The Nightly Show: Season One Talk

[formerlyfreedom]

A place to discuss particular episodes, arcs and moments from The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore's run. Please remember this isn't a complete catch-all topic -- check out the forum for other topics and show-related talk.

[trow125]

Can we put upcoming panelist info here? Comedy Central just issued a press release announcing who's going to be on Monday's show...

 

NEW YORK, January 16, 2015 - Senator Cory Booker, Talib Kweli and Bill Burr will get a taste of extra nightlyness when they appear as the inaugural panel during the debut episode of Comedy Central's "The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore" on Monday, January 19 at 11:30 p.m. ET/PT. Other scheduled "Nightly Show" panelists for the month of January include Amy Holmes, John Leguizamo, Jon Lovett, Kathleen Madigan, Soledad O'Brien, David Remnick, Frank Rich, Ilyasah Shabazz, Matt Taibbi, Baratunde Thurston and Ali Wentworth.

[formerlyfreedom]

Can we put upcoming panelist info here? Comedy Central just issued a press release announcing who's going to be on Monday's show...

 

Sure can, @trow125! If it gets busy, you can break it out like you do for The Daily Show, but we'll start in here at least, to see what kind of traffic the forum gets.

 

Thanks!

[attica]

Wow: Panels! With funny people! This looks like fun, right?

[dubbel zout]

I'm not going to stay up to watch it—it's just too late for me—but I've got it on the DVR for at least the first week. I'm really looking forward to see what Larry does. 

[Skyfall]

So far so good!

[StatMom]

I wish Larry would talk a little slower. I feel like I miss a word or two per sentence.

[calliope1975]

It was a bit rocky, but I think it has potential to be really good. I like The 100 though. 

[ottoDbusdriver]

I like Larry's backdrop -- reminds me of the map by the Cartographers for Social Equality on the 'The West Wing', except that Larry's map, while not modified from a standard map, is inverted both vertically and horizontally.

[formerlyfreedom]

I think this was a pretty great start to the show - there were a few hiccups, but I'm really liking what they're doing. I will be staying up for this for at least a couple of weeks....

[BrokenRemote]

I quite enjoyed it. I'm re-watching now because I missed the first two minutes. I think it's got a good balance of humor and seriousness, much like The Daily Show. Excited to see them build off this good start!

[possibilities]

I had high hopes for this, but it was a huge disappointment-- too glib. I guess I thought they would maybe fill the hole left by Totally Biased, but they were about 1/10 th as funny, insightful, or interesting as that show.

 

Also, did anyone else notice how when the one female panelist started to make a serious point about white on white vs white on other people violence, they literally turned away from her and acted like she hadn't spoken? All the males got full attention when they spoke, and at least polite laughter after they made their point.

 

I know it's just the first show, but they've had lots of time to prepare it, and both Totally Biased and The Colbert Report were great right out of the gate, so no excuses. I'm tired of this weak watered down stuff. I don't need to see The Talk on late night with a splash of color. I want to see some real writing and real analysis and creative humor, not lazy, off the cuff bland stuff.

 

I don't know what kind of pressure they are getting from the network, but it seemed to me that Wilmore was very toned down and trying really hard to aw shucks his way through without offending anyone. Hey! Comedy Central! If you are neutering your host, knock it off! There is more cutting edge comedy on the stand up specials they air than what we saw tonight on a supposedly cutting edge featured show.

 

I know they are probably worried they won't get viewers if they are too confrontational, but do they have to be dull?

[trow125]

Also, did anyone else notice how when the one female panelist started to make a serious point about white on white vs white on other people violence, they literally turned away from her and acted like she hadn't spoken? All the males got full attention when they spoke, and at least polite laughter after they made their point.

 

Ha, yeah, I noticed that too and hope future panels will have more women participating. I'm another huge "Totally Biased" fan so I suppose in an ideal world, "TNS" would have a little more of that show's edge, but I've enjoyed Larry's segments on "TDS" so much that I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and continue to watch. Plus seeing the old set kind of made me miss Colbert all over again.

[BkWurm1]

 I missed the first half of the show (will catch the rerun and now have my DVR set for the future) but what I did notice is they were having problems with the camera cutting to the right person on time and also for that person to be looking actually at the camera.  It sounds like a little thing but it happened several time with the female panelist to the point where it did add to the feeling that she was getting ignored more than was actually happening.  The black comedian across from her I think actually suffered the most from lack of input into the conversation. 

 

I liked the 100 and I liked the discussion but they don't have time to have huge general wandering discussions.  They need to tighten up their choice of topics.

 

Beyond that Wilmore seemed great, at ease and in control.  I recently watched some really old Colbert Report clips and they weren't nearly as perfect as I remembered them.  It took a while to get the exact look and feel down to the segments (and they started with the bonus of an already established voice)  so I expect this show to grow into itself as it progresses.   

[The Luvly Junkie]

... TOSS!! TOSS!! ( fangirl squeeeeeeal~)

(ahem) Now that I've let that aside, I can only give my opinion about the first segment since my cable doesn't stink in' air in Eastern Standard Time. From what I've seen, I thought Larry did okay. In his position it seems nerve-wracking for his first night, but like trow125, I'll stick around and see what else he has in store. I guess the TNS staff wanted to save the edge once the show (and Larry) is nicely adjusted. For subjects, I was hoping SOMEONE would give their opinion about the Oscars snub. Check. Al Sharpton? Check. Oprah? No brainer!!

[Qoass]

If Cory Booker was on every night I might be more likely to watch.

[peeayebee]

ETA:  I think they may have re-edited for the West Coast feed because I didn't notice any problems with cameras on the right person or any problem regarding the female guest's responses or face on camera situation.  It all seemed perfectly fine and normal to me.  

I'm on the West Coast, and I noticed the directing boo-boo's. When the woman was first introduced, she had her back to the camera as she waved to the audience. I guess the director couldn't help that. I think there might have been another cut that seemed awkward. But not a lot.

 

I was disappointed in this debut, but since it's just starting I'll be patient. One change I hope they'll make is cut down on the panelists/guests. I don't want to hear 3-second responses to questions. I also didn't like the 100 bit. It was like the McLaughlin Group (as I remember it). Also, the mix of joking around and being serious was awkward. I'm not sure how that can be avoided when you have several people talking about something, but maybe that'll come in time as people understand the tone of the show. 

 

I don't really find much to distinguish this show from others. But I'm hoping they find what they want to be and what works for them.

 

I didn't care for the woman (writer?) at all.

 

I think I'll like Larry answering the Keep It 100 question at the end.

 

I liked his line about Al Sharpton not being Black Batman.

[kennyab]

I thought it was good for a first episode and am looking forward to me. Of course they're going to have growing pains, that's completely normal. Interviewing and moderating are learned skills, and I think that Larry started off strong enough that he'll only get better with time. It was an odd bit when Shenaz brought up the murder statistic, but it also felt like she just kind of shoehorned it into the conversation in a fairly inorganic way, so I don't think it's as much as the guys ignoring her as the realities of trying to halt the momentum of the existing conversation. I would like, however, for there to be more than the token female woman on the panel. And I'd absolutely love for Jessica Williams to come on for an episode.

 

Based solely on this episode, the biggest change I'd like to see would be cutting down the opening monologue and spending more time with the panel. With only thirty minutes, there's not a whole lot of time to let the group discussion breathe, and there are enough other people making all of the jokes about current events. I'm more interested in seeing a more diverse panel than we get on other shows without Bill Maher's smugness.

[dusang]

Also, did anyone else notice how when the one female panelist started to make a serious point about white on white vs white on other people violence, they literally turned away from her and acted like she hadn't spoken? All the males got full attention when they spoke, and at least polite laughter after they made their point.

 

I watched after reading your comment, so was primed for this moment.  The problem I had with it is that she clearly misstated the statistics, thus making further discussion very awkward -- I'm pretty sure the way she quoted the stat was "[90-something]% of black people kill black people and [80-something]% of white people kill white people" which is actually saying that 90-something% of black people and 80-something% of white people are murderers, which is not the stat.  I suspect the stat is supposed to read that of black people who are murdered, 90-something% of them are killed by black people and of white people who are murdered, 80-something% of them are killed by white people.  Furthermore, I take issue with both of those stats because that would (presumably) be based on the results of the justice system, which we know to be biased and inaccurate (and would naturally exclude the stats around police killings, justified or "justified"). Also, I would question of the margin of error since such a huge number of murder cases are unsolved.

Edited January 20, 2015 by dusang

[possibilities]

I like Cory Booker, but I was glad they didn't accept his saying he doesn't want to be president. That was such a politician answer, and such total bullshit. The teabags are problematic, though, because I know they were going for "That's weak tea," but in the era of the nouveau tea party (not to mention the "teabagging" jokes that follow it around), I think they need a better symbol.

 

I will watch in hopes it gets better.

[ganesh]

I'd drop the panel to three. Real Time only has 3 and that's an hour. I don't think 4 plus the host is good for a 12 minute segment. I think the topics should be more focused. This was entertaining though.

[trow125]

The teabags are problematic, though, because I know they were going for "That's weak tea," but in the era of the nouveau tea party (not to mention the "teabagging" jokes that follow it around), I think they need a better symbol.

 

I paused the DVR when Larry was holding up the tea bags and they appear to be branded with a "Nightly Show" tag!!! As a diehard tea drinker, I would love to get a "TNS" custom tea bag.

 

Tonight's panel guests, according to the show's Twitter feed, are Kathleen Madigan, Keith Robinson, Baratunde Thurston and Jamilah Lemieux.

[Skyfall]

Also, did anyone else notice how when the one female panelist started to make a serious point about white on white vs white on other people violence, they literally turned away from her and acted like she hadn't spoken? All the males got full attention when they spoke, and at least polite laughter after they made their point.

Likely a symptom of heavy editing and hopfully CC will post th extended panel conversations online. Also to a point yo made from the removed part, they only had a week's worth of test runs so not as much time as you may think.

[solotrek]

Are we going to break it up into weekly forums like we do for TDS? Or are we going to discuss all episodes here?

[Skyfall]

(and would naturally exclude the stats around police killings, justified or "justified").

Does Raylean Givens count? ;)

Are we going to break it up into weekly forums like we do for TDS? Or are we going to discuss all episodes here?

Read first few posts, if this is active enough it'll be broken up. So basically if this hits 3 pages in a week. Edited January 20, 2015 by Skyfall

[dusang]

Does Raylean Givens count? ;)

 

He's an outlier -- being one trigger-happy mofo.

[Skyfall]

He's an outlier -- being one trigger-happy mofo.

It was justified.

[ABay]

The first episode was a let down. I hope the show gets sharper because I really want to like it.

[cattykit]

Bored out of my mind in the first three minutes.  But I never thought LW was funny on TDS, either.  I don't expect to be back.

[purist]

I thought the show as a bit of a mess. Larry's opening monologue was OK, but I was distracted by how many times he licked his lips (couldn't see anything else after a while). The panel was terrible - Cory Booker and Talib Kweli were trying to be serious, Bill Burr and Larry were trying to be funny, and Shenaz Treasury (what a great name!) was fidgety and nervous and over-enthusiastic. I was uncomfortable with the way the discussion moved from deadly serious to gags. I think I either want to see a serious argument about the issue, or a gag-heavy examination à la The Daily Show. This mix just didn't sit right for me. The 100 and the tea bags? Meh.

[heebiejeebie]

 

I'm on the West Coast, and I noticed the directing boo-boo's. When the woman was first introduced, she had her back to the camera as she waved to the audience. I guess the director couldn't help that. I think there might have been another cut that seemed awkward. But not a lot.

 

 

I'm not sure if that was a directing problem or a set design one.  Or both.  In either case I thought it was jarring since it happened with someone who is a going to be a regular  It's not huge but it seemed like something they should have worked out before the first airing.

 

I love Larry.  I like his approach in a segment.  I'm just not sure it will hold up night after night.  Plus I felt like his segment tried to be both the singular themed one that he did on TDS and what the TDS usually does in the opener.  But it also skewed a bit like Colbert did in covering a sequence of related but still different current events of the day.  And here it just ended a bit jumbled.

 

I'm not sure I like the panel notion here.  Panels are hard and depend on a smooth host to make sure it works and even than relies on the members to not suck the air out of the room or get off topic in a way that is boring.  I was not enthralled last night at all with the panel.  I do like the 100.   And I loved that Larry wasn't buying Booker at all.  There are things I like about Booker, but at the end of the day I get a strong whiff of politics about him.  Much much stronger than I ever did, with say, Obama or Edwards right before they ran for the first time.  Too much of a "who, me? aww shucks" bit to ring true.  Sure I'd take him over Hillary any day.  I'm just not willing to gush or giggle over him. 

 

I never thought The CR was smooth out the gate.  And even when it found its stride initially, I wasn't that big of a fan of the show as a whole.  It was only when TDS seemed to cede devoting the whole show to a specific new story or meme to TCR that I felt the show came into its own (and by that I mean TDS seemed to only devote real insight to issues that either outraged or were so pervasive -- too many times I saw their initial take on an issue as "oh the media paying attention to that is just silly *giggle*" whereas TCR hunkered down and looked at things a bit tougher and more thorough right out the gate -- the so called IRS scandal, bridgegate to name two off the top of my head). 

 

So I'm definitely going to give it a chance to find itself.  And in many ways TDS has grown so much better than when Jon took over and that has definitely been thanks to election coverage.  So I think starting in 2015 is a good place for the show to expand and evolve as 2016 gets closer and closer and the idiocy already starts.  Oh course it could falter even if eve election madness initially helps the show.  But I think the social political landscape being so active as it will can only help the show find what kind of voice it and Larry give.

 

I do like a show that can be a commentary on this area, focus perhaps a bit more toward entertainment and avoid the pimping product placement interview that often ends up feeling tacked on or simply out of place entirely.  I get that TDS has become a "get" and TCR did too,  But in character Colbert was always a much better interviewer than Jon was or ever will be.  Larry is a good conversationalist it seems but I would be glad to take a bland panel over the interview that is for sure.

[whirlingdervish]

On the premiere night, I thought that the woman was largely sidelined not because she was a woman, but because she was a weak panelist.  She really bungled her stat (really? 93-94% of black people kill other black people? Are you sure that's what you mean?), and I think glossing over that and moving on was really the only way to handle that if Larry wasn't going to straight up call her out on that.  I've only seen the one episode so far, but I'd bet my bippy that Kathleen Madigan and Soledad O'Brien ain't getting ignored. 

[Elais]

The show didn't blow me out of the water, but I would have been surprised if it did in the first episode.  

 

They didn't have much focus on the woman, but she didn't have much to say, either.  I don't think they ignored her at the expense of any of the others.  It also might be harder for a woman to speak up when all the other panelists are male.

 

I do think the 100 part was the best bit, followed by the monologue and the panels.  I think they need to keep the panel number small, four including Larry was too many for such a short time frame.  

[heebiejeebie]

Not sure how it will fit as a whole.  But in specific, the panel discussion about Cosby, and the show as whole focused on Cosby was well done for only the second show out the gate. 

[marceline]

I think this show is going to be good once it works out the kinks. I'm still trying to figure out what the role of the contributors is supposed to be. 

 

I loved how Larry started out the show not even pretending to be unbiased. He put his opinion out there so everyone knew where he stood. I agree with reducing the panel to three. That gives more time for real conversation.

[sadiegirl]

I think the second episode was better, so I think it just needs some time to iron out the kinks. Still don't like the table and they definitely need fewer people on the panel.

[peeayebee]

I also thought the second show was better. It'll be interesting to see how they continue to tweak things.

[Sharpie66]

I'm loving the "Keep It 100" bit. That's really fun.

[Qoass]

I'm sure this show will vary in quality from episode to episode based on topic and guests but Kathleen Madigan is my new hero!  She was able to make some excellent points in a hilarious way.

[kennyab]

I also thought this second episode was much stronger. I don't mind the 100 bit, but I'd gladly sacrifice to just keep the group discussion going. And while I'm glad there was more than one woman on the panel, I hope they don't only do that when discussing women's issues (and that they don't only have gay panelists when discussing gay issues, Muslims when discussing Muslim issues, etc).

[hendersonrocks]

I didn't care for the woman (writer?) at all.

 

Me either, and then I had a baby shame spiral about it (was I being too hard on her? was the show setting her up to fail? am I a crappy feminist? blah blah) and basically just came back to feeling like she did not seem quite ready for prime time, so to speak. Her answer about what side of the street she'd walk on, in particular, grated the shit out of me and made me feel like she was there to play a stereotypical airhead role while the guys got to BE REAL.

 

All in all, I thought it was an okay start and I'm interested to check it out and see what kind of a rhythm they get into. I hated The Colbert Report (bracing for eggs & assorted produce), so at least I have some hope with this one. And I too hope Larry can find a way to cut the lip licking by like two-thirds!

[Hanahope]

I'm enjoying the show, thought the second episode was a bit better than the first.  Perhaps having some of the episodes, at least, stick to one main topic is a good thing.  I expect tonight's show will try to do the same, with the SOTU speech, although that has many topics in it.

 

I also agree that the panel seems a bit too large for a short show.  Either go down to 2 or 3 (if 3, maybe reconfigure the desk a bit, more like BM's).

[trow125]

I think the second episode was much better. Anyone who thought Larry was going to be all "on the one hand, on the other hand" found out quickly that "TNS" is not gonna bring the false equivalency. He stated his bias in the first 30 seconds of the show. But I agree that the panel NEEDS to shrink -- even Bill Maher only has 3 panelists participating during most of his hour long show, and God knows there's still too much crosstalk. Baratunde Thurston, who is hilarious and spot-on about so many things, got the short shrift last night. He should have been placed on a different panel (and hopefully he'll be back soon).

 

Edited to add tonight's guests: Jon Lovett, David Remnick, Amy Holmes, and Godfrey

Edited January 21, 2015 by trow125

[Jaded Sapphire]

Concurring with the shrink the panel, one topic per episode ideas. This was definitely a more solid episode than the first.

 

Anybody remember Keith Robinson from the 'first' topical show to follow TDS, Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn? I was just thinking I hadn't seen him since then. I could've done with not seeing him now.

[Brandi Maxxxx]

I thought both episodes were of similar quality. There's room for improvement but I think they've struck the right balance between comedy and serious discussion.

[Kaoteek]

Eh, two episodes in, I don't think this show will really be for me. I don't really know why, but I'm not really laughing, I don't really care much for the way the show's formatted, and those panels are, to be honest, quite a turn off for me (especially with that "this is the people's court, here, and we're using common sense" attitude). I like Wilmore, but I think I'll pass if, in a week or so, it's still the same thing...

Edited January 22, 2015 by Kaoteek

[peeayebee]

Honestly, I'm not enthralled with the show yet. I'm going to continue to watch for a week or two to see if it grabs me.

[Hooper]

Larry was my favorite contributor on TDS, so I really really want him to succeed here.  So far, the show doesn't grab me, but I'm wiling to give it a few weeks to find its way.   I did liked the second episode better than the first, but in both I felt like Larry was trying too hard in the opening segments.  What I like so much about him on TDS is his dry back and forth with Jon, but I'm not loving him attempting to do essentially a stand up bit at the beginning of the show.   Actually, I never thought Stephen was particularly great at stand up comedy either.  Even his famous Correspondent's Dinner gig was incredibly ballsy and biting satire, but I don't think I actually laughed all that much when I watched it on Youtube.  I think that Larry is similar in that he is funnier playing a character than he is delivering a series of one-liners.   

I thought the panel was better last night, but agree with the majority that it needs to be trimmed back to three people.  And, panels are really tricky for both comedy and for serious discussion - they are going to be heavily dependent on the topic, and having just the right mix of panelists.  It's hard enough to deliver consistently entertaining interviews of individuals; getting the right mix of three or four people is a risky move.   But I love Larry, so I hope it works.

[fastiller]

... baby shame spiral ...

... is so the name of my next (non-existent) band.

[LADreamr]

I'm enjoying the show and looking forward to its evolution. But I've loved Kathleen Madigan for the longest time and she is always very straight forward and has no need to say anything but what she really thinks, so I think giving her weak tea was really weak tea. The guy who got showered in it, however, definitely had it coming. I hope this is his last appearance.