April 8, 2009
I’m trying to get back into the posting spirit, folks! I’ve been busy lately but hopefully I can get back on this. Let’s start the most recent quiz results from last Sunday’s quiz at the Wolfhound:
WINNING TEAM: Those Guys Over There (131 points)
2ND PLACE: Funny, Easy to Read & Slightly Shorter Than A Paragraph (126)
BEST TEAM NAME: Dr. Owl’s Talon Show (119)
LAST PLACE: We’ve Got Wigs For Our Wigs (45)
February 17, 2009
Sorry, folks, a busy February and more writing considerations going to the Seoul Times have held me up frequently. I promise that more is coming soon.
January 21, 2009
With a packed house and a temporarily busted mike, last Sunday’s quiz was indeed a memorable one. One person called me their “hero”. Liancourt Rocks is streaking again, having taken advantage of a history round that kept them at the top of all three scoring periods.
Winners: Liancourt Rocks (118 points)
2nd Place: Jeff Ted Will
3rd Place: I Have Polio So **** You (107) (BEST TEAM NAME)
4th Place: Brothers From Different Fathers (105)
5th Place: In Kyle’s ****** (101)
6th Place: It’s a Beautiful Thing (97)
7th Place: Thank God for the North American Quiz Master (96)
8th Place: Hunt for Gold (79)
9th Place: Paul the English **** Lover (76)
10th Place: Duck’s Always Cheaper in the Cafeteria (61)
January 8, 2009
It was a slightly smaller crowd that usual, but that didn’ t diminish the quiz all that much this last Sunday. I find that my hecklers are getting more entertaining now, whereas before they were usually just drunken whiners (actually, I’m not sure if that distinguishes anyone at all). Our good friend Ed, who hosted opposite of my quiz nights for awhile and played with the Liancourt Rocks team, was able to go out on a high note with a solid victory.
Winners: Ed’s Last Stand (aka Liancourt Rocks) (135 points)
2nd Place: Duck Bum (116)
3rd Place: The Cask of Amontillado (109)
4th Place: MIBAS (97)
5th Place: Help, Help, I’m Trapped Inside A Quizmaster (95) BEST TEAM NAME
6th Place: Gowls Aloud (88)
7th Place: The Tartan Army (68)
8th Place: Adam Glossop Wants You To….(this went on for awhile) (35)
December 25, 2008
A couple of drunken losers floating around aside, it was a challenging quiz right before Christmas for the trivia night faithful. Liancourt Rocks, which had been seeing consistent second-place finishes as of late, destroyed a flag round and baseball round to walk away with the top prize. The scores:
Winners: Liancourt Rocks (133 points)
2nd Place: Don Quizote (114)
3rd Place: Last Night, I Had A Dream About Anthropomorphic Sex Toys Trying to Kill Me. What Does It Mean? (110)
4th Place: West Park Preservation Society (100) BEST TEAM NAME
5th Place: Turkey Brains (99)
6th Place: Murtle’s Turtles aka Pat’s Fight Force (98)
7th Place: Ode to Amanda (91)
8th Place: [insert name for stupid team] (67)
9th Place: Champagne Shenanigans! (63)
10th Place: ****,****,****,****/They All **** On Her Face
December 10, 2008
This holiday season, the Lotte Hotel near City Hall Station in Seoul would like to wish you the very best in your new life together with Christmas. Confused? That’s reasonable, considering that the hotel is suggesting that its patrons and visitors “marry” Christmas as opposed to enjoying a “merry” Christmas. An easy and nearly invisible mistake to your average person, but still proof once again that Korean companies, in their efforts to use English to better promote their business, need to get a little better in the editing department.
December 10, 2008
The Doosan Group is one of the largest and best known conglomerates in Korea, but apparently the people who work on their slogans need to take more English lessons. Usually, you see “두산We’ve” billboards around Seoul-town, but here near Yangjae Station we’ve got the real Romanized-deal. I’m not sure if we have Doosan or Doosan is telling us that they have a mystery, but I do know this is another bizarre usage of English in Korea.
December 1, 2008
Host: Seoul Writers
Place / Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008
Time: 7:00pm – 10:00pm
Location: Dear Chocolate Restaurant; Apgujeong (near Galleria Department Store)
Address: 78-5 Cheongdam-dong Gangnam-gu Seoul 135-954
Directions: Go past the Galleria and make a right at the intersection. It is in the first alley to the right. It is across the street from the Park Yoon Su Design Shop.
Ticket Price: 35000w (including a copy of the book!), 30000w if you prepay by December 5th.
Description: Come along to celebrate the launch of Every Second Sunday, a collection of short fiction and poetry written, edited and published by members of Seoul Writers! Champagne, chocolate tasting, and great company! All profits from the book go to charity (Moonbears.org and Korea Sexual Violence Relief Center).
Contact Info: (phone) 010-8877-6742
(e-mail) seoulwriters@gmail.com
(website) http://seoulwriters.wordpress.com/
November 26, 2008
Mitch Hedberg rarely ever made the top ten in people’s lists of best-known comedians, but those who had experienced any of his performances could always walk away with ten lines that needed to be shared amongst friends. Tragically, this voice was lost all too soon back in March 2005 when Hedberg passed away at the age of 37. But fortunately, we all get one more chance to experience the late Mitch Hedberg in all of his half-baked glory with the recent live album release, “Do You Believe In Gosh?”, which was originally recorded two months before his passing at the Improv in Ontario, California.
First-time listeners might want to write his material off as Steven Wright sounding stoned, but there’s a lot more depth to Hedberg than that. Hedberg’s style is chockful of short bits and one-liners (“I’m sick of ‘Soup of the Day’; it’s time we made a decision!”), often dabbling in amusing wordplay, bizarre non-sequitors (like in “The Improv Fairy Tale”) and clever observations that consistently catch the audience off-guard and always laughing. Noted for his stage fright and honesty, Hedberg regularly made jokes out of his own failed jokes, and playfully messed around with members of his audience. The fact that he would own up to bad stuff and interact with his audience only made him more endearing (“You guys know what I’m talking about? [pause] I don’t.”).
But what is most interesting about this particular album is the setting in which it was recorded. Given the understanding that it is a posthumous album, it’s worthwhile to note that the producers (one of whom was Lynn Shawcroft, Hedberg’s widow) didn’t offer the best recording from some perfect audience, which most comedy albums tend to be like. Here, certain audience members are involved from time to time, playfully heckling in between the jokes (the “Phil’ track is a fun example of this). And Hedberg is not one to just tune people out or make weak “I had your mother” jokes; he actually invites response only to drown the target out with more of his own brilliant repertoire. So though the whole effort may come across as unpolished, that fact only accenuates the hilarity.
I’m deeply appreciative for this honest aspect to the album, but what’s even better is to have witness Hedberg’s final evolution as a comedian, something most of us had not been privy to before. With his first album, “Strategic Grill Locations”, Hedberg starts off slowly, even a bit timidly, but builds it up to a terrific performance. In the second album, “Mitch All Together”, he is bolder, louder and swifter in his delivery. With “Do You Believe in Gosh?”, Hedberg’s confident voice seemed to have finally reached that point where he felt his jokes were as gold as that Improv “M” he claimed he stole. Everything works; the funny jokes are side-splitting, the bad jokes are covered by his own unique self-deprecation, and the frequent asides glue it all together for an enjoyable though bittersweet experience.
My Review: 5 out of 5
November 26, 2008
A friend of mine just posted on Facebook her enthusiasm regarding the anticipated delivery of a ”Wall-E” Netfix DVD to her waiting mailbox, and I am happy for her, to be sure. I would typically express either interest or disdain at her choice, but honestly, I have no idea what the movie is about, other than having a little robot that is apparently cute. Then it struck me how often, over the past several years, it has happened when I have seen an advertisement for a coming attraction that provided little context other than the bright, flashy images on the screen. More often than not, this observation occurs when the film in question is an animated feature or an over-hyped sequel. You might accuse me of making an obvious argument with little depth to it, but still, it happens so often that a film’s marketing campaign will thrust images at us without much mention of story to it. And not all of us will take the time to read the review or hit up the website just because the studio has paid for three hours of TV time a day. Here are some examples of the details I can recall from some past movie advertisements:
WALL-E: As I mentioned, a cute robot that makes cute noises. But can it improve on the quality of my life without a hostile takeover?
Robots: This time, more than one robot, and one of them sounds like Robin Williams. But can they improve on the quality of my life without a hostile takeover?
Surf’s Up: Something that looks like an emperor penguin, looking at you with total confidence that you will waste money on this film. I assume it also surfs.
Righteous Kill: All I know is that Al Pacino and Robert de Niro are “together at last”. I wish I had gotten an invitation to that wedding. Are they cops or mobsters in this one?
Cars: I don’t think I’ll ever watch any of these movies where the one-word title should be good enough. “Oh, cars, you say? Let’s rent that sucker now!”
Pirates of the Caribbean 3: Is anybody in this film NOT a pirate? Some of you have to accept that Johnny Depp is not the only justifiable reason for watching a film.
Madagascar: I think a bunch of animals are trying to escape a zoo and go to Madagascar, so if I’m right, maybe this is a bad example. But I do know it has Ben Stiller in it, so I’m leery.
Bee Movie: Much as I loved the TV show, a bunch of bees and a weak pun of a title are not good enough for me to listen to Jerry Seinfeld for 90 minutes. “What’s the deal with honeycombs?” I wonder.
Spider-Man 3: Spidey seems to fight 3 baddies, a bad job and a weird love life, all of which will probably give me a seizure from trying to keep up. The only thing I’m missing is the central story. Seriously, are you trying to tell me that Topher Grace is Venom?
Sex and the City (the movie): It’s got the ladies. Is that good enough? I rarely ever saw this show, so that’s about all I can say.
Open Season: A film about two animals dealing with each other’s bad qualities, or so I guess. Isn’t this “Shrek”? And speaking of…
Shrek the 3rd: Mike Myers seriously needs to stop and try to come up with some other lovable character, or unlovable character, whatever. I think they make Shrek babies in this one.
High School Musical (all of them): Kids sing and dance. I get enough of that nonsense in my classroom.
Ice Age 2: The Meltdown: Does the subtitle say it all? Maybe. I guess the title said it all in the first film, too, then.
Role Models: Apparently, guys who look like losers trying to convince kids that they can be winners should be good enough for you. It’s always fun to watch children’s time be wasted!
—
What I’m trying to get at is that the people who market these films are confident that the only context you need might be the star or stars involved, or the success of similar products in the past. And they may be right, because many of the films above have been box-office successes. But I would suggest a dumbing-down of the culture when the only reason to see a movie is one minor plus or detail. I always think that the main draw to a story should be the story, not whether or not it has the word “Pixar” attached to it. Part of the problem may be that, in our current tech culture, the demand for readily-consumable entertainment is such that the product itself often becomes condescended into one selling point. And then afterwards we wonder why nothing seems original anymore.
|
