If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTFark) Video Staten Island's "IT": The breathless freakout about rogue clowns and how easy it is to get the local media to report just about anything   (ora.tv) divider line 61
    More: Video, Staten Island, Clown Stunt, New York, stunts, serial killers  
•       •       •

3704 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2014 at 4:11 PM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-27 02:22:31 PM
Original thread:  http://www.fark.com/comments/8192431/Theres-a-creepy-clown-creeping-th rough-Staten-Island-streets-thats-freaking-out-residents-Internets?cpp =1
 
2014-03-27 03:23:29 PM
Isn't Staten Island the same are where the "Cropsey" stuff is from?
 
2014-03-27 03:32:23 PM

aintitahoot: Original thread:  http://www.fark.com/comments/8192431/Theres-a-creepy-clown-creeping-th rough-Staten-Island-streets-thats-freaking-out-residents-Internets?cpp =1


Hey, I resemble that headline!
 
2014-03-27 03:43:02 PM
Heads-up from the WTFark video team here:

As you can see, we did a WTFark video about this submission and used two comments from this thread in the making of the video. If your comment has been used, you have been credited (by handle) at the end of the video. If you have a problem with that and want your handle/comment ignored, then please let us know here. We may recut the video to remove your comment.

If you are the subby and want credit, please let us know here as well.

Here's how it works. We will keep track of whose comments we use and when you reach a certain threshold (five times, maybe) we will give you a small gift as a token of gratitude. Say, a Fark bar towel and a free month of TotalFark. If, as time goes on, and we seem to be using more and more of your comments, we will up the ante with some premium liquor for those of you who partake or something else equally appealing for those of you who don't.

The videos will live in the right sidebar here on fark.com, in their natural habitat on ora.tv/wtfark and soon on several other platforms as well. Click if you like them. Don't if you don't.

We thank you for your support.

/endit
 
2014-03-27 03:58:53 PM
I'd effing shoot that clown.


NBProducer: We thank you for your support.


img853.imageshack.us
 
2014-03-27 04:20:24 PM
HOW BOUT NO. All I get to see is the god damn commercial but the actual video never starts.
 
2014-03-27 04:23:10 PM

NBProducer: Heads-up from the WTFark video team here:

As you can see, we did a WTFark video about this submission and used two comments from this thread in the making of the video. If your comment has been used, you have been credited (by handle) at the end of the video. If you have a problem with that and want your handle/comment ignored, then please let us know here. We may recut the video to remove your comment.

If you are the subby and want credit, please let us know here as well.

Here's how it works. We will keep track of whose comments we use and when you reach a certain threshold (five times, maybe) we will give you a small gift as a token of gratitude. Say, a Fark bar towel and a free month of TotalFark. If, as time goes on, and we seem to be using more and more of your comments, we will up the ante with some premium liquor for those of you who partake or something else equally appealing for those of you who don't.

The videos will live in the right sidebar here on fark.com, in their natural habitat on ora.tv/wtfark and soon on several other platforms as well. Click if you like them. Don't if you don't.

We thank you for your support.

/endit


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

/Props to Rann Xerox
 
2014-03-27 04:24:10 PM

NBProducer: Heads-up from the WTFark video team here:

As you can see, we did a WTFark video about this submission and used two comments from this thread in the making of the video. If your comment has been used, you have been credited (by handle) at the end of the video. If you have a problem with that and want your handle/comment ignored, then please let us know here. We may recut the video to remove your comment.

If you are the subby and want credit, please let us know here as well.

Here's how it works. We will keep track of whose comments we use and when you reach a certain threshold (five times, maybe) we will give you a small gift as a token of gratitude. Say, a Fark bar towel and a free month of TotalFark. If, as time goes on, and we seem to be using more and more of your comments, we will up the ante with some premium liquor for those of you who partake or something else equally appealing for those of you who don't.

The videos will live in the right sidebar here on fark.com, in their natural habitat on ora.tv/wtfark and soon on several other platforms as well. Click if you like them. Don't if you don't.

We thank you for your support.

/endit


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-03-27 04:29:18 PM
Wait, did FarkTV made a comeback?.
 
2014-03-27 04:32:17 PM
Here's a comment: "Fark sucks". Use that; you're welcome to it.
 
2014-03-27 04:33:31 PM
I'll admit I've never understood Fark TV... *scratches head*  At all. Ever. In the least.
 
2014-03-27 04:35:48 PM
NBProducer: [...]

i917.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-27 04:36:30 PM

CygnusDarius: Wait, did FarkTV made a comeback?.


Of course FarkTV is making a comeback, after Drew sold out to Facebook it was inevitable.
 
2014-03-27 04:42:21 PM

Wogus: I'll admit I've never understood Fark TV... *scratches head*  At all. Ever. In the least.


One of the producers here (God help me).

The idea is to produce something in the Fark genre for emerging platforms, not to replicate the ill-fated Fark TV. These videos will be syndicated to other platforms and we thought it only fitting that -- since we are using some of your comments -- that we make them easy to see here as well. Hence the mainpage links. (Some of you, especially mobile users, said you weren't able to see them in the right sidebar.)

We understand that some of you hate video links and can appreciate why. Yes, pre-rolls suck. Hopefully we will get sponsors and can make ones that don't suck or figure out another ad model that is less sucky. Until then, you are more than welcome to ignore these entirely.

But we hope you won't. And we hope that every now and then Mike can get you to crack a smile.
 
2014-03-27 04:46:39 PM
I've never understood the idea behind FarkTV.

Fark is popular with Farkers because it provides a place for off-the-cuff hilarity and unscripted humor based on responses to others' comments. Fark is spontaneous.

The act of a small group sitting down, writing, planning, shooting, editing...is antithetical to what makes Fark so entertaining. FarkTV is scripted.

I'm sure that the people behind FarkTV don't get why everyone gives them a hard time about it, but in my mind, this is exactly why.
 
2014-03-27 04:47:19 PM
Not clicking a WTFarf link.
 
2014-03-27 04:47:21 PM
Wait....there's a sidebar?!?!?
 
2014-03-27 04:51:02 PM

lostcat: I've never understood the idea behind FarkTV.

Fark is popular with Farkers because it provides a place for off-the-cuff hilarity and unscripted humor based on responses to others' comments. Fark is spontaneous.

The act of a small group sitting down, writing, planning, shooting, editing...is antithetical to what makes Fark so entertaining. FarkTV is scripted.

I'm sure that the people behind FarkTV don't get why everyone gives them a hard time about it, but in my mind, this is exactly why.


So... video of a drunk Farker on the beach trying to pick up hot chicks then?
 
2014-03-27 04:58:18 PM
I have some constructive feedback for you, WTFark team:

1. Your WTFark logo looks like you spent almost 30 seconds on it using WordArt in 1997. In this advanced logo world, it's visibly jarring.
2. Mike Rylander is overselling his commentary. The reason Tosh and Talk Soup work is the sarcasm is subdued and the video they are mocking speaks for itself.
3. Mike Rylander is not a naturally funny person. His delivery is stiff. He is better suited to non-sarcasm work like a kids show.
4. Mike Rylander's script is awful. It sounds like a group of middle-schoolers wrote it following the simple rule of "make jokes about this in a way that could neither offend nor amuse anyone." The content adds nothing to the story.
5. Mike Rylander's reading of the comments was beyond awkward. There's a reason I don't go home home and describe people's funny comments online to my wife even if I laughed when I read them. That reason: it doesn't work. It has something to do with the joke consumer's proximity to the joke, which is the exact reason that comedians ALWAYS tell stories in the first person.

Not a sermon, just some thoughts.
 
2014-03-27 05:00:13 PM

This Looks Fun: I have some constructive feedback for you, WTFark team:

1. Your WTFark logo looks like you spent almost 30 seconds on it using WordArt in 1997. In this advanced logo world, it's visibly jarring.
2. Mike Rylander is overselling his commentary. The reason Tosh and Talk Soup work is the sarcasm is subdued and the video they are mocking speaks for itself.
3. Mike Rylander is not a naturally funny person. His delivery is stiff. He is better suited to non-sarcasm work like a kids show.
4. Mike Rylander's script is awful. It sounds like a group of middle-schoolers wrote it following the simple rule of "make jokes about this in a way that could neither offend nor amuse anyone." The content adds nothing to the story.
5. Mike Rylander's reading of the comments was beyond awkward. There's a reason I don't go home home and describe people's funny comments online to my wife even if I laughed when I read them. That reason: it doesn't work. It has something to do with the joke consumer's proximity to the joke, which is the exact reason that comedians ALWAYS tell stories in the first person.

Not a sermon, just some thoughts.


Preach!
 
2014-03-27 05:02:51 PM

The Bestest: This Looks Fun: I have some constructive feedback for you, WTFark team:

1. Your WTFark logo looks like you spent almost 30 seconds on it using WordArt in 1997. In this advanced logo world, it's visibly jarring.
2. Mike Rylander is overselling his commentary. The reason Tosh and Talk Soup work is the sarcasm is subdued and the video they are mocking speaks for itself.
3. Mike Rylander is not a naturally funny person. His delivery is stiff. He is better suited to non-sarcasm work like a kids show.
4. Mike Rylander's script is awful. It sounds like a group of middle-schoolers wrote it following the simple rule of "make jokes about this in a way that could neither offend nor amuse anyone." The content adds nothing to the story.
5. Mike Rylander's reading of the comments was beyond awkward. There's a reason I don't go home home and describe people's funny comments online to my wife even if I laughed when I read them. That reason: it doesn't work. It has something to do with the joke consumer's proximity to the joke, which is the exact reason that comedians ALWAYS tell stories in the first person.

Not a sermon, just some thoughts.

Preach!


Can I get a witness!
 
2014-03-27 05:04:45 PM

The Bestest: Preach!


Meh, I really was trying to help. I consume enough free entertainment on this site. Since I use ad-blocker (sorry squirrel, I really did try to disable it, but the ads are awful), helping improve the content seems like repayment enough.
 
2014-03-27 05:08:34 PM
img.fark.net

Another thing...and I'm being perfectly serious...

Are these titles supposed to be funny, or are they intended to come across as so ridiculously stupid that it makes you want to watch?

Again, I'm just trying to understand how a group of (I'm assuming) adults can come up with these video titles and think that people are going to laugh at them and think they are clever.

I've been assuming that they are going for the whole "so bad it's good" thing, but they miss the mark on that as well.

If this was a 7th-grade project, I might be willing to cut it a little slack, but I think we've all been in a situation where we're sitting around with friends, coming up with stuff that seems insanely funny at the time, but in the back of our heads we know it wouldn't be funny to anyone else, and certainly not at a different time.

Check out Cracked.com and the videos they produce. Yes, they can also be heavy handed, and sometimes suffer from over-writing. But they are more sophisticated about how they handle things that are on the verge of being stupid.
 
2014-03-27 05:14:20 PM

lostcat: [img.fark.net image 297x166]

Another thing...and I'm being perfectly serious...

Are these titles supposed to be funny, or are they intended to come across as so ridiculously stupid that it makes you want to watch?

Again, I'm just trying to understand how a group of (I'm assuming) adults can come up with these video titles and think that people are going to laugh at them and think they are clever.

I've been assuming that they are going for the whole "so bad it's good" thing, but they miss the mark on that as well.

If this was a 7th-grade project, I might be willing to cut it a little slack, but I think we've all been in a situation where we're sitting around with friends, coming up with stuff that seems insanely funny at the time, but in the back of our heads we know it wouldn't be funny to anyone else, and certainly not at a different time.

Check out Cracked.com and the videos they produce. Yes, they can also be heavy handed, and sometimes suffer from over-writing. But they are more sophisticated about how they handle things that are on the verge of being stupid.


easy there, Spielberg.
 
2014-03-27 05:15:13 PM
I should probably explain that I was a producer (and performer) for an improvisational comedy troupe for about five years when I was in school. I spent a lot of time thinking about what is funny and why.

The troupe used standard "structures" for its improve, and was only "really" funny about 15% of the time we were on stage. The rest of the time it was on the verge of awkward, but a live audience is willing to put up with a lot more than someone watching edited work.

We did try to do some scripted material, live on local community TV, but it was just weird and really only funny to us.
 
2014-03-27 05:15:50 PM
WTFark hosting site suck balls.  Half to three quarters of the time I can't get the video to load.  If it does load sometimes it only plays the sound and the video if grainy.

Find a better place to put the videos, or fark off!
 
2014-03-27 05:17:39 PM

lostcat: [img.fark.net image 297x166]

Another thing...and I'm being perfectly serious...

Are these titles supposed to be funny, or are they intended to come across as so ridiculously stupid that it makes you want to watch?

Again, I'm just trying to understand how a group of (I'm assuming) adults can come up with these video titles and think that people are going to laugh at them and think they are clever.

I've been assuming that they are going for the whole "so bad it's good" thing, but they miss the mark on that as well.

If this was a 7th-grade project, I might be willing to cut it a little slack, but I think we've all been in a situation where we're sitting around with friends, coming up with stuff that seems insanely funny at the time, but in the back of our heads we know it wouldn't be funny to anyone else, and certainly not at a different time.

Check out Cracked.com and the videos they produce. Yes, they can also be heavy handed, and sometimes suffer from over-writing. But they are more sophisticated about how they handle things that are on the verge of being stupid.


Maybe it's context. The titles don't seem any more lame than something from Colbert, but he makes it funny.
 
2014-03-27 05:18:26 PM

This Looks Fun: Meh, I really was trying to help.


I was actually in total agreement with everything you said. Immediately after I hit "add comment", I kicked myself for not formatting it better/more amusingly.

Like such:

This Looks Fun: I have some constructive feedback for you, WTFark team:

1. Your WTFark logo looks like you spent almost 30 seconds on it using WordArt in 1997. In this advanced logo world, it's visibly jarring.
2. Mike Rylander is overselling his commentary. The reason Tosh and Talk Soup work is the sarcasm is subdued and the video they are mocking speaks for itself.
3. Mike Rylander is not a naturally funny person. His delivery is stiff. He is better suited to non-sarcasm work like a kids show.
4. Mike Rylander's script is awful. It sounds like a group of middle-schoolers wrote it following the simple rule of "make jokes about this in a way that could neither offend nor amuse anyone." The content adds nothing to the story.
5. Mike Rylander's reading of the comments was beyond awkward. There's a reason I don't go home home and describe people's funny comments online to my wife even if I laughed when I read them. That reason: it doesn't work. It has something to do with the joke consumer's proximity to the joke, which is the exact reason that comedians ALWAYS tell stories in the first person.



Preach!

Not a sermon, just some thoughts.

Oh. Well, um.. I concur, then.
 
2014-03-27 05:18:46 PM

MBooda: NBProducer: [...]

[i917.photobucket.com image 360x140]


12 in and someone gives the poor bastard a clue. Thank you.
 
2014-03-27 05:20:15 PM

Moroning: WTFark hosting site suck balls.  Half to three quarters of the time I can't get the video to load.  If it does load sometimes it only plays the sound and the video if grainy.

Find a better place to put the videos, or fark off!


don't you mean... WT-fark off?

\Bizzaro
\\Bizzaro Bizzaro
 
2014-03-27 05:21:38 PM

The Bestest: Like such:


Hehe, yeah that version works way better in the context.
 
2014-03-27 05:23:35 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: don't you mean... WT-fark off?

\Bizzaro
\\Bizzaro Bizzaro


I love you

\Bizzaro
 
2014-03-27 05:24:43 PM

TrainingWheelsNeeded: lostcat: 

Maybe it's context. The titles don't seem any more lame than something from Colbert, but he makes it funny.


I think that has to do with the fact that Colbert's delivery is an off-the-cuff line at the end of something ridiculous that stands on its own. These titles are actual photoshopped images deliberately crafted. The amount of work that went into it is most of the problem I think.
 
2014-03-27 05:27:37 PM

This Looks Fun: The amount of work that went into it is most of the problem I think.


That's actually part of it (what makes it offputting) I think. Some of the intended humor just comes across as trying too hard.
 
2014-03-27 05:33:18 PM
Guy in England already did this shiat last year
 
2014-03-27 05:46:16 PM
John Stewart covering CNN covering MH370: "Oh crap. 23 hours and 58 minutes left to fill today.."
 
2014-03-27 05:52:36 PM

lostcat: [img.fark.net image 297x166]

Another thing...and I'm being perfectly serious...

Are these titles supposed to be funny, or are they intended to come across as so ridiculously stupid that it makes you want to watch?

Again, I'm just trying to understand how a group of (I'm assuming) adults can come up with these video titles and think that people are going to laugh at them and think they are clever.

I've been assuming that they are going for the whole "so bad it's good" thing, but they miss the mark on that as well.

If this was a 7th-grade project, I might be willing to cut it a little slack, but I think we've all been in a situation where we're sitting around with friends, coming up with stuff that seems insanely funny at the time, but in the back of our heads we know it wouldn't be funny to anyone else, and certainly not at a different time.

Check out Cracked.com and the videos they produce. Yes, they can also be heavy handed, and sometimes suffer from over-writing. But they are more sophisticated about how they handle things that are on the verge of being stupid.

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-27 05:54:37 PM

lostcat: I should probably explain that I was a producer (and performer) for an improvisational comedy troupe for about five years when I was in school. I spent a lot of time thinking about what is funny and why.

The troupe used standard "structures" for its improve, and was only "really" funny about 15% of the time we were on stage. The rest of the time it was on the verge of awkward, but a live audience is willing to put up with a lot more than someone watching edited work.

We did try to do some scripted material, live on local community TV, but it was just weird and really only funny to us.


Easy there, Robin Williams.
 
2014-03-27 06:26:37 PM
:::sigh::: so many whiners... WTFark! is not nearly as bad as FarkTV was.

No, it's not "Soup" or even "Tosh.0" quality in that genre of clip... but it's a nice shoutout to Farkers. Can it be improved... certainly. Perhaps if you whiners back off and let those with cosntructive criticisms take control of the narrative in these threads, maybe the producers will listen and make adjustments. We also need to remember, there will be some things they can't change, or at least, some things that will take time to change.

/Speaking as one of the Farkers who derided FarkTV (And SuperDeluxxe) back in the day.
 
2014-03-27 06:29:35 PM
You're bribing us with the hopes of some free hooch?

this might just work
 
2014-03-27 06:31:15 PM
Dear WTFark TV,
No "buffering...buffering...buffering" in the videos please.

Gracias!
 
2014-03-27 06:33:09 PM

LesserEvil: :::sigh::: so many whiners... WTFark! is not nearly as bad as FarkTV was.

No, it's not "Soup" or even "Tosh.0" quality in that genre of clip... but it's a nice shoutout to Farkers. Can it be improved... certainly. Perhaps if you whiners back off and let those with cosntructive criticisms take control of the narrative in these threads, maybe the producers will listen and make adjustments. We also need to remember, there will be some things they can't change, or at least, some things that will take time to change.

/Speaking as one of the Farkers who derided FarkTV (And SuperDeluxxe) back in the day.


Well said!  Thanks!
 
2014-03-27 07:02:26 PM

LesserEvil: :::sigh::: so many whiners... WTFark! is not nearly as bad as FarkTV was.

No, it's not "Soup" or even "Tosh.0" quality in that genre of clip... but it's a nice shoutout to Farkers. Can it be improved... certainly. Perhaps if you whiners back off and let those with cosntructive criticisms take control of the narrative in these threads, maybe the producers will listen and make adjustments. We also need to remember, there will be some things they can't change, or at least, some things that will take time to change.

/Speaking as one of the Farkers who derided FarkTV (And SuperDeluxxe) back in the day.


Why does it have to exist at all?

Why can't Fark just be Fark? I don't understand.
 
2014-03-27 07:06:49 PM

lostcat: LesserEvil: :::sigh::: so many whiners... WTFark! is not nearly as bad as FarkTV was.

No, it's not "Soup" or even "Tosh.0" quality in that genre of clip... but it's a nice shoutout to Farkers. Can it be improved... certainly. Perhaps if you whiners back off and let those with cosntructive criticisms take control of the narrative in these threads, maybe the producers will listen and make adjustments. We also need to remember, there will be some things they can't change, or at least, some things that will take time to change.

/Speaking as one of the Farkers who derided FarkTV (And SuperDeluxxe) back in the day.

Why does it have to exist at all?

Why can't Fark just be Fark? I don't understand.


Why does it matter to you if it does?  Just don't watch them.  If you don't want to be involved in the process then simply move on to the next post.  Sheesh.
 
2014-03-27 07:18:03 PM

lostcat: Fark is popular with Farkers because it provides a place for off-the-cuff hilarity and unscripted humor based on responses to others' comments. Fark is spontaneous


Jesus was an extraterrestrial.
 
2014-03-27 07:20:48 PM

NBProducer: lostcat: LesserEvil: :::sigh::: so many whiners... WTFark! is not nearly as bad as FarkTV was.

No, it's not "Soup" or even "Tosh.0" quality in that genre of clip... but it's a nice shoutout to Farkers. Can it be improved... certainly. Perhaps if you whiners back off and let those with cosntructive criticisms take control of the narrative in these threads, maybe the producers will listen and make adjustments. We also need to remember, there will be some things they can't change, or at least, some things that will take time to change.

/Speaking as one of the Farkers who derided FarkTV (And SuperDeluxxe) back in the day.

Why does it have to exist at all?

Why can't Fark just be Fark? I don't understand.

Why does it matter to you if it does?  Just don't watch them.  If you don't want to be involved in the process then simply move on to the next post.  Sheesh.


Believe me. I don't.

I just wish I understood why Fark would be affiliated with something that it tried once, and that failed so miserably. If I start seeing comments from people saying that the videos are hilarious, I'm sure I'll watch, but so far, it's like FarkTV all over again.
 
2014-03-27 07:34:20 PM
lostcat: Why can't Fark just be Fark? I don't understand.

You'll get over it.
 
2014-03-27 07:38:34 PM

lostcat: NBProducer: lostcat: LesserEvil: :::sigh::: so many whiners... WTFark! is not nearly as bad as FarkTV was.

No, it's not "Soup" or even "Tosh.0" quality in that genre of clip... but it's a nice shoutout to Farkers. Can it be improved... certainly. Perhaps if you whiners back off and let those with cosntructive criticisms take control of the narrative in these threads, maybe the producers will listen and make adjustments. We also need to remember, there will be some things they can't change, or at least, some things that will take time to change.

/Speaking as one of the Farkers who derided FarkTV (And SuperDeluxxe) back in the day.

Why does it have to exist at all?

Why can't Fark just be Fark? I don't understand.

Why does it matter to you if it does?  Just don't watch them.  If you don't want to be involved in the process then simply move on to the next post.  Sheesh.

Believe me. I don't.

I just wish I understood why Fark would be affiliated with something that it tried once, and that failed so miserably. If I start seeing comments from people saying that the videos are hilarious, I'm sure I'll watch, but so far, it's like FarkTV all over again.


This isn't A Clockwork Orange, and nobody is forcing you, with special eyelid clamps and drops. Obviously, some people like WTFark! - I'm not a huge fan, but it's better than a kick in the nuts (which is more than I could say for FarkTV, which was just insulting). I guess I'm in the camp that thinks it can be improved eventually. I've suffered through plenty of clips greenlit for the video tab that were tangible wastes of my time, but WTFark! doesn't piss me off, even when it's not that good.

The hate directed at anything peripheral to Fark seems almost more like a knee-jerk response, rather than anything remotely rational. I suspect it doesn't matter to you how good it is - you just hate the idea of a TV show riding on Fark's coattails.

WTFark! certainly isn't anything remotely like FarkTV, which was a skit-based clip show, horribly acted and poorly thought out. It certainly deserved scorn, as nothing - absolutely nothing - in FarkTV was done with any level of competence.
 
2014-03-27 09:33:53 PM
FarkTV = Watching people who think they're funny.
 
2014-03-27 11:10:13 PM

Slaves2Darkness: CygnusDarius: Wait, did FarkTV made a comeback?.

Of course FarkTV is making a comeback, after Drew sold out to Facebook it was inevitable.


When did that happened?.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report