Non-traditional intros trending?

[brandoncb]

Has anyone else noticed the trend of humorous pieces having short and biting intros as opposed to the introspective, long-winded spiels that are common-place and encouraged in forensics? Like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...vBNzfqQ#t=129s

or this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...4rNqQCg#t=113s

And does anyone else REALLY like this trend, but is afraid that their district's judging pool isn't ready for it?

[Crazy50128]

I actually really hate this trend. The only time I think people should do intro's like these is if the intro still gives a good overview and theme to the piece. Take Natalie's for example. She makes an extremely short joke involving poison, but if you think about it she gives perfect insight into the theme and plot of the piece. The Spelling Bee intro on the other hand seems to fall flat for me because he just makes a forced spelling bee joke. We get that it's about spelling bees, I at least wanted something more (also I just didn't find it funny). I actually (somewhat) liked the other Spelling Bee intro though because even though it was another short joke, he at least made a point with "pathetic", to which I can somehow see how the "pathetic-ness" he talks about is seen in the characters lives. That being said, it's a stretch.

Hopefully my jumbled typed up thoughts make sense. ^^^

In short, the joke needs to have a true point that isn't just for a cheap laugh.

[aaronb411]

well, my intro for the duo I'm in has no point to it at all, and no relevance to the piece what-so-ever. we get mixed reviews on ballots--some people hate it, some people love it. We do pretty well though. I haven't seen many other intros like ours on the circuit, so I guess it makes us unique and helps us stand out.

[This Is Awkward]

I feel like those kinds of blippy intros can be funny, but more often than not they just feel incomplete. I've always felt that the purpose of the intro is to give some further insight into your piece, and that's something that, unless your little joke just thematically makes sense, you sacrifice. For example, there is a Duo on my circuit doing the piece I'm Not Ebenezer Scrooge, and they are very funny. The intro (not exactly, but kinda close):

Performer 1: I'm gonna ask you some questions, just answer yes or no. Are you Ebenezer Scrooge.
Performer 2: No.
1: Good, but add a little to that. Now, are you Ebenezer Scrooge?
2: No, I'm not.
1: Yeah, but say the name. Are you Ebenezer Scrooge?
2: No. I'm not Ebenezer Scrooge.
1: Close, but take out the 'no'. Are you Ebenezer Scrooge?
2: I'm not Ebenezer Scrooge
1: By Tim Kochenderfer.

That intro may seem to have no substance, and probably isn't as funny written down as when they perform it, but at the very least it communicates the idea of confusion and mix-ups that the rest of the piece is about. Bottom line, I feel like blippy intros can be used well, as long as they are still in some way giving you further insight into the piece.

[2Fitzgerald7]

I think it all depends on what is being said, like most cases in speech. If it is quick and funny, awesome but don't force anything. Intros should be the best representation of the speaker(s) personal voice.

[JJCrameraahs]

It depends on the piece. Some pieces really speak for themselves, so trying to explain it further in the intro is just redundant (i.e. pieces with narrators that explain everything in excruciating detail). Also, punchy intros are more memorable. When it comes down to judging time at the end of a round, it's much easier to remember a clever one-liner than an insightful remark regarding the theme of the piece. Also, insight on the theme can backfire. In a year where I played my intro straight and took it seriously, I sometimes got comments such as "Your intro is wrong, the piece is really about (insert judge's opinion here)." Finally, the "sophisticated humor kid" shtick lends itself towards being trite and contrived. Only a true boss can talk about how Space Balls is a commentary on the shortcomings of imperialism without sounding like a tool.

[StanS]

I'm with Crazy 100% on this one. There's a reason we call them Introductions - they introduce the plot, theme, tone, etc. Obviously, HI Intros shouldn't be too serious or heavy-handed, but "hit-and-run" intros just seem lazy. You compete in Humorous Interpretation, we already know that you're funny and can tell a joke... now give us an insightful intro to show us that you're also a good speaker and performer.

Another frustrating trend is the "spoof" intro, where performers will mock the "made-up statistics" and "wise-men sayings" in most generic intros. Most competitors already know the overused intro conventions, so when people think spoofing intros in their intro is new and insightful, it just comes off as being uninspired. It happens most in Duo, but it is BEYOND annoying when partners will go into their intro, only to turn to each other and start performing a stand-up routine, asking dumb questions that bear no relevance to the piece.

[tgjdlc]

Something that I wrote up a few days ago.

Merit. All good coaches will tell their students that the more literary merit a piece has, the better chance it has at doing on a competitive circuit. Of course, this means that classics such as "Peter Pan" or "Mid-Summer Night's Dream" are going to be looked at on a more admirable level (be it for nostalgia or difficulty).. but Merit also can be inserted into any kind of performance (whether it be classic literature, contemporary drama, or children books) by finding the central (socially or personally impactful) message of the script and creating an introduction with meaning. People watch the final round tapes of HI's and see that a lot of the competitors are using intros that are meant to create laughter- and they think that in HI, it's only about telling jokes... here's the truth: generally (HI'ers do it more than other interpers) they change their intros into quick witted one-liners for the stage so that they can get bigger reaction. The introduction, in my opinion, is the single most important factor of any interpretation because it allows the audience to know what message they are supposed to walk away with, and it gives you the opportunity to show why the piece (however goofy it may be) is so important for you to be performing it for 10 minutes. Merit is what gets you to the Stage. Once there, have fun.

[Cameron Reinaldo Ponce]

idk... I feel like a nice slapstick intro is really nice and funny. Mine was....

(long awkward pause )"I've got a little joke for you." (in the creepiest voice possible)
"What's (make triangle with hands) intense?" (in-tents)
(another ridiculous pause)
"Boy Scouts" (creepy moan/laugh)

I got loads of comments saying that it was the best intro the judge had ever seen. And it was one of the best parts of my HI. What's so bad with adding another KILLER laugh?

Needless to say, my piece was Camp.

[MissInterpretation14]

It depends on the piece. Some pieces really speak for themselves, so trying to explain it further in the intro is just redundant (i.e. pieces with narrators that explain everything in excruciating detail). Also, punchy intros are more memorable. When it comes down to judging time at the end of a round, it's much easier to remember a clever one-liner than an insightful remark regarding the theme of the piece. Also, insight on the theme can backfire.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'd also like to add that I think a humorous intro can break the ice a little bit with the audience. Whenever I do a satirical or comedic intro rather than a serious, here-is-the-deeper-meaning-of-the-piece intro, the audience seems to loosen up more, be more interested, and be more open to responding to the rest of the piece. Not that this is an absolute rule or anything, just something I've noticed.

Plus, those are the lines that everybody quotes later