Dean Adams
In article <1b.38.429...@bville.gts.org> rob.w...@bville.gts.org (Rob Warenda) writes:
> One thing I do like about Conan's show is that he very seldom has guests
> on that I want to see, therefore, I don't have to watch his show.
True... I guess that could be called a "good thing" (at least for us).
I did watch last night with kathy ireland though, and it was extra-bad.
Conan was a little better than his usual bad interviewing, but the stuff
before that was really awful! Endless stupid pictures of someone being
portrayed as supposed "comedy", and the monologue was extra-offensive.
Conan is starting to act so artifically "confident", as if he is doing
a "great" show, that it is starting to become truly obnoxious! If he
keeps this up, a lot of people are going to move from just thinking that
he is doing a lousy job... to activly DISLIKING him!
> I'm totally amazed that the NBC affiliate in Buffalo has decided to put
> Bonehead back on.
That would seem to be going against the trend.
>I'd really like to know which executive thinks Bonehead
> is going to pull in better ratings than the Infomercials they were airing
> at that time.
I suppose they couldn't pass up the appearance of David Letterman.
Let's see how long it takes before they bring back the infomercials.
> * Conan's show makes me miss Chevy Chase.
Hmm... i'm not quite sure I could go that far...
Dean Adams
>Even though some people feel that it is good that Conan's guests are of
>B-level, I think he has too many of those B-level guests.
How could that be "good"? A show like his DESPERATELY needs decent guests
in order to attract viewers. The vast majority of them now typically will
inspire one of the following three questions: "who?", "what has he/she
been doing for the last decade(s)", and "hmm.. I wonder who the guest
host is this week on SNL".
>But wow, Kathy Ireland.
She was a rare exception.
>A smart one. For one thing, there is a large amount of college students who
>watch Conan's show.
Probably not so "large".
>Leno's attempt at "Satellite News" was pathetic.
Yes, it was. AWFUL.
>While Leno may have the best monologue, he has little else
>and I'm getting tired of him.
I don't think he has the "best" ANYTHING!! All he seems able to do
these days is blatantly steal ideas from letterman. The "competetion"
definitely seems to be taking its toll on him...
Evan Schlesinger
>In article <2lmh7k$b...@news.acns.nwu.edu> esc...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Evan Schlesinger) writes:
>>Even though some people feel that it is good that Conan's guests are of
>>B-level, I think he has too many of those B-level guests.
>
>How could that be "good"? A show like his DESPERATELY needs decent guests
>in order to attract viewers. The vast majority of them now typically will
>inspire one of the following three questions: "who?", "what has he/she
>been doing for the last decade(s)", and "hmm.. I wonder who the guest
>host is this week on SNL".
And that's one of the problems of his show. B-level guests can be interesting.
Some are far more interesting than alleged "A-level guests". The problem is,
you have to get people to watch enough before you can just use B-level guests
and little else.
>
> >But wow, Kathy Ireland.
>
>She was a rare exception.
>
>>A smart one. For one thing, there is a large amount of college students who
>>watch Conan's show.
>
>Probably not so "large".
Yes, quite large in fact. I know of several different "groups" on this campus
that watch Conan together. I know of none that do the same for Letterman.
>
>>Leno's attempt at "Satellite News" was pathetic.
>
>Yes, it was. AWFUL.
>
> >While Leno may have the best monologue, he has little else
> >and I'm getting tired of him.
>
>I don't think he has the "best" ANYTHING!! All he seems able to do
>these days is blatantly steal ideas from letterman. The "competetion"
>definitely seems to be taking its toll on him...
His monologue is still very good. Almost always better than Dave. But Leno's
attempts at doing skits are failing miserably. Leno is more interesting as a
stand-up really, and Dave is more interesting when he is interacting with
people. Therein lies why Dave is the better show.
EVAN
No taglines necessary.
mli...@husc.harvard.edu
>Subject: COOL WORD!
>From: rob.w...@bville.gts.org (Rob Warenda)
>Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 13:33:00 -0500
>References: <2k9qjh$o...@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <1994Feb15...@vax.sonoma.edu> <dadamsCL...@netcom.com>
>GG> Once again, Dean has some excuse for just happening to watch
>GG> a show he claims to hate. If I don't like a TV show (or movie
>GG> or record or whatever) I just don't watch/listen to it. Most
>GG> people with 3-digit IQ's and/or a life have figured out how
>GG> to accomplish this by now.
> I watch Bonehead's show for the same reason people slow down to watch a bad
> accident or drink milk that they know has gone bad. I don't watch it too
You drink milk that has gone bad? That's why you're so krunked up.
> often, but when I do, I know I've just watched a bad accident. I watched
> his show when Dave was on, but I haven't seen it since. I don't usually
> get through a whole episode when I do watch. I just tune in to see if he
> has an interesting guest on, but those are few and far between.
Look. If you want to talk about Conan, and criticize him, you have to at
least watch the show. I watch it every night, so I have something to say
about it.
> I can't even see someone with a 3-digit IQ purposely tuning in to
> Bonehead's show and expecting to enjoy it. We don't have cable access
Well, that just goes to show how stupid you are.
> shows in Canada, but for some reason, that phrase just runs through my
> head when I see LNwBO. The only difference is that most cable access
> shows, from what I've seen, are better than LNwBO.
Tell me, if you don't have cable access in Canada, what does "cable access"
mean to you, anyway? Also, it's LNwCOB. (BO=Bonehead? You will die for
this) And YES! Cable access shows rule! They're so funny! Of course, I
laugh at them, not with them. But nothing touches CONAN. Nothing.
Krunk Off.
I mean that in the nicest possible way.
-Moses
Aaron Barnhart
:
:Leno's attempt at "Satellite News" was pathetic. While Leno may have the best
:monologue, he has little else and I'm getting tired of him.
I am trying very hard this week to groove with his show. The problem is that
I am an informed consumer and I bristle when I see other concepts grafted --
not embroidered, not adapted, but just plain slapped over the skin of the
show. Am I expected to take that show seriously?
I don't mind taking other people's ideas and noodling on them in a different
way. But who is Jay kidding. And he and Kinnear can *have* the media bites
concept. Conan has had his clinkers too -- the two spygeezers didn't do much
for me last night -- but it's not for want of trying. And there's something
about that silly giggle he puts on during sketches that works to the benefit
of a sketch. I even like his completely unglamorous transitions: "Okay ..
well, let's move on."
One thing Jay could try, I suppose, is getting his guests to interact more
later in the show, when there's one or two on the couch. Like Mike Douglas or
Merv Griffin used to do it. But now I hear that "Politically Incorrect,"
which is broadcast on Comedy Central which my cable service don't git, does
that.
Ah well, Jay, maybe you'll have to ... INVENT something, hm?
Aaron
Aaron Barnhart
:
:Yes, quite large in fact. I know of several different "groups" on this campus
:that watch Conan together. I know of none that do the same for Letterman.
In all fairness to Evan, it appears only women gather together to watch
Dave, as evidenced by a large colour photograph on the cover of the Tempo
section in today's (Thursday's) Chicago Tribune.
Aaron
Evan Schlesinger
Aaron Barnhart <barn...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>esc...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Evan Schlesinger) wrote:
>:
>:Leno's attempt at "Satellite News" was pathetic. While Leno may have the best
>:monologue, he has little else and I'm getting tired of him.
>
>way. But who is Jay kidding. And he and Kinnear can *have* the media bites
>concept. Conan has had his clinkers too -- the two spygeezers didn't do much
>for me last night -- but it's not for want of trying. And there's something
>about that silly giggle he puts on during sketches that works to the benefit
>of a sketch. I even like his completely unglamorous transitions: "Okay ..
>well, let's move on."
Naw, the spygeezers skit was really good.
>
>One thing Jay could try, I suppose, is getting his guests to interact more
>later in the show, when there's one or two on the couch. Like Mike Douglas or
>Merv Griffin used to do it. But now I hear that "Politically Incorrect,"
>which is broadcast on Comedy Central which my cable service don't git, does
>that.
I think Jay has to find a way to do funny skits or just drop 'em completely
and expand the monologue even more (Since that is the strongest point of the
show)
EVAN
No taglines necessary.
Dean Adams
In article <2lng68$j...@news.acns.nwu.edu> esc...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Evan Schlesinger) writes:
>In article <dadamsC...@netcom.com>, Dean Adams <dad...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>A smart one. For one thing, there is a large amount of college students who
>>>watch Conan's show.
>>Probably not so "large".
>
>Yes, quite large in fact. I know of several different "groups" on this campus
>that watch Conan together. I know of none that do the same for Letterman.
Sorry, that would seem to invalidated your claim. Letterman has had an
established heavy following in the "college" arena for over a decade.
>>I don't think he has the "best" ANYTHING!! All he seems able to do
>>these days is blatantly steal ideas from letterman. The "competetion"
>>definitely seems to be taking its toll on him...
>
>His monologue is still very good. Almost always better than Dave. But Leno's
>attempts at doing skits are failing miserably.
The times i've watched his monologues, they usually just seem to just
go on forever and at the most have a mild, corny chuckle here and there.
That hardly compares to the kind of real humor letterman usually delivers.
You're certainly right about the "skits" though. A tonight show "skit"
just about automatically equals something incredibly lame and boring.
>Leno is more interesting as a stand-up really,
Before the tonight show he certainly was! Now everything he does
has a totally watered-down "middle america" level of blandness.
> and Dave is more interesting when he is interacting with
>people. Therein lies why Dave is the better show.
Among other things...
Evan Schlesinger
>
>In article <2lng68$j...@news.acns.nwu.edu> esc...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Evan Schlesinger) writes:
>>In article <dadamsC...@netcom.com>, Dean Adams <dad...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>A smart one. For one thing, there is a large amount of college students who
>>>>watch Conan's show.
>>>Probably not so "large".
>>
>>Yes, quite large in fact. I know of several different "groups" on this campus
>>that watch Conan together. I know of none that do the same for Letterman.
>
>Sorry, that would seem to invalidated your claim. Letterman has had an
>established heavy following in the "college" arena for over a decade.
I'm not saying that Letterman doesn't have a "college following". I'm just
saying that on this particular campus, I know of no groups that get together
to watch his show. While I do know of three who do so to watch Conan.
Both shows would gain at least a point in the ratings if colleges &
universities were counted in the Nielsens.
>
>>>I don't think he has the "best" ANYTHING!! All he seems able to do
>>>these days is blatantly steal ideas from letterman. The "competetion"
>>>definitely seems to be taking its toll on him...
>>
>>His monologue is still very good. Almost always better than Dave. But Leno's
>>attempts at doing skits are failing miserably.
>
>The times i've watched his monologues, they usually just seem to just
>go on forever and at the most have a mild, corny chuckle here and there.
>That hardly compares to the kind of real humor letterman usually delivers.
Real humor? Dave's monologues are inconsistent. Sometimes they're great,
sometimes Arsenio's are better. It really depends. Jay's are usually
consistently good.
>You're certainly right about the "skits" though. A tonight show "skit"
>just about automatically equals something incredibly lame and boring.
>
> >Leno is more interesting as a stand-up really,
>
>Before the tonight show he certainly was! Now everything he does
>has a totally watered-down "middle america" level of blandness.
To an extent, but his stand-up talents are clearly still there.
EVAN
No taglines necessary.
Dean Adams
>In article <dadamsCM...@netcom.com>, Dean Adams <dad...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>The times i've watched his monologues, they usually just seem to just
>>go on forever and at the most have a mild, corny chuckle here and there.
>>That hardly compares to the kind of real humor letterman usually delivers.
>
>Real humor? Dave's monologues are inconsistent. Sometimes they're great,
>sometimes Arsenio's are better. It really depends.
Whoa... I can't imagine how anyone could say "arsenio's better"
at ANYTHING, let alone comedy!! He has *nothing* at all to offer
in a monologue i'd ever want to see, and certainly not laugh at!
The only thing that guy is "better" at is kissing guest's asses!
For you to say he could ever be better than Letterman is amazing.
An arse joke is something like: "and these are the people-who-got
bad-tickets-but-decided-to-take-the-seats-anyway. woof,woof,woof".
wow.
> Jay's are usually consistently good.
I could never call his low-grade, watered down tonight show
humor "good". Seems like its usually on the dull side...
What makes Letterman so much better is that even if he has
a joke that bombs, he still makes you laugh more than even
the most finely crafted joke the tonight show could offer.
chris shabsin
> Whoa... I can't imagine how anyone could say "arsenio's better"
> at ANYTHING, let alone comedy!! He has *nothing* at all to offer
So would you say that Conan's monologue's are better than Arsenio's?
How about the rest of the show? (Disclaimer: I haven't actually seen
Arsenio more than twice... The glare almost blinded me, though)
--
-Chris Shabsin -sha...@mit.edu
-member, SIPB, PWLCSBHNM, MITMB, VWA, MITCC, PWN, LSI
- "What lane do you think you're in anyway?" - Scott
"*MY LANE*" - me
Evan Schlesinger
>In article <2lolin$2...@news.acns.nwu.edu> esc...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Evan Schlesinger) writes:
>>In article <dadamsCM...@netcom.com>, Dean Adams <dad...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>The times i've watched his monologues, they usually just seem to just
>>>go on forever and at the most have a mild, corny chuckle here and there.
>>>That hardly compares to the kind of real humor letterman usually delivers.
>>
>>Real humor? Dave's monologues are inconsistent. Sometimes they're great,
>>sometimes Arsenio's are better. It really depends.
>
>Whoa... I can't imagine how anyone could say "arsenio's better"
>at ANYTHING, let alone comedy!! He has *nothing* at all to offer
>in a monologue i'd ever want to see, and certainly not laugh at!
>The only thing that guy is "better" at is kissing guest's asses!
>
Believe it or not, there was a time when Arsenio was funny. That time has
passed. But once in a blue moon, his monologue ain't half bad.
>For you to say he could ever be better than Letterman is amazing.
>An arse joke is something like: "and these are the people-who-got
>bad-tickets-but-decided-to-take-the-seats-anyway. woof,woof,woof".
>wow.
>
Typical Arsenio, yes. On the other hand, he does have some good lines in his
monologue every now and then. Don't get me wrong, Letterman's monologues are
usually better than Arsenio's, even if they do stink. But once in a while, the
unthinkable happens.
> > Jay's are usually consistently good.
>
>I could never call his low-grade, watered down tonight show
>humor "good". Seems like its usually on the dull side...
Why do you call it "low-grade watered down"? His political satire is still
great, if anything, Jay has gotten more "dirty" as of late and that is
changing his image. In my opinion, for the better. While I liked that Jay
always tried to stay away from the sexual-related stuff, I think that if it's
funny, do it. So Jay's "expanded repetoire" is a plus.
>What makes Letterman so much better is that even if he has
>a joke that bombs, he still makes you laugh more than even
>the most finely crafted joke the tonight show could offer.
Yeah but he usually has too many jokes that bomb. And he can only save them so
much.
EVAN
No taglines necessary.
Aaron Barnhart
:How about the rest of the show? (Disclaimer: I haven't actually seen
:Arsenio more than twice... The glare almost blinded me, though)
Tonight might be a good night to check Arsenio out. His guests are
contemporary loudmouth Roseanne Arnold and '70s gospel legend Andrae
Crouch. One of those only-on-Arsenio lineups.
Aaron
Dean Adams
In article <2lq6s0$s...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> sha...@mit.edu (chris shabsin) writes:
>Dean Adams (dad...@netcom.com) wrote in alt.fan.conan-obrien:
>> Whoa... I can't imagine how anyone could say "arsenio's better"
>> at ANYTHING, let alone comedy!!
I guess... I just don't see ANY "comedy" whatsoever from arse.
>How about the rest of the show? (Disclaimer: I haven't actually seen
>Arsenio more than twice... The glare almost blinded me, though)
In the past especially, Arse used to get a LOT of good guests,
so i've watched/taped countless interview segments from that show.
But Arsenio is *nothing* but guests. On that level at least you
could say he is better than conan. He is also more comfortable
with guests, and despite his many faults i'd still have to say
watching him interview someone I like is generally less fustrating
than watching conan try... especially with women guests.
As for the "rest", I don't even WANT to see arse try to do "comedy".
I suppose you could say it is good that "conan is trying", but it
would be even better if he was trying something funny...