No Right Answer: Best Non-Medical Doctor Ever
- Thread starter Firefilm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sigh.
This show could be good and worth watching every week and yet somehow you completely waste the format of this show on the Poe's Law of Internet Discussions that often don't really match up to each other.
What's next week's topic? Tohno Shiki versus Superman? Most boring lead character?
You MIGHT have had an interesting show if say, you were debating the merits of NuWho Doctor's vs OldWho Doctor's, but comparing Zoiberg and 'The Doctor' not even any particular Doctor but just NuWho in general it seems; but I would honestly be fearful you would manage to make that debate boring as well
Constructive Criticism Time:
Speech: I don't know if these are script or not, but if they're not start scripting them more and practice. You have this sort of effect with your speech patterns that I can only really describe as slurring, that while resembles actual "two guys on a couch" arguing is boring. Because everyone can find a dude on a couch at college or work to argue these kinds of arguments with, what do you offer that real life arguments don't?
If they are scripted... Uhm, try better?
Arguments: Ignoring the format for the moment that I have severe issues with lets focus on how you argue, while you guys don't seem to cut each other off and what not which I applaud you for they are way too loose. Honestly you should use a stripped down form of Parliamentary debating; opening statement, rebuttal, counter rebuttal, closing statements. You seem to be exchanging point form talking points "X is awesome because of Y" "OBJECTION! M is AWESOMER because of B!!!!" and basically lobbing the conch back and forth and only seem to be making one point at a time, which would be frustrating if and only if:
You arguments actually made Substantiated Points: My biggest gripe has got to be the low effort put into many of the arguments *FOR EXAMPLE* you make the point in the Pokemon vs Digimon ""debate"" that Pokemon (paraphrasing) was worse because it's based on a game and just arbitrarily award a point on that? That's garbage, you make no effort to show *why* that may be the case, and the other guy makes no effort to provide obvious counter examples, like Fate/Zero or Steins;Gate. (I'm not a pokemon fan, I like Digimon better as well, but not for those lazy arguments.
But you don't, its either softball questions or questions that are borderline non sequitors that don't really match up with the content at hand.
With the above episode you compare *Zoidberg* with *The Doctor* how are they comparable? How is "non medical doctor" even a proper category? Who aside from crack pairing fan forums are even *thinking* of the oh so important fan question of which one is the better non MD? It's beyond silly it's pointless and even worse it's not even funny it's just blegh.
The Doctor is what? A main character and protagonist of his own Scifi/Fantasy show where he saves a vaguely Douglas Adams esque universe? And Zoigberg is just a sidekick recurring character who everyone ignores because *thats the joke* everyone ignores him because its fun to laugh at lonely people.
Now on to format; I like the idea for this show, where you argue over niche nerd arguments and just :sperg: all over the place, but you don't really sperg, not in anyways that are particularly entertaining; and I really don't mind neither picked side "winning" or one side only winning because of an arbitrary point regarding personal preference like a kind of coin flip just to underscore the point; but it feels like nothing is at stake, and that's a part of the problem, nerd arguments are *srz busnez* and if we want to watch people have a *srz businez* argument over nerd stuff they need to be *more* entertaining than online nerd arguments on nerd forums but somehow your less entertaining.
It's time to shape up folks, roll out the bigger arguments, do some research and release your inner :sperg:.
Before the troll brigade arrives I would like to underscore that I am *genuinely* trying to be constructive, though I am also exaggerating to accentuate the negative; I would really look forward to this show if it was more interesting and engaging. Good luck and have fun.
This show could be good and worth watching every week and yet somehow you completely waste the format of this show on the Poe's Law of Internet Discussions that often don't really match up to each other.
What's next week's topic? Tohno Shiki versus Superman? Most boring lead character?
You MIGHT have had an interesting show if say, you were debating the merits of NuWho Doctor's vs OldWho Doctor's, but comparing Zoiberg and 'The Doctor' not even any particular Doctor but just NuWho in general it seems; but I would honestly be fearful you would manage to make that debate boring as well
Constructive Criticism Time:
Speech: I don't know if these are script or not, but if they're not start scripting them more and practice. You have this sort of effect with your speech patterns that I can only really describe as slurring, that while resembles actual "two guys on a couch" arguing is boring. Because everyone can find a dude on a couch at college or work to argue these kinds of arguments with, what do you offer that real life arguments don't?
If they are scripted... Uhm, try better?
Arguments: Ignoring the format for the moment that I have severe issues with lets focus on how you argue, while you guys don't seem to cut each other off and what not which I applaud you for they are way too loose. Honestly you should use a stripped down form of Parliamentary debating; opening statement, rebuttal, counter rebuttal, closing statements. You seem to be exchanging point form talking points "X is awesome because of Y" "OBJECTION! M is AWESOMER because of B!!!!" and basically lobbing the conch back and forth and only seem to be making one point at a time, which would be frustrating if and only if:
You arguments actually made Substantiated Points: My biggest gripe has got to be the low effort put into many of the arguments *FOR EXAMPLE* you make the point in the Pokemon vs Digimon ""debate"" that Pokemon (paraphrasing) was worse because it's based on a game and just arbitrarily award a point on that? That's garbage, you make no effort to show *why* that may be the case, and the other guy makes no effort to provide obvious counter examples, like Fate/Zero or Steins;Gate. (I'm not a pokemon fan, I like Digimon better as well, but not for those lazy arguments.
But you don't, its either softball questions or questions that are borderline non sequitors that don't really match up with the content at hand.
With the above episode you compare *Zoidberg* with *The Doctor* how are they comparable? How is "non medical doctor" even a proper category? Who aside from crack pairing fan forums are even *thinking* of the oh so important fan question of which one is the better non MD? It's beyond silly it's pointless and even worse it's not even funny it's just blegh.
The Doctor is what? A main character and protagonist of his own Scifi/Fantasy show where he saves a vaguely Douglas Adams esque universe? And Zoigberg is just a sidekick recurring character who everyone ignores because *thats the joke* everyone ignores him because its fun to laugh at lonely people.
Now on to format; I like the idea for this show, where you argue over niche nerd arguments and just :sperg: all over the place, but you don't really sperg, not in anyways that are particularly entertaining; and I really don't mind neither picked side "winning" or one side only winning because of an arbitrary point regarding personal preference like a kind of coin flip just to underscore the point; but it feels like nothing is at stake, and that's a part of the problem, nerd arguments are *srz busnez* and if we want to watch people have a *srz businez* argument over nerd stuff they need to be *more* entertaining than online nerd arguments on nerd forums but somehow your less entertaining.
It's time to shape up folks, roll out the bigger arguments, do some research and release your inner :sperg:.
Before the troll brigade arrives I would like to underscore that I am *genuinely* trying to be constructive, though I am also exaggerating to accentuate the negative; I would really look forward to this show if it was more interesting and engaging. Good luck and have fun.
No, you are wrong here. In episode 5 of season 7 in the episode called "The Duh-Vinci Code" they're talking about Da-Vinci and everyone is impressed with Zoidberg's knowledge on that so they ask him how he knows. He says that his doctorate is in art history. In all other episodes when someone asks him if he's really a doctor he's always avoiding the subject.misterprickly said:
Sid Meier said:Sigh.
This show could be good and worth watching every week and yet somehow you completely waste the format of this show on the Poe's Law of Internet Discussions that often don't really match up to each other.
What's next week's topic? Tohno Shiki versus Superman? Most boring lead character?
You MIGHT have had an interesting show if say, you were debating the merits of NuWho Doctor's vs OldWho Doctor's, but comparing Zoiberg and 'The Doctor' not even any particular Doctor but just NuWho in general it seems; but I would honestly be fearful you would manage to make that debate boring as well
Constructive Criticism Time:
Speech: I don't know if these are script or not, but if they're not start scripting them more and practice. You have this sort of effect with your speech patterns that I can only really describe as slurring, that while resembles actual "two guys on a couch" arguing is boring. Because everyone can find a dude on a couch at college or work to argue these kinds of arguments with, what do you offer that real life arguments don't?
If they are scripted... Uhm, try better?
Arguments: Ignoring the format for the moment that I have severe issues with lets focus on how you argue, while you guys don't seem to cut each other off and what not which I applaud you for they are way too loose. Honestly you should use a stripped down form of Parliamentary debating; opening statement, rebuttal, counter rebuttal, closing statements. You seem to be exchanging point form talking points "X is awesome because of Y" "OBJECTION! M is AWESOMER because of B!!!!" and basically lobbing the conch back and forth and only seem to be making one point at a time, which would be frustrating if and only if:
You arguments actually made Substantiated Points: My biggest gripe has got to be the low effort put into many of the arguments *FOR EXAMPLE* you make the point in the Pokemon vs Digimon ""debate"" that Pokemon (paraphrasing) was worse because it's based on a game and just arbitrarily award a point on that? That's garbage, you make no effort to show *why* that may be the case, and the other guy makes no effort to provide obvious counter examples, like Fate/Zero or Steins;Gate. (I'm not a pokemon fan, I like Digimon better as well, but not for those lazy arguments.
But you don't, its either softball questions or questions that are borderline non sequitors that don't really match up with the content at hand.
With the above episode you compare *Zoidberg* with *The Doctor* how are they comparable? How is "non medical doctor" even a proper category? Who aside from crack pairing fan forums are even *thinking* of the oh so important fan question of which one is the better non MD? It's beyond silly it's pointless and even worse it's not even funny it's just blegh.
The Doctor is what? A main character and protagonist of his own Scifi/Fantasy show where he saves a vaguely Douglas Adams esque universe? And Zoigberg is just a sidekick recurring character who everyone ignores because *thats the joke* everyone ignores him because its fun to laugh at lonely people.
Now on to format; I like the idea for this show, where you argue over niche nerd arguments and just :sperg: all over the place, but you don't really sperg, not in anyways that are particularly entertaining; and I really don't mind neither picked side "winning" or one side only winning because of an arbitrary point regarding personal preference like a kind of coin flip just to underscore the point; but it feels like nothing is at stake, and that's a part of the problem, nerd arguments are *srz busnez* and if we want to watch people have a *srz businez* argument over nerd stuff they need to be *more* entertaining than online nerd arguments on nerd forums but somehow your less entertaining.
It's time to shape up folks, roll out the bigger arguments, do some research and release your inner :sperg:.
Before the troll brigade arrives I would like to underscore that I am *genuinely* trying to be constructive, though I am also exaggerating to accentuate the negative; I would really look forward to this show if it was more interesting and engaging. Good luck and have fun.
First of all. Let me thank you truly for taking the time to give us constructive feedback in the hopes of improving our show. I have seen many people blast our show and their hate spew is far enough from your observations that I don't think anyone can take offense to anything you have to say.
Now then...
Responding to your ambiguity as to whether or not we use scripts, we are firm admitters that there are no scripts, or any preparation beforehand of any kind. We only have the tools of a familiarity with the source material to back up our efforts to win the day, and everything is pure improvisation. We have never used scripts, nor have we done any research on the topics we are going to debate. Most times we check the site and Facebook for fan suggestions, pick the ones we know anything about, and press record right there and then.
Reading through your well thought out suggestions, I can summarize your main opinion as such; You want us to do research and use actual points that would win a debate no matter who was debating, thus lending credulity to the winner or at least the perceived winner WHILE making sure the comedy is tighter. While I'm sure that would be a great show, it isn't ours.
You see, the key to job security is not endevoring to make yourself obsolete. If we go onto the Internet, research the topics at hand, and deliver our findings in a proper debate format, then it will be educational but not something that anyone else couldn't do. The product that we turn in every week isn't the debates themselves, but rather the people making the arguments. A point made by Chris may win him the debate, but if I tried to make the same point I would loose. Chris, Kyle and myself (Dan) all put on different internet debating personalities and debate from those points of view. Chris takes on the debater that tries to counter facts with utter nonsense, yet throws truth in every so often to keep you guessing just how much is hot air and how much is savant knowledge. Kyle is the rational one, trying to use knowledge and obscure facts to win the day. I find myself somewhere inbetween them.
Basically I would be interested in maybe taking one episode and doing research before hand, but it would only be done to try it out. But who knows, we started the show debating the worst options for each topic, and now we moved to the relative best ones. Maybe our show will continue to evolve.
To comment on your confusion on why Zoidberg went against The Doctor, we did Best TV Doctor a while back, between Cox and House, many people were upset that we didn't include The Doctor. And much in Chris' character's fasion, he picked an opponent that was so far out in left field that it threw me off guard and he managed to snag a few points while I found my footing.
Anyways, I would be interested in any suggestions you might have that incorporated the facts that we don't have scripts and don't do research.
I'm very glad that Dan got here first because he's always been a more tempered individual. It gave me a bit of perspective as, and this shouldn't be a surprise since I've mentioned it before, I do sincerely get it. I watch a good handful of shows around the Internet and started watching things on The Escapist years back. I see the investment that you have as the viewer, which is important for us to respect, so I will do my best to do that.Sid Meier said:
The issue I find is that while your suggestions are well developed and come from a place that seems to want to help, it began with the traditional Internet "sigh." What this signifies is that you are about to speak to someone lower than you, particularly someone who is so utterly clueless and helpless that you, as the superior individual, need to save them. "I keep burning my hand whenever I touch this stove!" "Sigh."
What bothers me with that is you're taking the stance that we simply don't get it. We don't understand what it's like to be a viewer and don't understand what we could possibly be doing "wrong." My only counter to that would involve a sigh right back as, well, you don't seem to understand certain aspects of the show. No, that isn't an "our show is too high class for you" remark. We've mentioned this on Media Sandwich a few times but it doesn't become apparent on No Right answer as much: Dan, Kyle, and myself all have fulltime jobs and spouses. Dan even has a kid now. This puts us in a different position than most of the other contributors here who devote most of their week and then some to busting their backs bringing excellent content that gleams in the sun.
You may remember Lisa Foiles' Top 5 show from a few years back and how it dealt with a lot of the similar thins we're debating (the best of and worst of, specifically). I asked her back then how she was enjoying it and she told me that while it was fun and that she was proud of the work, the process of one supposedly silly list would take her an entire week of research before filming to the point that it became her fulltime job.
The current format of the show allows us to still have jobs and family lives because we're not making enough for even one of us to live off of No Right Answer's views, though of course we're also splitting things evenly three ways. And no, I'm not complaining about money. I am so thankful for it and the fact that, amazingly, we got it from being characters of ourselves on camera.
Basically, as Dan pointed out, we could research and script out our episodes, but that's not us, and part of that is because we simply do not have the time in a week to do it. We listen to how fans react and we try our best to deliver something that entertains the many and only bothers the few. Some weeks we do a better job of that than others. But we did do a lot of planning and forethought on the name. No Right Answer. We thought it would explain itself pretty well. We never claimed to be experts on anything and sometimes just find the challenge in taking an unpopular choice that technically works, such as Zoidberg against The Doctor. Apples vs Oranges is what we do best, but we do try and keep them linked somehow. Apples and Oranges are both at least fruits and can be debated for Best Fruits Ever. In fact, we had some fans and good friends do just that, when we asked them to, because we didn't want to be the only ones talking.
Dang, got me monologuing right back. You clever son of a *****.
Yes, great episode. One of those episodes where Zoidberg actually has a positive result on a medical occurrence when it comes to humans. Same when he reattaches Farnsworth's hand and Hermes' head in Bender's Big Score. He also reattaches Fry's arm after cutting it off when they have a duel (I wont bother to check the episode name or number). There's also the episode when he works as a war doctor while Fry, Lela and Bender are fighting a war where he kills pretty much every patient that enters.misterprickly said:
He has worked as a medical doctor in every episode there is. There's only one episode where he mentions his actual doctorate. As far as I can remember he doesn't say anything about being a medical doctor The Tip Of The Zoidberg, just that he's better with aliens. In The Duh-Vinci Code he says straight out, with pride and joy that his doctorate is in art history. Tell, me can you seriously find one episode where he says straight out that he's a medicical doctor? Cause I can mention two where he himself states otherwise.
YES! Freeman would have been a way better contender in this debate. I even know his favorite physics equation; it has to be F=ma.SpAc3man said:
Him too. I don't know, maybe Dr. Who fans would've gotten a bit touchy if someone else won.Danceofmasks said:
Oh I have the winner for that. That's an easy one for me. I'll just mention the name of the episode because if you recognize it you know what show it's from and you know it completely wins, hands down:Firefilm said:
"The Nightman Cometh"
You can get a doctorate in anything, not just in medicine, but that seems to be the one kind of doctor everyone knows about, and automatically assumes anyone with "Dr." in their title must be a medical doctor of sorts...
Either way... Dr. Zoidberg all the way!!!! Even though there are plenty of other "doctors" who are medical doctors.
Either way... Dr. Zoidberg all the way!!!! Even though there are plenty of other "doctors" who are medical doctors.
A person with a doctorate in ANYTHING science-related needs tools. That's how science works... otherwise they're just a lecturer... although the point may be moot because the Doctor has claimed that one of his doctorates is in medicine
(Ignoring the times The Doctor's saved the day with nothing but some stern words and pretending to be an idiot).
(Ignoring the times The Doctor's saved the day with nothing but some stern words and pretending to be an idiot).
HE'S THE MASTER OF KARATE AND FRIENDSHIP FOR EVERYONE!TheMann said:
Yeah, that would win. Hands down.
OT: Ehh...not to piss anyone off but I kinda saw Dr. Who winning either way. Otherwise, we'd have the same pissed Dr. Who fans swarming this thread again.
At any rate, they could have chosen someone better than Zoidberg. I like him and all but what about Indiana Jones? Or Gordon Freeman? Or Dr. Robotnik? Those would have good arguments.
