Talk:Waiting for Godot

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 19:05, January 4, 2007 by Braydie (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Oh great. Now that this is going to be featured, I can't write Waiting for Gobots. Thanks a lot.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 00:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

P. S. I'm actually too lazy to write that, or anything else, so no harm done.

edit Okay...

How the hell did this get featured? --Micoolio101 (whinevandalism) 09:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone nominated it on VFH and then some people who found it funny voted for it. Some of those who didn't find it funny (possibly because they weren't familiar with the play and therefore didn't understand the intentional minimalism of the article, which is a form of self-reference) voted against, as is their democratic prerogative, but the fors outweighed the againsts by quite some measure, and hence the article was featured. I think that's how it happened anyway... that's the usual procedure... --Sir Jam 12:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The planets momentarily lined up with Saturn, causing a loop in the comedy waveform, which sent energy pulses into the brains of thousands, causing a chuckle peak which provoked an excess of mirth that flowed into the reservoir of good will and seeped down into a mulchy voting layer at the common denominator. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 07:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

edit  ?

Not...Even.....Funny...... 21:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oddly ..... Funny. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 07:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

edit AGH! What't the punchline!?!

Godot finally comes, with the lightbulbs, so it must be a lightbulb joke, but I can't fully understand it! Explain it please!--Witt, Union leader of Union member UNion Entertain me* 00:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The explanation could well be that there is no explanations. They are indeed lightbulbs but crucially, they shed no light on the matter. Godot's arrival, at the end, may well signify the circularity of existence and the futility of all art, or it could be just that I was having a bit of a laugh at the time. Or else it might be that this play is often staged in near darkness with hardly any material on stage, so lightbulbs would come in handy. I don't know. It seemed amusing at the time. History shall be it's judge... --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 07:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Or, if you want something slightly more coherent, it's because the point of the play (inasmuch as there is a "point", which really there isn't, but then that's a point in itself...) is that Godot never turns up, and this says something very profound about the existentialist nature of our lives, etc. etc., and so by having such a mundane ending to the article itself it makes people convulsively and spasmodically make "ha" noises. It is a sort of marriage of high and low brow humour, which apparently a lot of people don't tnk is terribly funny. Ah well! --Sir Jam 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. The article is very funny, and I plan on doing things with it, cruel things...(sinsiter musings). And thank you for the 2 paragraphs explaining me that there is no point. Which makes the text just as pointless.--Witt, Union leader of Union member UNion Entertain me* 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Infinantly more fun than reading the play! --Camelpimp 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

edit From Pee Review

Inevitably, only people who've seen/read the play are going to get any of this, so I was wondering if there's anything that could either make it appeal to a wider audience or make it funnier to people who are familiar with it... either way, help would be much appreciated. --Jamtrousers 12:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jam, amigo, you are an ambitious and talented fellow. You could try to make the article a clearer representation of the play by setting some kind of scene (an Uncyc scene, or a fantasy scene, of course) and assigning the lines to characters with names (not necessarily the ones Beckett chose). Essentially I guess you would be providing an easier-to-swallow capsule Uncyc-article version of the play, one which ideally would stand alone even if the reader had not read the play. I wonder what it would sound like if your lines were divided between, say, Carl Sagan, Hamlet, and Socrates? Or Groucho Marx, Emily Dickinson, Captain Ahab? Uh, maybe not. But what if...Hey, did the people in the article's conversation start talking on IRC, or on Ennui Forums or while waiting for execution in the North Malden's death row? I would send you a picture of an empty stage as an illustration, but it seems a little cliché. Hope you find some ideas. It's a good article. ----OEJ 00:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur. It's pretty good. I didn't laugh out loud once, though. Hmm. It'll be a tricky one to add more stuff without overfilling it. I don't know that you need to make it more accessible; indeed, I'd suggest more subtle stuff for people who know the play well. Perfection is of course to do both of these at once - David Gerard 10:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I added some stuff. I hope it was OK. I must say, writing in the style of Beckett is very enjoyable. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 03:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That's good... I was thinking of putting a bit of wordplay in (it wouldn't be complete without it) but I don't reckon I could do anything better than that "Platonic" bit --Jamtrousers 09:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a good article now. Not VFH-likely, but I snickered this time. I wonder what more can go in without fucking it up - David Gerard 16:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools