|
Atheistdeals.com posted:How did the UK version gently caress it up? I think there are a few vital components to Drunk History: 1) Sincerity. The drunk person must legitimately want to tell the story and legitimately like the story. That leads to them getting excited about it. 2) Commitment to the warped verisimilitude: The re-enactors must commit to essentially being marionettes of the narrator. They should go along with the slurring, the forgotten names, and the cultural anachronisms, and only express confusion when the narrator themselves is confused. I think I ever saw the UK version, I think I just read reviews - but I think they at least got these things either partially or completely wrong. Edit: Also, the presence of Derek or someone like him is vital - someone who serves as a bit of an anchor in the drinking scenes, and acts as the audience's surrogate in asking questions and for clarifications of the crazy poo poo that comes out of people's mouths. ashpanash fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Sep 3, 2015 |
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Derek's presence is really important for the storyteller to talk to and make everything feel like a genuine conversation. Absolutely. I saw the clips of the UK version and it's pretty amazing how critical a role Derek plays. The framing of the storyteller needs to be such that you feel as if you are vicariously part of the conversation. The storyteller needs to be at ease and comfortable, with the vibe of telling a story to a friend, not giving a lecture. This leads to a playful atmosphere, with both absurd embellishments and glossing over of details of the story, which add to the fun. (I'm thinking of the names of the balloons in the first episode as an example - also a situation where the set design/art direction of the American show is far superior, in that they take those weird idiosyncrasies and add them to the story.) In addition, it's less of an important point but it's still noticeable, having Derek in both the interview and the re-enactment acts as a kind of bridge between the 'worlds' - it's equivalent to the viewer imagining themselves in the story. Also, one thing I noticed is that they added some sound effects in the UK version? No! All diegetic sound should come from the interview. Any incidental sound should play a role in the re-enactment. It's a very effective way to add to the silliness. Adding sounds to the re-enactment (like crunching the apple) just ruins the joke.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 15:50
|
|