Talk:Fabuloso Friday/The Script

From zefrank

Jump to: navigation, search


First Things First

This is the place to point people from now on anytime anybody anywhere criticizes how the Show is written/performed. The end.

The Future of Fabuloso Friday

After entering this, I found out that there's already a place for it. --Sford 14:57, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

I am not any form of a douchebag.


The Section Where We Commiserate About Our Brilliant Contributions Left On The Cutting-Room Floor


Sigh. That's democracy for ya.

yeah, ALL my contributions, even the funny ones, were cut. I think I'd actually make a better editor than writer. ~~Anonymous
oh wait, I had one - "wishing I had been thinking, so you didn't have to..." ~~Anonymous
Hey, my S-s-s-something from the Bible didn't even have a chance. --AaronStJ 13:50, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
Can I just say, Aaron, that you are a mensch for creating the entire Bible sequence, then being the guy who administered the voting system and cut your own stuff? Every time I read one of the whiners saying "I didn't get to come in on Thursday and add material! There goes my PvP ranking!", I think of you cutting a huge amount of your own work without complaint. Hat's off to you, man. Hokie

Am I the only one that misses the Bobo twins remark? 12:16, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

Still waiting on that peanut butter, guys.

NO! I miss the bobo twins too. I think the first fabuloso friday was way too disorganized. It turned into an oligarchy where a couple people decided what was "consensus" and what wasn't. Fresheneesz 13:26, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
We had voting! Real, honest voting! We really did our best to make sure the actual consensus was being followed. --AaronStJ 13:49, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
I know you did, but it was really really disorganized. I doubt many people knew where to vote on that, even if they cared. 14:49, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
It wasn't disorganized. There was a big fat link, in a colored box, on the top of the main page, that said "Vote here." On the voting page, there were instructions telling you how to vote, which involved editing the wiki, a thing which, if you could not do it, was going to cut you out of any involvement whatsoever. As for people who don't care to vote, they aren't much of an issue, any more than the thousands of show viewers who weren't among the 200 or so to propose edits. Hokie
Purple boxes and bold text does not an organization make... ask the early gay rights movement. People were posting "will somebody please post the link to vote HERE" and those posts were often deleted or worse, ignored. The script went from one page to 20 pages suddenly, with no warning and no discussion, leaving many people to think their stuff had been deleted when in fact it had just been moved. Polling on script issues was never (and still isn't) closed -- making it unclear which sections to continue working on. The polls that were closed were closed early (like delivery boy, which could have been a fun place to get another person involved). Then there was the accidental hard-charger who thought it would be a great idea to pseudo-vandalize every user's personal page. Seems like a "welcome to the wiki!" note on the talk page might have been a friendlier approach. Fact of the matter is only a tiny fraction of the people who participated voted, which does not follow typical wiki patterns when people's work is at stake. I don't need anti-intellectual mojo charts from IBM to realize that something got f-bombed process-wise through disorganization... or even something worse. muyfabulosotalk 12:41, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
Mostly agreed, but we started from a page saying "this is where you write my script dammit" into something that at least resembles a community process. See my note below on what we did wrong, but I think we did many things right as well. After all, has anyone else ever just set up a wiki saying "write a script dammit???" and not interefered other than a few comments?? If you look at it that way, it's awesome! --Gelbi 18:15, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
There were lots of problems with the voting. Not open long enough. Voting on material that was still being changed. Voting method getting changed. New choices getting adding during the vote. No obvious structure to the wiki to find voting issues. Votes on issues without prior discussion. It's a real stretch to claim there was any meaningful consensus. But I acknowledge that was somewhat inevitable given the timeframe.

Oh, well... I was looking forward to hearing Ze sing over my duckie song! [1]  :) Worrydream

It sucks :-( It doesn't suck :) Sucks! Nuh-unh! Yunh-huh!

Well I'll be the first to go out and say the final script seems to have lost most of the good gags. And, before you think I'm being petulant, I'm not just saying that because my stuff has been voted out (some of it's in there). I was too busy finishing off my awesome opening sequence to notice that all the hard chargers were wrecking the good bits.

Naahh not like the header implies, sure it's preplanned; Fabuloso Friday wasn't intended for those who wrote the script, but for those that didn't! Whats the use expecting the punch line if you wrote it?! --Yozef
Good job. I hope he uses it. Overall I think the process was more fun than the bland script-by-committee that got produced. There are a lot of good versions buried in the wiki somewhere, but I have neither the time nor the patience to find them and patch them together. I only hope some of the material floating around gets used in later shows. Seeing how Ze has worked in the past, it probably will.--Yves
Oh well, that's democracy, and this, natch, is purely my opinion. It was fun. Maybe if Ze lets us do it again we can actually improve on this. Mr malaise 02:19, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
God Forbid!
Naw, it doesn't suck. I dug through the history and I do think some fairly obvious things were mishandled by "those in power". For example, the song relied on the very brief "asshole babies" bit to set up the "babies smoking" and "babies drinking" lines, so you can't cut that and then leave the song in. Looks like people cut the baby bit because 1) they thought it wasn't politically correct or 2) they thought it was making fun of a "deformed" kid. If you actually click on the picture, you'll see that it's just a ugly pacifer... that was the joke. Likewise people voted against the "ticker" bit because they said it wouldn't be legible. Even after various graphics were posted showing it would be legible, they didn't bother to change their votes. Gotta love an informed populace (and a vote counter that doesn't understand the nature of polling)! All that said, people should still be proud of what was made. I'm hoping people go through the history and dig out the gems that got stomped on then post them on a new page, on their talk pages, whatever. There's some great stuff in there. muyfabulosotalk
Good analysis, muyfabuloso, especially on the whole baby thing. I thought the song was the weakest bit so to see that stay in and the other lines go was a shock. For me, the World Cup section (which I wanted in for topicality but also wanted better gags) got neutered. Sure, we got some "pictured here" material in (though not astounding), but the Beckham & Cole pic thing was left in without a gag. Wassupwidat? Oh, and making the old Europeans-call-it-football just totally killed that gag. It's a frigging World Cup - the whole world, except America calls it football. You could keep the gag without pissing on Europeans, but that seems to be the flavor round here, and I don't think even Ze's humor is that xenophobic. Still, better shut up or folks will think I'm a lame participant. I'm not, I just wanted "solamente gags!" Mr malaise

It's too hard to evaluate a script by itself. The real test comes shortly. There are parts that I don't think are funny, but I might get a nose bleed when I see Ze do it. We can do a post-mortum here. (BTW, looks like the final edit pass broke the 3-minute mark.) --Sford 11:49, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

It seems like it kept the topics while cutting out most of the jokes.

Hey, no need for the great stuff to get thrown into the history garbage bin. PLEASE, if you guys know where the good stuff is - copy it to Fabuloso Friday 2. And I figured out a way to correct the song - asshole-baby thing: have references to lines that your line refers to. See MetaFabuloso for that. Fresheneesz 13:29, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

It didn't 'suck,' but Ze does it better. I'm glad he keeps pushing boundries with these experiments (KOC, FF) and if there were any puppets here, it wuz us. Maybe his big brain will work out a way to determine how long certain sections stayed up and assign points on longevity rather that just letting people vote for sections at the end. Of course, the writers couldn't be in on that fact or the entire wiki week would become a text version of Halo's "King of the Hill."Bobbie mac 20:23, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

Poor Ze :(

Fabuloso Friday is Fa- awkward?

You should have charged people to participate, sweet cheeks.

forget what people tell you (except me, obviously) and just go back to doing whatever the eff you want. maybe you should take an extended (and sadly, show free) vacation, I think you could use it.

Amy out!


- I liked the idea somebody had about next time orgainzing around a coherent theme. I don't actually think the point is to try to do Ze better than Ze can (we won't ever be able to do that) but to do something crazy and different. I disagreed with the "that's not what he would do" comments. If he wanted to do what he would do, he wouldn't have given us the wheel.

You are very right, and I made comments like that myself. But when we have different opinions on what is funny and not, the only objective criteria is if something is Ze's style. I agree this was a mistake and we should have just used the policy I suggest below that you only edit sections that you think are really funny. So if someone goes for something really crazy, that would have been developed and not stopped. --Gelbi 18:35, 10 June 2006 (PDT)

I agree with you Amy, and so that means, I must agree with myself. I'm the only one that I like to agree with anyway. Buncha hard chargers! You script writers should learn some team work. The republicans agree, maybe that's why they rule your asses! HA! I disagree with they're idealogies, sure, but at least they make their ideas happen

  • thanks, person! Amy

Yeah, it really felt like about five people decided to go for it hard charger style and no one else really got to do much. If only those five people were funny.

Not true. There were 200+ users who contributed, and ~35 users who had 10 or more edits each (though some of those were IP addresses, so the numbers could be a bit smaller.) The basic math, though, is grim -- even if we leave it to those 35 people, there are only 3 minutes to get the material in. Hokie

I think I might have contributed if there was an actual conversation going on between people who might want to create a script, but... it was just this wiki clusterfuck.

Yeah, well, I think that was part of the challange. Of course, it would have been much better, if just creative people would get together in real life and write the script, but anyone can do that! Putting up a wiki saying "this is where you write my scipt, dammit" and then stand back, that is just pure performance art! --Gelbi 18:28, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
Seriously, dude. You miss the point. If you were to get together all of your smartest, funniest friends and make your own show, I'll bet it would be awesome. But that's not what this was about. --Rocco 02:05, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

Five days and five monkeys does not make shakespeare.


The funny parts were very funny. Most of the script had no humor to it whatsoever though, and it went on for far too long.

When the audience writes the script, who becomes the audience? Ze should force himself to watch this once for every download it gets.

Whoomp, there it is

ZE, are you the love child of Jim Carey and Ryan Seacrest? (Your show begs the question) But hey, what do I are smart and funny at the same time. (hard to come by these days) Random, uncollected thougts: Yeesh, 4:27. Well, looks like I read it fast. Really fast. It was 3 minutes when I did it, promise. I think it mostly worked. Some bits were kinda awkward, but we did pretty well. Ze's set for the the intro was perfect. His fake moustache is hilarious. He took smoking jacket a little literally. Looks like he chickened out on the hair dyeing, but oh well. I think we just learned people do table readings. Parts that worked on paper didn't work so well in real life. The salt image seems to have been lost. That's probably my fault. The song worked well. The best part, I think, is that I couldn't stop grinning like a moron watching it. Thanks for indulging us, Ze. --AaronStJ 13:36, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

Oh, and I just read the coments. Looks like people actually liked it. That's the best thing of all. --AaronStJ 13:46, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

  • It was a fascinating experiment. It looked very much like we weren't specific enough about which shots to use. Some sections could definitely have done with a trim, and many of the images seemed to be missing. This really was about audience interaction, and, if you recall 'There're no winners, only losers', those who participated were definitely in the win. HEY! This might be an amateuristic mish-mash, but I think that was definitely the point. :D Awesome fun.
  • And I'd like to add another thanks to you AaronStJ... working for the common good, exposing yourself to the wrath of other users, judging by what is fair rather than just by your personal preference... Thanks for taking it on - and splended job!

Who was this for, anyway?

One look at Ze's homepage shows that he's all about creating things that let people have fun. Did you have fun working on this? I sure did. In the end, who really cares how it turned out? The real hard chargers are the ones who didn't bother to pitch in and play the game. Their loss! -- Worrydream 14:01, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

Well said. It is still nice to know people seem to like, though. --AaronStJ 14:05, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
I suppose we must acknowledge there are several different audiences for The Show. Everyday someone will comment it's the best ever, and someone will comment it's the worst. People who come for the songs, and people who rather not have them. etc. etc. I found the 'douchebag' segment to be the most lame and juvenile segment ever, but I'm sure others will think it was pretty funny. In the editing process, people just tended to take the attitude things were either funny or not - to themselves of course, and we ended up with a show skewed toward a particular segment of the viewers: those who follow the 'the word douchebag is funny' school of comedy. Hfox 19:02, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
although I can't say I did much work I really, really enjoyed the fabuloso friday project! my only worry is that there's something addictive to it. I don't have the internet at home so I'm generally only online mon-thur and I made a special trip to a friend's office to watch the show yesterday and now I'm at my dad's using his computer on a saturday instead of walking the dog. --shiftless 11:19, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
The F/F concept was targeted both at Ze and at his audience; while he can always check his hit-counter to see how many people are just looking, it's good for him to know how many people are willing to actively try and create something for him, as opposed to just buying a shirt. His agent and his landlord, I'm certain would rather we provide him with monetary compensation, but I'd hope Ze would be impressed with the gift of Originality. -argonbeam3500-
Right on, the person above. Lol, we are special XD... Also, it's partly about what each participant takes away with them. For some it's to spoil it with criticism (others even condemn the whole thing without even taking part) for others it's another game that Ze has created to engage in an enjoy. I dunno how about you guys, but I had tons of fun.

All the things we did wrong...

So without caring too much about how good the show was. What did you think about the process?

Gelbi: It was real fun, of course. And I think it was a huge achievement, just look around the wiki, it sucks! Some of the problems I felt though:

  • Someone commented "lowest common denominator" -- funniness is not something factual, so the normal wiki prosess is bound to fail.
    • There are different tastes and types of humor, so we should have had a policy that you only edit the sections that you think are really funny, so they develop to their logical and comic extreme and aren't watered down. Even if the section isn't picked, at least some people will think it's absolutely awesome!
    • Just adding more *fun* to a story doesn't improve it, much comedy is based on argument, surprise or absurdity. Each user should have kept a link to a version (in the history) that they liked. If the story improves, you update your link, if the story gets compromised, you and the rest of us at least have one consistent version!
  • There was no well-defined process and we just improvised as we went along.
    • We made no mistakes that caused head-aches later on (such as editing the script on two pages).
    • Without instructions the project was dominated by people with wiki experience. I feel more people could have contributed, but might have been scared away... by us! Sorry about that...
  • There were lots of wasted effort. Really good stuff (including art and multimedia created by the users) were just dropped out. Not because it was bad, but because that section wasn't picked. Maybe we should have decided on what ideas we will work on and then generate final versions, etc.

Worrydream: Some random thoughts for now; I'll clean 'em up later:

  • I think it's awesome that the process evolved spontaneously from the void. From a social-sciencey perspective, it's fascinating. Starting with an a priori rulebook would have been a mistake.
  • Different personalities contribute in different ways. For example, I did not want to contribute on Monday when the wiki was first put up, but Empty Canvas Syndrome scared me off. I came back Wednesday evening, and there was enough structure in place that I felt comfortable jumping in. Contrariwise, I noticed people who contributed a lot at the beginning, and then left in disgust when a larger crowd arrived and started editing their stuff. There are people who naturally assumed a leadership role, and other people who naturally accepted being led and looked to the leaders for advice. It's possible that too much a priori structure and process would have inhibited people from sliding into their niche.
  • From the master himself: "I love being in the middle of faking something, feeling like it's almost done. The great way to achieve that is to do a lot of small projects. The longer you work on a project, the more polish you want, a lot of the quick and dirty personality leaves the project. Anyone who's done design for larger websites knows, the larger the project, the less personality it has intrinsically, because of the rules and limitations that crop up." [2]
  • Re discriminating against the wiki-inexperienced: Fresheneesz's Style Guide is key, and would have been a huge help.

CeruleanNinja My two pence :)(sorry if I repeat what's writ above)

  • In the beginning, there was single-page chaos. Then someone lame came and cleared it up. Now, we at least have some idea on how to organise the sections, i.e. make a new page for each part, which can be discussed, and other versions added.
  • The issue with regards to how much 'radical editing' becomes hard-charging, still needs to be resolved... It's difficult for any one person(good ideas or not), to rework sections, as there can always be disagreement. Should there be someone with contradictory thoughts, the 'okay-ing' of each element is simply too time consuming.
  • I think, we should have been braver about filtering the best bits through. Whilst 'Gay Marriage' and 'Dirty Space News' are some of my favourite sections, they really could have done with trimming/sharpening.
  • Also, the opening segment shows how specific we must be with the stage directions. That is, the script must reflect exactly what each person 'sees' in their mind's eye.
  • As per timing... as students, we used to lirerally play-out our scripts with a timer to see exactly how it works time-wise. Perhaps, next time, we could have three people who 'act' it out (*lol* in the privacy of their own homes) and give a collective average on the script/sections.
  • It would be a good idea to create a simple guide for those new to the 'Game' on how to work this thing without hard-charging through (even if their intentions are clean).

...Guh. *squeaks* It was so much fun, even if it DOES hold the danger of getting one fired. I enjoyed playing, you guys, and gals. CeruleanNinja

Re: 'okay-ing' each element - I disagree that its not too time consuming to not do that. But I don't think that it would be nice to have some form of formal conesensus gathering thing, for example, tallying who likes a striken/deleted line, and unstriking it if theres people who want it. If theres more controversy than that, *then* it can be actually discussed. It would be utterly amazing if someone could pull off a vote counter next to striken lines. Utterly amazing because I don't think thats in any way possible. [

Fabuloso Friday Remix

he Fabuloso Friday show just posted to the gallery. I made it straight off the video using a free trial of Sony Vegas. Watch it in the gallery and let me know what you think. Editur

Your remix is way better that the actual FF show. Way to go, but it just goes to show that it is a lot easier to make a show with one person in charge rather than 50 different people who all have different opinions of what is actually funny.
Thanks, but by the same token I couldn't have written any of that so we need the fifty just as much as we need the one. There's got to be a way to structure this so that the stronger stuff survives, not just the average. I mean, nature does it, right? Editur

Gay Marriage

Ze, Im not gay. Im not pro-gay, or anti-gay, Im pro-bi.

Personal tools