Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

TDS 3.0: Season Seven Talk


  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

I really enjoyed Desus Nice.  He's such an appealing guy, and the material was perfect for him.  When he showed the nine men running for speaker of the house and three of them were the same photo?  He was right--I didn't notice.  But really, the whole week was a lot of fun (but I don't always watch the interviews).

I'm kind of thinking I might like the carousel of hosts to be permanent.

  • Like 3
10 hours ago, Sarah 103 said:

Charlamagne is now on my short list of people who I hope become the new host. I did not know that much about him, but I enjoyed his week. 

I didn't like him at all.  He had a previous show on Comedy Central and I watched it a lot because I kept thinking I should like it, but I just didn't.

But if he IS going to be the new host, I hope like hell they give him a pencil with an eraser on both ends instead of a pen, so maybe it won't make so much racket when he keeps tapping it on the desk.

 

 

  • Like 2

I don't think any of them are in line for permanent host. They all have way more going on for their established careers. All of the hosts that are stand ups have podcasts and do dates regularly; they aren't going to settle into a 4 night a week grind. They're not promoting from within.

If they're looking for a permanent host, they should be checking out comedy writers. 

I can't even remember who all hosted already and how much I did or didn't like them.

My issue with Charlemagne is that I think he sometimes is incredibly lazy and uninformed and he puts out misinformation under cover of joking. I don't think he means to. I think he genuinely doesn't know what he's talking about sometimes and it really bothers me.

I also thought it was lazy to platform politicians and not ask them any substantive questions. His interviews with the two Republicans were totally substance-free. Don't waste my time. Make your interviews interesting and informative or let someone else do the interview.

I thought he was funny in some of the interactive pieces with the other "correspondents" and I think he is a sincere person-- when he's talking about some topics he really speaks from the heart and can be interesting. I recall some work he was doing elsewhere, talking about psychotherapy and stuff about his personal life, which I really respected. But I just thought he was not there with the material for TDS.

 

  • Like 6

Leslie Jones said... in one of the interviews I heard with her recently (I can't remember which), that TDS is a well-oiled machine and would make anyone look good. She said she loved her previous hosting stint, she learned a lot, and she was generally really enthusiastic and positive about the experience.

 

  • Like 4

I love Leslie, I do. I don't really remember her first week hosting, but, I thought she did ok last night. I do tend to find her overly loud for my tastes, though. And last night I absolutely could not stop staring at her boobs! She didn't seem super comfortable in that outfit she was wearing and it looked like she kept trying to adjust it. But as for her hosting style after watching Trevor's relatively low key style it would be hard to adjust to a louder host, I think.

 

I don't like Sarah Silverman at all so I skipped her week. I wonder why they are going back to repeat hosts? Dulce had 1 day of hosting under her belt before the strike, and now Leslie and Sarah are both having 2nd weeks when she never finished her first. I wonder if it was Dulces decision or someone else's? 

I thought Charlemagne was a decent enough hist but I feel like this is his 2nd or 3rd time getting a shot at a comedy/current events/news show and the other 2 were canceled pretty quickly. I only watched Best Week (I think it was called. And I think that was a second shot of a similar show) which I enjoyed, but it was canceled after 1 season. That seems like a bad vibe to bring into  TDS.

 

  • Like 2

I liked seeing Sarah Silverman and Leslie Jones again--as an Our Flag Means Death fan, it was especially fun that Leslie got to be the one to interview Taika Waititi--but this week is reaffirming that I really wish we could've gotten a full week for each of the correspondents. Dulce and Ronny were both great, and I'm bummed that only having one night for each means we won't get their Long Story Shot topics. I loved Ronny's interview last night with John Oliver and their discussion about what it's like to be immigrant comedians.

  • Like 3

Kal Penn and Charlemagne are both getting another week in December. Every time I read about a guest host (especially one we've already had) I get frustrated on behalf of the correspondents who are already there and haven't gotten their shot. 

Any way. I don't think John Leguizamo does a rage rant was well as Lewis Black (who does? Also, their too much for me so I'm not mad about it) but I thoroughly enjoyed his rant. 

  • Like 3

Seriously, why are Dulce and Ronny not getting their own weeks? Roy, Jordan, Desi, and Michael all did. It feels really shitty at this point.

I loved John Leguizamo's week--he's one of my top picks too, @Sarah 103--so I was happy to see him pop up for another segment. I'd really enjoy that as a recurring bit, past guest hosts/"friends of the show" occasionally coming on to do a piece about something important to them. It would be a good way to maintain the wide range of perspectives from the guest-host era once we have a permanent host again.

  • Like 3

This is what I'm saying! At this point I want them to release something saying that they were offered weeks but decided they didn't want it. Like, are the powers that be trying to push them out? I mean, I feel like that's what happened with Roy Wood, Jr. 

 

I would love John Leguizamo to be the permanent host. I adore him.  But dang it, I'd rather Dulce have 1 week than any of these guest hosts come back for a 2nd one! And all these double dippers--does that mean that they are short list contenders?

  • Like 5

Local (Massachusetts) reporting is that the party happens every year,  everybody knows about it, nobody objected in the past. It was only this year that anybody made an issue of it, possibly because of the accidentally mailed invitations having to be rescinded. 

Th way I look at it: work harder  to find something to talk about. There are plenty of actual scandals, conflicts, and real issues to talk about, if that's what thy want to focus on. Or they could talk about topics that aren't getting covered much, but would be interesting even if they aren't based on scandal. Topical humor doesn't have to be shallow.

IIRC, they were going to choose a permanent host for 2024-- maybe that changed, but that's what I remember them saying months ago. I hope they choose someone with an interesting point of view, who isn't lazy, and will make the show both funny and interesting.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...