Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Late Show in the Media

Meredith Quill
  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

peeayebee

peeayebee

Wow. There's a lot there I disagree with, like regarding Stephen asking Trump if Obama was born in the US:

Once again, Trump demurred, saying, "I don't talk about it anymore." Amazingly, here Trump came off as the bigger person. Colbert seemed not to realize that questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency is not funny to African-Americans and other people of color.

 

WTF? Trump came off the bigger person? How in the world? Trump came off as someone who really doesn't think the President is a US citizen, but he didn't want to say so again. And of course Stephen was not questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency. He was mocking Trump's questioning of the legitimacy.

 

And then:

And if we need any further evidence of the corrosive "Trump effect," just look at the disrespectful way in which Colbert impersonated the president of Mexico; in an exchange with Trump over his proposed border wall, Colbert assumed a faux Spanish accent and a high-pitched voice.

 

Again, the writer of this article shows his ignorance. Stephen was playing with Trump's stereotyping of Mexicans. 

  • Love 2
  • Replies 369
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

wonderwoman
wonderwoman

finally! i’ve been saying this for years. from the ny times: ”In recent years, producers at late night shows had a perennial complaint: why on earth were they being forced into an Emmy compe

ShadowKnight2
ShadowKnight2

LOL!!! Came across this tweet. Check out the bottom right corner: I'm sure Stephen Colbert doesn't mind that.😁

Miss Dee
Miss Dee

Good God. So to get high ratings, the man has to become a complete political animal to get that demographic and, at the same time, completely eschew politics to satisfy another demographic? Can there

Posted Images

Delwyn

Delwyn

(edited)

Yes. I was wondering why the "Hugh's" were different. I'm still wondering.

I thought it was on the side of the UN building because of the Global Citizens Festival, but I could be mistaken.

ETA:

Paltrow has responded to Stephen's lifestyle brand sketch. I can't get the link right now.

6 Fail-Proof Tips for Launching a Men's Lifestyle Site.

It's all very haha, we're playing along, until goop suggests Stephen could really benefit from some anal bleaching and they would like to treat him to a complimentary colon steam. Reminds me of when Pom juice sent John Oliver a case of their juice and told him exactly where to shove it.

Edited by Delwyn
Kromm

Kromm

(edited)

Yes. I was wondering why the "Hugh's" were different. I'm still wondering.

Ah. That makes sense. They used it for Kerry Washington last night, too.

But this time it replaced the Soccer Field instead of the Airport Runway. Odd, that. I guess it must simply be that she's the second billed guest for some reason rather than the first, but she's the one involved with the Global Citizens Festival.

Edited by Kromm
Kromm

Kromm

(edited)

Great article.  And it led to this sidebar:

 

Bill Clinton To Appear On 'The Late Show With Stephen Colbert'

 

Former President Bill Clinton will stop by CBS' "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" on Oct. 6.

Clinton's appearance on the show will follow the conclusion of the 11th Clinton Global Initiative, according to a press release from CBS. Other guests on the show that night include actor Billy Eichner and the band Florence and the Machine.

 

"The Late Show" airs at 11:35 p.m. on CBS.

 

Hillary apparently turned down an appearance (EDIT - I'd heard that--but I read someone in another topic saying she'll be on now), but I think in many ways Bill is a much more interesting "get".  He's still "slick Willy" and it's bound to be very watchable.

Edited by Kromm
roseha

roseha

(edited)
I was thinking about this article as I watched the show last night, and while I think I see what the writer is getting at, I don't really agree. For one thing, I've seen most of the interviews so far and while Stephen may still be adjusting to a new kind of show, I don't feel that means he is playing at being an interviewer, as on TCR or the Daily Show. If he chooses to be more personal at certain times, fine, but he's not obligated to do that all the time. Also, I wonder if the writer is selling short one of Stephen's greatest strengths, his acting ability. He can move seamlessly into a character and out again, wonderfully, and I would hate to see that go by the wayside. Of course TCR fans know about this, but I remember seeing Stephen on with Conan before I ever saw the report and it was very clear what he was doing. It's a great talent that no other late night host has or had at this level and I certainly wouldn't want to see it lessened. Anyone who likes this show has figured this out or will soon enough I think. Edited by roseha
peeayebee

peeayebee

I basically agree with that article. I love Stephen's comedy bits and taped segments. It's here that he's more clearly performing, where he and we know he is not himself, but rather acting. During interviews, I still don't always feel like I'm seeing the real Stephen. I love seeing that sincere smile that you know isn't faked. 

 

I don't know if Stephen is holding back, whether purposely or not. Maybe it's just that he's not completely comfortable interviewing people yet. It depends on the person. Even the interview with John Oliver, which was completely enjoyable, there were times when Stephen seemed too focused on questions he planned on asking. Yes, it's an interview. I'd prefer more of a conversation. Just let things go where they will. 

  • Love 1
monakane

monakane

I basically agree with that article. I love Stephen's comedy bits and taped segments. It's here that he's more clearly performing, where he and we know he is not himself, but rather acting. During interviews, I still don't always feel like I'm seeing the real Stephen. I love seeing that sincere smile that you know isn't faked. 

 

I don't know if Stephen is holding back, whether purposely or not. Maybe it's just that he's not completely comfortable interviewing people yet. It depends on the person. Even the interview with John Oliver, which was completely enjoyable, there were times when Stephen seemed too focused on questions he planned on asking. Yes, it's an interview. I'd prefer more of a conversation. Just let things go where they will. 

 

I think Stephen is a brilliant comedic actor, but he's not a "personality" in the way that Letterman or Stewart were.  I don't think Stephen ever did stand-up.  A good stand-up comedian has to be open and vulnerable with the audience in order to connect with them.  I'm not saying that Stephen doesn't have a personality, rather he isn't comfortable displaying it.   I hope that changes and we get to see the real Stephen.

  • Love 1
Kromm

Kromm

(edited)

I think Stephen is a brilliant comedic actor, but he's not a "personality" in the way that Letterman or Stewart were.  I don't think Stephen ever did stand-up.  A good stand-up comedian has to be open and vulnerable with the audience in order to connect with them.  I'm not saying that Stephen doesn't have a personality, rather he isn't comfortable displaying it.   I hope that changes and we get to see the real Stephen.

Stephen's not a stand-up, but hes a VERY experienced Improv comedian (from Second City). That's usually playing a character, it's true, but most of those people also go through a lot of classic acting exercises centered around learning to emote. Edited by Kromm
  • Love 1
roseha

roseha

He's also a very good actor.  He played a murderer on Law & Order: Criminal Intent, back in 2005. Brilliant. Just brilliant. Gives me chills every time I watch it.

 

 

Yes he was brilliant on that episode.  I am sure Stephen could absolutely play drama if he so decided, but he decided on comedy.  That's why I hate to see anyone sell his acting short.  Actually, I wish he would stop telling his celebrity guests: "I'm not a real actor..." I mean, modesty is a great thing, but to me his acting is his greatest talent. 

  • Love 2
kib

kib

MEET THE WOMAN BEHIND STEPHEN COLBERT'S GAME-CHANGING GUEST-BOOKING STRATEGY

LATE SHOW CO-EXECUTIVE PRODUCER EMILY LAZAR CALLS THE UNCONVENTIONAL LINEUP SHOTS—AND SHE'S CHANGING THE LATE-NIGHT LANDSCAPE.

 

(sorry for the caps--that's how their headline is typed)

Thanks for putting that up.

Make no mistake, as Co-EP and head booker Ms. Lazar is in a very powerful position in the media landscape.  Very powerful.  It certainly appears based on her criteria and preferences in guests that she's both smart and thoughtful.  Can't say that I'm totally surprised since by all accounts the key hires have been some combination of smart, thoughtful, scary funny or immensely talented.

 

Let's keep in mind that there's a whole machine backing up Colbert and they too will need a bit of time to settle into their work. I think the entire endeavor will be a force to be reckoned with after it's all dialed in.

Kromm

Kromm

(edited)

This guy (seems like it's just one guy, Fernando Livschitz) seem very fond of relocating things that are part of the real world to DIFFERENT parts of the real world (the rollercoasters inside cities, giant toy robots in cities, the Chrysler Building spouting a carnival chair ride, etc.)

 

This one particular 4 year old video (not on that page but on his Vimeo) almost seems like their audition reel for the Colbert gig though:

 

 

In fact, I think that Roosevelt Island Tram shot is the SAME shot, and the Grand Central shot may be the same one too (with the band and the GC Mini-Stephen inserted into these respectively).  So SOME of these credits are four years old.  Plus if they ever need to expand the credits with some other new shots (besides that lame UN shot), they've got some ready material from this demo.

 

EDIT: actually the Tram footage is even older than that.  Here's a FIVE year old video from them with the Tram footage.

 

 

Not that I blame him, given the resources to make these, but he does reuse his footage a lot.  There's other stuff in this five year old video that you see again in the ones posted from a year or two ago (where he's added to them).  For example, a few years later he made a Coca-Cola ad he probably got paid lots for reusing some of the mountain footage you see in this.

Edited by Kromm
Miss Dee

Miss Dee

(edited)

The comments on that article make me weep for humanity. No way to argue with people so utterly convinced they're right, and superior about it, and condescending to downright hostile about how wrong you are, and never, ever willing to listen to anything that doesn't correspond to their own worldview. Doesn't really matter what their viewpoint is on religion or politics or economics or anything else; they're exactly the same kind of person: ugly. And, unfortunately, in love with the sound of their own voice or the look of their own posts so they JUST WON'T SHUT THE F*** UP.

Edited by Miss Dee
halopub

halopub

(edited)

Heh. I'd like to THINK he could be running around that track, but was totally ready to shoot that down. Because the first person I saw doing that was in a white shirt and shorts.  But you are correct.  Around 00:17 some weird person is running around dressed in dark colors, head to toe. No legs exposed.  Seems like it might be in a suit, in other words.

 

I haven't had a chance to dissect the visuals yet, but The Late Show has released a longer version of the opening credits.

 

Edited to add: At half speed I was only able to spot one additional Stephen sighting - a clearer glimpse of him at the rooftop party.

Edited by halopub
Kromm

Kromm

(edited)

The extra shots?  I suspect there are no mini Stephens, because the mini Stephens are digital insertions and why would they bother doing that for something that's never going to air?

 

I'd say tons of those shots have openings where you could put a mini-Stephen in you wanted to though. Most of them are in the right scale.


The close up on the Sullivan Theater roof is the obvious exception. That's likely an actual real life Stephen and not a digital insertion (and we know most of the others HAVE to be since Fernando Livschitz has years old versions of some of these shots without Stephen or the band).

 

There IS one VERY suspicious bit I caught though that struck me the same way I used to spot the Tablecloth yanking Stephen at Grand Central Station, and that someone else similarly used to spot the Bullfighter Stephen playing in traffic and I suspect it's how the flag waving Stephen over Times Square was found. UNEXPECTED MOTION. 

 

Go to 00:48--the people in Central Park. Pay attention to the figure I've circled in RED and start the playback.

 

pBrMNbo.jpg

 

Unexpected Motion happens. A person flapping around and putting down something on the grass to sit on. It's such a big motion, which is why I compare it to the other moments in the credits we're sure are Stephen. So it MIGHT be him inserted... or it might just be something the filmmaker captured honestly--a real person.

Edited by Kromm
  • Love 1
Kromm

Kromm

(edited)

By the way anyone else spot the real Haw-Haw moment of the new footage?  It's definitely there by accident (it's real not anything digitally inserted), but take note of what I circled in red up on the video screen in the extra footage of Times Square.

 

iraRI6J.jpg


I mean it's only ironic/funny because of who Stephen pretended to be for so much of his career (and that's he's on CBS now and a competing network's names being in ANY version of their credits is humorous to me).

Edited by Kromm
halopub

halopub

Unexpected Motion happens. A person flapping around and putting down something on the grass to sit on. It's such a big motion, which is why I compare it to the other moments in the credits we're sure are Stephen. So it MIGHT be him inserted... or it might just be something the filmmaker captured honestly--a real person.

 

It didn't look like the person was wearing a suit, so I assume it was not Stephen, but by being in that part of the screen he/she does appear to draw the viewer's eye.

 

By the way anyone else spot the real Haw-Haw moment of the new footage?  It's definitely there by accident (it's real not anything digitally inserted), but take note of what I circled in red up on the video screen in the extra footage of Times Square.

 

Good catch. Someone forgot to blur that!

 

I have grown to appreciate the peppy, super positive theme song and liked getting to hear more of it but ultimately I think the shortened version of the opening is more effective. In the "director's cut," the weird clouds at the beginning are distracting and there seemed to be a lot of lingering on the heliport. I did enjoy, though, seeing St. Patrick's, Central Park and the balloon marchers (Light the Night?) in tilt shift.

Padma

Padma

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/21/is-stephen-colbert-too-liberal-for-his-own-ratings-good/

 

I saw a similar piece in the NY Post and dismissed it as "consider the source", but something like this in the Washington Post is unfortunate. Made me think that while I'm missing TCR (a lot), Stephen is actually taking some risks with the Late Night format.  I hope CBS--or these kinds of criticisms--won't inhibit him, especially in an election year.

Ruby25

Ruby25

I love those kinds of articles. "Remember, opposition to the Syrian refugees is hardly a fringe position." Yeah. And? Opposition to Jewish refugees in the 1930's was hardly a fringe position either. So having a moral backbone on important issues is vilified by the media because ratings are a bigger deal than anything else, and should be the goal of ALL late night hosts. Above being funny, even. If I were Stephen I wouldn't want those kinds of people watching me anyway. Ratings do not equal quality- they never have and never will.

 

And this is coming from someone who pretty much tuned out ever since he had Trump on and didn't even challenge him, so don't tell me Stephen has been acting like some flaming, take no prisoners liberal here. But you know who kind of was in the last ten years? David Letterman. And I didn't see anyone writing articles complaining about the shift in his politics. Do you have to be old and established enough to earn the right to express your views?

  • Love 5
possibilities

possibilities

I'm not worried about Colbert. He chose to leave a job where he was able to speak to the left, in favor of a job where he knew he was going to be asked to be less controversial. Either way, he's making multi millions of dollars, and if this doesn't work out for him, I'm sure he will get another gig, or he can retire and rest on his laurels.

 

Honestly, I think the show he's doing right now is suffering from more than just his political choices. He also needs to be a better interviewer, who doesn't cut his guest off from telling an interesting story just so he can get his own schtick in. But he needs to decide whether he wants to be a commentator or just a joker. Right now he's not really shooting for the left audience, which can get what we want in a much less ambivalent and watered down form elsewhere, but he's too political for those who just want some fun before lights out. He could totally do a show of all silliness if he wanted to. I think the lack of clarity about what he wanted to do is the problem. He has to choose a direction and commit to it, but right now he's still half his old character with none of his old passion. It's off-putting.

 

This lack of vision for the show has been glaring ever since it launched. What is the audience he wants? He's smart enough and talented enough to go after it if he figures that out.

 

And if he gets canned, maybe CBS will give the show to someone other than a white male, which they probably should have done anyway.

  • Love 1
Kromm

Kromm

(edited)

And if he gets canned, maybe CBS will give the show to someone other than a white male, which they probably should have done anyway.

Okay, reality check here!  If Colbert is apparently too liberal to get the viewing audience he needs, do we really think a non-white male is going to skew LESS "liberal" and thus be slotted in instead?

 

Yes, you can find in politics your Ben Carsons, Sarah Palins, or elsewhere on TV the endless parade of interchangable conservative blonde women on Fox News. But if you go for most of the stand-up comedian types who'd be on the short list for 11:35, the women and African-Americans on the list are NOT going to get over the problem Colbert is having. They'll fall even more in line with it.  I'm sure we'd all love it if that wasn't the case, but if we are realistically looking at CBS looking past Colbert because Maw and Paw America won't watch him?

Edited by Kromm
  • Love 2
roseha

roseha

(edited)

Just to add to this, the original article I read on this was some Hollywood Reporter poll that claimed to know the political persuasion, religion, etc of the viewers of each late night show, based on a poll of 1,000 people.  One thousand!    That doesn't sound terribly scientific to me. There are millions of US television viewers needless to say, not to mention DVR viewers, online viewers, international viewers to some degree.  I don't understand trying to analyze a show's success based on a tiny poll.  I  think it was this same poll that purported to tell where the retired hosts' fans had gone, again out of only 1,000 responses.  I wonder how much this led to all the other articles. 

I'm enjoying the show,  and I think it will continue to find itself with time.  I don't have any issue with Stephen expressing compassion for refugees one night and doing a humorous segment on curling rules the next.

Edited by roseha
  • Love 1
Ruby25

Ruby25

 

Honestly, I think the show he's doing right now is suffering from more than just his political choices. He also needs to be a better interviewer, who doesn't cut his guest off from telling an interesting story just so he can get his own schtick in. But he needs to decide whether he wants to be a commentator or just a joker. Right now he's not really shooting for the left audience, which can get what we want in a much less ambivalent and watered down form elsewhere, but he's too political for those who just want some fun before lights out. He could totally do a show of all silliness if he wanted to. I think the lack of clarity about what he wanted to do is the problem. He has to choose a direction and commit to it, but right now he's still half his old character with none of his old passion. It's off-putting.

 

Excellent observation. I think this is exactly my problem with the show, and with him right now.

  • Love 1
nowandlater

nowandlater

I'm not worried about Colbert. He chose to leave a job where he was able to speak to the left, in favor of a job where he knew he was going to be asked to be less controversial. Either way, he's making multi millions of dollars, and if this doesn't work out for him, I'm sure he will get another gig, or he can retire and rest on his laurels.

 

Honestly, I think the show he's doing right now is suffering from more than just his political choices. He also needs to be a better interviewer, who doesn't cut his guest off from telling an interesting story just so he can get his own schtick in. But he needs to decide whether he wants to be a commentator or just a joker. Right now he's not really shooting for the left audience, which can get what we want in a much less ambivalent and watered down form elsewhere, but he's too political for those who just want some fun before lights out. He could totally do a show of all silliness if he wanted to. I think the lack of clarity about what he wanted to do is the problem. He has to choose a direction and commit to it, but right now he's still half his old character with none of his old passion. It's off-putting.

 

This lack of vision for the show has been glaring ever since it launched. What is the audience he wants? He's smart enough and talented enough to go after it if he figures that out.

 

And if he gets canned, maybe CBS will give the show to someone other than a white male, which they probably should have done anyway.

 

 

THIS!!!

 

Each day, I DVR MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell (I only spend about an hour each day total actually watching those shows.)

 

But, yes, I'm a political junkie.

And even I'm tired of him being obsessed with politics and, particularly, the Republican race. It hasn't been that way recently, but for much of his time on The Late Show he's devoted too much time to politics.

 

As for the entire show, I still enjoy it. But he received way too much overblown praise. Some were saying he's revolutionized late-night and made it smarter with his selection of guests. (People forget how great Letterman was at interviewing non-entertainment people.)

 

Yes, the show is too much Colbert Report on CBS. I wish he'd shake it up a bit more and utilize his surroundings.

Kromm

Kromm

Good God. So to get high ratings, the man has to become a complete political animal to get that demographic and, at the same time, completely eschew politics to satisfy another demographic?

Can there be a third group made of people like me who enjoys him just fine?

He's totally been put in can't win positions all around, it seems.  One part angry he's not still Colbert Report Stephen. Another angry every time it seems like he IS. One group saying he bores them as is, and another eschewing him because they say they prefer "comfort TV" at that time of day. And then there are those who resent every Hollywood guest he has, while others just feel like that's all they want to see instead of egghead inventors, authors and politicians.

  • Love 4

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...