Spoiler anxiety, and why Norm Macdonald was your fave comedian's comedian

In 2002, Ryan Wedding was an Olympic snowboarder at the top of his game. Ryan's style is really gunned and go. And in less than a minute, it slipped away. But he continued to chase the high. Ryan James Wedding. He controls one of the most violent drug trafficking organizations in this world. I'm Michelle Shepard and from CBC Podcasts and the Toronto Star, the most wanted Olympian. Available now. This is a CBC Podcast. So I have never felt more anxiety around spoilers than with you can see everything. Because this Nathan Fielder doc about Elizabeth Holmes absolutely earns its spoiler warning. But that's not always the case. Because a lot of the times we're being told not to reveal the most mundane details about a movie or a TV show because spoiler culture has gotten so intense. I'm Rads. I'm a play sitting at Frella Meenup.myMood. This is Cabotion. I got Catherine Van Aerenbunk and Adam Namin here with me. Welcome to show y'all. Morning. Thank you. Um, so I just want to be clear, we are not actually here to reveal anything about you can see everything. I mean, not on my watch. But I mean, this conversation is largely inspired by how we talk around this movie. Because Adam and I'll start with you. You were here last week to talk about you can see everything on the group chat. And you guys ended up recording two separate episodes, one that was spoiler free and one that was spoiler riddled. How have you seen the conversations around spoilers evolve since this movie has come out? I mean, I think the conversation for spoilers around this movie is sort of inevitable. Starting with the fact that the filmmakers got on stage and tell you right, it's at please don't tell people what's in this movie at which point a critic from variety of the next morning did not listen and sort of did it and that sets up the terms of the argument right there. You know, the people who are making the movie promoting the movie, please don't spoil it. Let people sort of discover this on their own, which on one hand is a fair request. I'm on another is somewhat disingenuous. And then you have a critic on the one hand kind of doing their job. And we'd all like to say we're not tools of promotion. We'll do what we want. But also I thought quite bluntly, unnecessarily just spoiling it almost to just be the one to do it. Which point the floodgates kind of open, but yeah, being on commotion and having literally two separate pods and it's funny because my wife and my mom, both of whom are kind of interested in Nathan, we're like, we listen to the first one and we will not listen to the second one until we until we see it. I think that those lines are drawn for most people in their pop cultural consumption anyway. But this movie is drawing that line for people in like permanent marker partially because it's against the promotion of the film. And I think it's also imbricated in the promotion of the film. It's both. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, against the promotion of the film is an interesting rallying, all right. But what's interesting is you do see the value in protecting the spoilers around this movie. I see them. Yeah, the value in protecting the spoilers. But also I would argue discussion of this movie without spoilers is almost valueless. Not worthless, but it is almost valueless in a way that spoils the film in a different way. You're spoiling it, not in the sense of giving it away, but not giving it its due or giving it its credit and for the filmmakers to say don't spoil it, I think it's fair enough because filmmakers don't always have the best sense of how their work can and will be talked about. But this film is infinitely more interesting to discuss once you have seen it. Yeah, yeah. Well, then I'm going to turn it over to you, Catherine, because I mean, interestingly enough, you went into you can see everything like myself having the movie spoiled for you. Oh, yeah. But you actually don't even mind that because apparently you actually like knowing the spoilers ahead of time. So tell me why that is. Yeah. I have learned that I cannot trust my own sense of whether I think a spoiler is reasonable or not because my own metric appears to be wildly different from how many of my readers feel about spoilers. I am in general immune. There are very, very few spoilers that I have ever experienced where I felt like it detracted significantly from my experience of the thing. And in fact, my sense as a critic is that if knowing or not knowing the spoiler was going to significantly damage my experience of the text, the text probably was not sufficiently interesting to warrant, you know, a significant critical attention. This is lovely and exciting and fun and it is fast and cheap and fleeting. And when the only thing that something has going for it is surprise, it is very difficult for that to really stick with me. And I find it a pretty impoverished object for criticism. So yeah, I went into, you can see everything having read that same variety review. And also, I think people who are familiar with Fielder's work and who have seen his show, The rehearsal. Well, it is, the spoiler doesn't feel all that spoilery. And so I knew everything had a fantastic time. What's still surprised in places. It's not a beat by beat, you know, retelling of what this thing is. And if anything, I think it allowed me to go in not anxiously being like, what's the spoiler? Where will it be? I could just sit there and experience the movie. Yeah, because that isn't actually another aspect that ruins the movie for you. When you go in knowing that there's a spoiler, but you don't know what it is, you're watching it in a different way, right, Adam? Yeah, well, I mean, that's sort of again, that difference between like, what is hype in relationship to surprise? You know, you're hyping up surprised. Does it accelerate surprises? Is it kind of an antidote to surprise? Does it like, you know, spoil surprise or curdle it a little bit? I think partially what people are sick of with this movie, we're not sick of. I think they are growing fatigued with it is this kind of endless discourse cycle, this endless hype cycle, this, you know, 80 ways to look at something cycle. And while people are tiptoeing or on eggshells or whatever metaphor you want, about what that thing is, I could see that being very alienating for people at a distance saying, no one will shut up about this movie, but they won't say what it's about. And I'm just going to sort of tune out. But that question, I mean to a Catherine was saying, but as a critic, I couldn't agree more in as a viewer, I'm with her too. The question is, each viewer kind of has their own threshold for that, and there's all sorts of spirits in which things can be spoiled. And what else so, what's the statute of limitation on spoilers? I'm going to do one right now, which is that great Simpson's bit, where Homer's seeing Star Wars in 1980, he walks out of the theater with the bar, he's like, who to thought Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father, sorry to anyone who doesn't know that, but you can make that joke, or joke about Rosebud being, you know, Kane's sled now, and it's just part of the pop cultural fabric. But I mean, where do you draw the line? If I start saying what the end of the usual suspects, this happens for the end of seven, this happens, there are people who I could say that on this show as an illustrative example, they're going to be pissed off by that. And critics have to sort of, I think, think between our own standards and desires for surprise and also the publication and the readership to an extent. But it's not fun to be told, don't do something by a distributor. Yeah. Well, you know, it's interesting there that you're thinking about like consideration for the reader, because Catherine mentioned that as well. Like, you know, sometimes your measure of what a spoiler is is not the same as your readers. Catherine, I mean, then I mean, when you think about that, you think about your readers and you think about the way people are consuming media and then this intense anxiety around spoilers, like, what is that signalling to you? I think it's a couple of things. One is that this idea of the window that Adam is talking about, when is time? When are we allowed to talk about this thing? Has gotten so much harder to discern both for viewers and for us as critics? I think as release windows, I am generally a TV critic. And as in the era of binge models and then there's weekly releases, but did you actually watch the weekly release? No, because we don't have a sort of shared social fabric anymore. And so when do you get to talk about things? When is the spoiler? When is it fair game? I think that has gotten a lot harder for everyone to feel secure in. And so you end up in this oddly timid place where it's like all we can do is be like, did you see it? I don't know, did you see? And then we can't actually get to the part where we're talking about what we're talking about. And it lives in this like, you know, amorphous, oh, you should watch it, but I can't say what's going to happen. And you can't ever dig in. That's the fun part. Yeah. Well, I mean, talking about TV. So like talking about TV shows. And I think field fielder blurs these lines interestingly, you know, I mean, both the rehearsal and the curse had finalies that were viewable long before they were broadcast. And if you watch those shows, those were hard to critics, you mean critics. Yeah. Those were hard finalies to sit on. Like the, you know, to sit on the ending of the rehearsal season two or the end of the curse spoiler, they're kind of the same ending. It's very hard to sit on those things. And then you find yourself writing in a way that I found kind of self-defeating and coy, which is you're being fair to the viewer. And you're trying to not spoil their experience because to be fair, there's elements of surprise in those that I want people to come to fresh just as a friend to them, even if I don't know them. It's like, but then what am I writing about? Yeah. And I think that if there's, you can tell that difference between stuff that I think is engaging with a show in real time, which is they sometimes don't make episodes available ahead of the time, right? And like, sometimes they don't. But when they do, I think it inflects and limits and inhibits the writing, or it creates a game of not who can spoil more, but who can be more coy. And typically, when people are being coy about this stuff, they're spoiling it anyway. Because just by saying, well, I'm not saying [BLANK_AUDIO] that this is what happens, well, actually you are. You've just built a little rhetorical guard rail into it to technically not spoil it. Like I did in my, you can see everything reviews to the ringer. - Right, right. - Or it's, I'm not gonna spoil the movie, but if you're familiar with this, and you can probably see this coming, I mean, really, what's the difference? - Yeah, well, what's interesting is, I mean, you're still talking about spoilers that in some ways are on the level of that Darth Vader's Luke Skywalker's dad kind of reveal, right? Catherine, I wanna bring it over to you 'cause I mean, we're talking about television and television episodes, and a lot of times, as a critic, you're gonna get like these embargoes and DNR lists, DNR being, do not reveal lists, that tell you not to reveal specific things about an episode until it airs. When did you notice, Catherine, as a TV critic for many years, when these DNR lists got really ridiculous? - Yeah, the famous example for a lot of TV critics is one of the seasons of Mad Men, where one of the items on that list was that you could not say that they were on a different floor of the building or like what year it was. And the showrunner of Mad Men, Matt Weiner, was very famously spoiler averse, and it felt like rather than saying, this is a sort of important plot thing that I want audiences to come to with surprise, it was like, don't look at this, don't write about this, you don't have access to this thing. And since then, the embargo lists have, I have a lot of respect for the places that send embargo lists that are like, here's this thing that happens in episode seven, we really don't want you to say that. I have very little respect for the embargo lists that are like, you cannot say this thing that happens in episode one and is actually the premise of the show. Because at that point, I cannot write about what this show actually is. You are preventing me from having not just like a koi, I mean, we've all done the kinds of koi moves that Adam's talking about, not just that, but like I cannot explain to a reader what they are about to encounter. - But to put something out to both of you mainly, not mainly, but Catherine, I wonder what you think of this as like, social media is iterative. I don't even think the Twitter or the X of this month is the same as a year ago. Could you imagine if social media in this form had been around for the finale of the sopranos, which was not shown to people ahead, which a viewership experienced in real time. I remember being on social media during it. I mean, that's felt inescapable in whatever year that was. I think it's the inescapability tied to spoiler culture that's exhausting, which is, you can avoid spoilers as much as you want, but the algorithm drives you towards them no matter what. And spoiler warnings mean nothing when every aspect of your feed pushes, I mean, my mom told me the other day, she's like, why is this Nathan Field or movie everywhere? I'm not even looking for it. She searched it once, and that's what can kind of make both it feel inescapable and make the spoiler warnings or culture feel so irritating, 'cause it's just on top of you. - Yeah, speaking of all the things that are intensified about all of this. Catherine, I mean, I only have a minute left, but I did want to address an article you wrote a few years ago about the TV show Sugar. And this article was published a couple days after episode six from season one dropped. And you had the headline, tell your friends, John Sugar is an alien, which, you know, I weren't caught up, that would have been a spoiler. - What? - Yeah. And so in that article, you argue that knowing the main character is an alien, from the start would have been a better viewing experience than hinting at it for all those six episodes. So why do you think the creators of those shows like preferred hinting at it rather than just serving the premise up front? And I only got a minute left there before you, for you. - Sure, yeah, the brief thing here is that spoiler culture and this idea that spoilers are the most interesting way of engaging. Some surprise reveal is the most interesting and important and valued way of engaging with a story. Turns into a kind of storytelling where you are teasing what is essentially the basic premise of your thing. And the famous tweet about this is Surf Dracula, right? Like in the 1960s, a show called Surf Dracula would have had Dracula on a surf board within the first 15 minutes. And in 2026. - The finale. - Surf Dracula. - A shadow of a surf board in his door in the finale of season one. And so I do think there is also this unfortunate element of spoiler culture where it then turns back into the stories that we're seeing. And the spoiler becomes the only thing the load bearing element of the narrative. And that I find incredibly frustrating. - Yeah, and I think that's it. You see that even in Marvel movies where they engineer the plot so that it's gotta be revealed at the end versus the beginning. - Or to use our Simpsons joke example. Star Wars goes from Luke, I'm your father to here's four movies to tell people something they already know. But the parented within the Star Wars universe 'cause it's taking the intellectual property and stretching it very, very thin. But the other thing, one other thing I was gonna say about spoiler warnings for the Nathan film is it certainly incentivizes the audience to see it as soon as possible. It's a commercial push the way Hitchcock, and there's a lot of Hitchcock in the field or movie in a lot of ways. But it's like you can't come in if you miss the first 10 minutes. Don't spoil the movie for your friends. It is a kind of a gimmick for opening weekend purposes. It is not uncoincidental to why that movie's making so much money. - Yes, it's theatrically. - Listen, I could talk to you guys about this forever without deviling into spoilers. But we do have a VR at a time. So thank you both for being here. - Thank you, thanks God. - Thanks so much. - Catherine Van Erndock is a culture critic for Vulture. She is in New Jersey. Adam Naaman is a film and TV critic whose work shows up at the Ringer and the Toronto Star. He was here with me in the Toronto studio. As a kid in the early 2000s, I joined a scrappy new video site called YouTube. We were girls creating content for other girls, but with our growing success came new rules from the man in charge. - There was no reason to believe that anything. - Dangerous was going on. - No reason until he was taken away in handcuffs. I'm Lauren White and from CBC's Split Screen, this is There Goes My Childhood. Available now on CBC Listen or Wherever You Get Your Podcasts. (upbeat music) - I'm Rads, I'm a play city, good for Halloween, up top of my mood. This is good motion. So it's been five years since Canadian comedian, Norm McDonald has died, but his wit and humor has stayed present all along, and that's thanks in large part to viral videos like this. - What's the movie gonna be called? - Riley. - I know what it's gonna be called. - Yeah, what's that? - If it's got character up in it, you know what a good name for it'd be? - What's that, Norm? - Box office poison. - That was Norm McDonald, hijacking an interview with Mel Rose play star Courtney Thorne Smith on Late Night with Conan O'Brien in 1997. It's one of many, many memorable clips featured in Judd Apatow's new documentary, Norm, The Tale of Norm McDonald. This film, it's charting Norm McDonald's career from his early days of the standup at Yuck Yuck's to his infamous run on SNL to his later reinvention as a podcaster. Paul Myers has seen the film and is here to talk about it. Paul, welcome to the show. - Hey, good to be here, man. - Thanks for being here. Look, I mean, I gotta talk to you about this, I mean, the case that this documentary makes that that Norm McDonald was basically your favorite comedians, favorite comedian. And you see that in the documentary where it's like Letterman and Conan O'Brien and Adam Sandler, they're all singing his praises. What do you think it was about Norm that had all these like these big names and comedy singing his praises? - Well, comedians, comedians are often, they're often about form as much as content and the delivery system. And in this case, we had a guy who was, I don't know if you know these references, but Bill Hicks was an irrational comedian who couldn't be, couldn't be tamed. At the same time, Norm presented as a bit of a Will Rogers oratory character like Mark Twain almost. Like he had an old way about him that it was irresistible to people who follow form because they're like, "Wow, I can't figure out where the joke is sometimes with this guy." But he also seemed to be delighted in taking you, like he padded you around like a cat with a cat toy. And I think that this is also what got him into trouble. It's talking about spoilers. But later on, he kind of didn't seem to, he blurred the line between what you could actually pat people around with and no one really knew where he was half the time because of his political wildness was all over the place, you know? - Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's interesting to think of like, that comedic style and kind of the modern iterations of it like how Conan O'Brien might have picked that up or even like a John Mulaney and stuff, right? In terms of those like, where's the joke? It keeps going. I do want to play a bit a clip of Norm's comedy, specifically his standup that's featured in the documentary. Have a listen. - You know, there's no such thing as, I'm conditional love with human beings, but dogs, they don't care. They love Hitler had a dog. Now you think of that. I'm no fan of Hitler. I never liked him. I didn't like him before. It was cool not to like him. (audience laughing) But there was a dog in history who loved Hitler more than anyone. He would wake up in the morning and go, where's Hitler? - So, you know, you can hear there as you hear throughout this documentary that Norm's willing to take comedy to places other comics wouldn't necessarily go. And it's interesting that, you know, some of the celebrity fans we see featured in this documentary are people like Shane Gillis and Dave Chappelle, you know, comedians who kind of come from that school of comedy where they believe like, you know, offensive is well within their rights. Do you see Norm as a precursor to those kinds of comics or was he doing something like fundamentally different? Well, there is that sense that he, yeah, he was part of that lineage and maybe there were people before him. And I think to some degree there's this thing where the committee can speak about going to the line and past the line. And a lot of times, I think even I, you know, you know, full disclosure, I actually, there's some Normic Donald bits where I'm like, no, no, don't do that. And, and, you know, and, and famously the ones that got him in real trouble were, you know, to do with defending Louis CK or defending Roseanne Bar for racist remark. And you're like, is this the fight you want to insert yourself into in the name of free speech? And I always talk about how cancel culture is a misnomer because it's actually about consequence. You know, it's a public forum and you're allowed to dissent with the the comedian telling the joke. And therefore, if you were upset that you got that people got upset, then, you know, you're missing the whole point of free speech. But anyway, that's a whole other soap box for me, maybe, but watching the film rekindled that for sure. And I thought about Shane Gilles' SNL thing. And I personally, like, didn't like the monologue that Shane Gilles did on SNL, because he went to the cheap gender shaming right, right away. And I'm a comedy official. I know, I know what jokes are, but I mean, I just felt like it was lazy, whereas I even normed it on a bit like that and made it a little more cerebral, I think, anyway, but this, but I maybe I've gone off top of career ends. No, a bit. I mean, I think there is an interesting differentiation you're making there between someone who's kind of like, being kind of the curious cat versus someone who goes to a direct line of attack in their comedy routines, which is what the distinction there seems to be making between the norm style versus the Shane Gilles style. And I should also clarify, I mean, when you mentioned like what norm would norm getting into trouble with Roseanne Barr, with how he defended Roseanne after she had made posted a racist tweet. And after he defended Louis C.K. in a Hollywood reporter interview after he admitted to the sexual misconduct involving women, I mean, I think Norm did then send an apology out for, for just defending his friends in that moment, right? Yeah, I mean, and yeah, and you can argue about whether, you know, whether that was, you know, like again inserted yourself into a place where you had to apologize for defending your friend when that you think about the other victims in that chain. But, but I want to say that, you know, in defense of norm, he, he was smarter than he looked or than he acted, but he liked to act folks. He letterman does this to this idea of like, I don't know nothing, but I know this. And you realize he knows a ton. But then there's this other thing about the film, or you can, you can direct this if you want, but I just want to like, can we get into the mystery idea of him reading like Bob Dylan, he kind of just makes up myths about himself. And nobody really know, nobody really knew at any given time, including that he was dying. Nobody really knew exactly where Norm was. And that's what the film really, I think the film really investigates the vagueness of his persona, you know? Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, it's interesting how the film does that too. I mean, we should talk about kind of the form of the film because this isn't like a standard documentary where you get people like, you don't get these interviews or talking heads reflecting on his life. Like, it is pretty much all norm Macdonald clips. I mean, this documentary is literally like, it's, it's recreating the experience of going down a YouTube rabbit hole on norm Macdonald. And even like the different sections of the documentary is like, you see someone typing out a subject on a search bar. Um, what did you make of the Judd Apatow's approach with that? Well, um, I have, I have a lot of respect for Judd's love of, of the subjects of his comedy films, of his documentaries. I think he, I think he really thought about it. And I think that what I'm calling the Gestalt/Buckshot approach of showing you a bunch of stuff and not telling you what to make of it. Some would say it's lazy. I don't think it is. I think in this case, it took me a while to realize that's what they were going to do. No talking head interviews filmed for the film. They're talking heads within it from the clips, but we also leave out some people because they weren't on camera, like Laurie Jo Huckstra, who was a very important part of the chain. I liked the approach. Ultimately, I found the, I mean, Judd might be listening to this. 90 minutes would have been better, two hours. And there's a point where I'm like, I could be on YouTube doing this myself. But then, but then ultimately, at the end of the day, I was saying to my partner, you know, it really did make me feel something. And I don't know what it was that I feel, which is awesome to have a, like, think about an honoring Norma Donald that way, which is he didn't want you to know right away what you were thinking about what he was saying. And now this documentary makes you think more about, you know, how do I react to this? It's a critical thinking, if you will. And I have to say, I do appreciate some of that curation of it because if you did go down or you'd rabbit hole with Norm on curated, you wouldn't know what's real. That's a really good point. Yeah. So Paul, I mean, talking about this idea of Norm, like, being someone who you can't expect where he's going to go with his comedy, I mean, that is something that, you know, I think in some ways affected his run on SNL because he was famously fired in the late 90s from his weekend update gig for allegedly telling too many jokes about the OJ Simpson murder trial. The network said that it was actually because of a decline in ratings, but of course, at the time NBC exact on all my, or he was a close personal friend of OJs. The thing is, like this film, it's hinging on this notion that being on SNL is both a blessing and a curse because on the one hand, it's a show that really, you know, it makes you famous. But on the other hand, it's a shadow that follows you along throughout your career, especially if, you know, you don't make that successful jump. To film and television to a film and television career. What's your takeaway in terms of, like, from, from this film in terms of how Norm wasn't able to follow his pals, like Adam Sandler and your own brother Mike Myers into a more fruitful career in Hollywood? Well, it's for one thing, there's no guarantee of any job leading to another job. And I would say for all the blessing curse talk, people like Jenny Slate, Sarah Silverman and Ben Stiller did manage to have less than exemplary runs on SNL and still have long careers afterwards. And the thing, I think everyone expected Norm is that, you know, Chevy Chase had been the first weekend update host on SNL if people don't know the show. That's the fake news segment. In fact, Norm coined the phrase fake news to his chagrin probably. But so I think, I think the problem was, if I think of any problem that could have been the problem, is that his own unpredictability and proven ability to not, to, to bite the hand that feeds him might have made him quote, unemployable unquote. I don't know if he was unemployable. I think he, I think, you know, even Norm, even Lord Michael's came on the Norm streaming podcast that he did for Netflix. So I feel like the people who fired him even loved him. But I wonder if, you know, we know that there's so much more involved at corporate levels and certainly Don Olmeyer being a corporate guy who fired him. I think unjustifiably, but, you know, you know, that's one of those history things that you have to decipher. I don't know. I think, I think the visibility of SNL has helped a lot of people. And some people get out really early like Bowen Yang. I was surprised he left when he did, but I mean, why hang around, you know, the gardener left a lot of people leave earlier than you would think nowadays, you know, because, you know, and it's a different environment now too. I think SNL has a different place in the culture. Yeah. I think Norm might have been one of the last ones from that era where the cast of SNL were treated the way they used to treat the cast of friends. You know, I don't know. I really have no idea. It's interesting though. I mean, because I think that aspect of him getting fired for allegedly those jokes, that kind of made him a sort of folk, there's like a folk hero element to that, right? Like this guy that cannot be contained. But then, you know, you were mentioning earlier that, like, how then he had to apologize for the, you know, defending Rose Ambar, defending Louis CK in that 2018 interview in the Hollywood reporter. And, you know, it's interesting that this documentary, which is ostensibly a love letter to Norm, does, does grapple with that stuff, right? So how do you think that this, how do you think this documentary did in terms of delving into those less flattering aspects of Norm's legacy? Again, kudos to Judd Apatow and his team, because they, they did, they did at least acknowledge these things that needed to be acknowledged. And it, if you're, if you're coming to, you know, it's ironic that there was some of the scenes in the, in the show, we're about the, in the documentary, we're about roasts, you know, comedy roast, where you go in the dark places. And I think there's an element of, I don't know if you're familiar with comedians, funerals are often very filled with, you know, almost a roast, you know, and a lot of times comed, like Gary Shandling's funeral, apparently it's legendary. And I know in my book about John Candy, we talk about John Candy's funeral, Dan Acquired, slayed the room with an amazing, you know, eulogy/monologue. And there's a sense that when you're gathering to celebrate a comedian, it's all on the table. It's, you don't hold back. And, and I think that Judd did a really good job. I mean, I think that's why I keep saying Judd, because I think that a comedian made this, maybe that another friend of his made this. It both, you know, you can take a point off for objectivity, but you can also say that there's an insight that they have. And I think that it's like, you know, We want somebody. who understands the beast to talk about a specific player in that machine, you know. I just mixed analogies there of beasts and machines. No, but some, you know, typically, and you're using analogies to the type of filmmaking I typically resent, and yet you make me appreciate it this documentary even more. So, well, that's interesting. I, by the way, come not to praise or denounce this film. I think it is very much an open, it is what you make of it. And that, again, could be a lazy thing. You could say that why aren't you doing the work, but you are curating it. He is curating it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, but again, Paul, thank you so much for your insight into this. It was so great chatting with you. Well, thank you. And it really nice to meet you too. Thank you. Paul Myers is the host of the record store day podcast and author of the book, John Candy, a life and comedy, as he mentioned, that comes out in paperback on October 27th. He was in San Francisco, normed the tale of Norm McDonald is streaming on Netflix now. And that's it for the podcast today. I'm Rads, I'm a place sitting in for L.A.N.F. Doutma. Mood, and I'll see you next time. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca/podcasts.