Comments on: Who's Fucking?

Who's Fucking?

Brandon Blatcher — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:01:23 -0800

Several couples reminisce about when and how they started fucking: Josh and Debra, Zack and Evan, Isaac and Doris.

By: Xurando

Xurando — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:16:06 -0800

Fucking funny.

By: anotherpanacea

anotherpanacea — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:19:05 -0800

This fails as satire because it's actually kind of sweet.

By: greenhornet

greenhornet — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:20:32 -0800

Man, that was a risky/brave move, Zack... rubbing up a married man in an elevator. Just think of the work place harassment that could have happened. A happy ending though!

By: louche mustachio

louche mustachio — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:28:12 -0800

Literally.

By: Foci for Analysis

Foci for Analysis — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:33:18 -0800

They totally nailed the tone.

By: Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory

Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:41:24 -0800

It took a minute to twig these are actors - but what are they parodying? Is there some US reality show / dating website that does these kind of adverts?

By: mstokes650

mstokes650 — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:51:46 -0800

what are they parodying? Here you go.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:14:03 -0800

More background: The Onion's 'Who's F*cking?' Nails the New York Times' Wedding Announcements

By: Dip Flash

Dip Flash — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:00:13 -0800

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

By: xingcat

xingcat — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:01:16 -0800

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

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:29:52 -0800

That's a lot of effort and good production values for something with exactly one joke, repeated many times. Well heck, if it ain't broke...

By: chavenet

chavenet — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 08:23:15 -0800

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

By: maxsparber

maxsparber — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 09:31:38 -0800

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

By: rmd1023

rmd1023 — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 09:47:15 -0800

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

By: beerbajay

beerbajay — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:09:05 -0800

The Onion: exactly one joke, repeated many times.

By: Nelson

Nelson — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:10:48 -0800

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

By: jcreigh

jcreigh — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:47:36 -0800

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

By: Dr Dracator

Dr Dracator — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 12:00:36 -0800

I think that article has it backwards: "1 is NYT and 2 is the Onion, for those who must know." I'm pretty sure #1 is from the Josh and Debra video. If it wasn't an intentional metajoke, I now retroactively declare it so on behalf of Vinnie Mancuso.

By: tatiana131

tatiana131 — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:07:08 -0800

And if you're not sure whether you're fucking or not, Reggie Watts will clarify it for you. This is my favorite song this week.

By: Sleeper

Sleeper — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:27:11 -0800

The Onion? Fuck yeah!

By: Sara C.

Sara C. — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:30:28 -0800

good production values Well TBH it's really just non-shitty lighting. It's not like there are explosions or stunts or meticulously constructed costumes or anything.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 23:04:51 -0800

Well TBH it's really just non-shitty lighting. These sketches are a lot more complicated than good lighting. They're spot on in parodying that wholesome, folksy psuedo shakey cam-and-zoom documentary style that's all too floating-head slick by either actually shooting multicam or simulating multicam with multiple takes and editing with rice-paper crisp outboard audio and post production and nearly perfect aperture, shutter and depth of field control. The lighting is good, too, and probably uses multiple reflectors and softboxes. These are not clips you shoot with a single consumer DSLR and some kit glass. There's a small truck or van full of gear behind this and good prime glass. Which is part of the parody. Real life vignettes and interviews aren't as slickly produced as those eHarmony advertestimonials. That's broadcast commercial grade work, hyperreal and impossibly perfect.

By: Sara C.

Sara C. — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 23:19:27 -0800

locquacious, I'm talking about "production values", which usually means "the quality of the stuff you actually see on the screen". Not so much whether it's a good parody. In terms of production value, you've got: - actors who are appropriately cast and dressed - lighting and camera work that isn't a hot mess - competent sound mix - that "Who's Fucking?" graphic is pretty good It's a good parody, but it's not "a lot of effort and production values for one joke". This is pretty much what clever viral videos look like. If you have a DSLR, a window, and a shotgun mic, you can make this. I think you'd actually have to try to make it look shittier.

By: wemayfreeze

wemayfreeze — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 00:13:24 -0800

If you have a DSLR, a window, and a shotgun mic, you can make this. loquacious's comment suggests otherwise. I agree. There's a lot that went into these.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:18:50 -0800

There's zero need to go the "Well, to be honest..." route and attempt to prove you're right about something. Just let it go.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:49:01 -0800

Why do I always read the comments when I know I should never read the comments on YouTube? Because there are a few gems: >I cried a bit. >You're crying because of The Onion.

By: Sara C.

Sara C. — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:19:23 -0800

I guess I just don't get how showing up and pointing a camera at a thing is "too much production value for just one joke".

By: Dip Flash

Dip Flash — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:35:57 -0800

Your list above is a lot more than a random person with a camera and is exactly what I was commenting on. My joke above was mostly gently ribbing on the one note humor, I'm not sure how the production values turned out to be so controversial. They did a good job on the videos and the scripts, and deserve lots of credit if I found it a bit repetitive over all.

By: IAmBroom

IAmBroom — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:33:17 -0800

jcreigh: The Onion: exactly one joke, repeated many times. Well, yeah. In their writers' room, they pitch headlines. That's why the headline is the funniest part, and the article is usually filler. (I say this as someone with a deep love for The Onion.) Not significantly different from how (I understand) SNL sketches are chosen. Writers pitch an idea (headline); others comment on how it could run; if it's picked the writer fills out a sketch. This isn't an "Onion fault"; it's simply the only feasible way to do sketch/article comedy for a regular episode/print deadline.