Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Nightly Show: Season One Talk


Recommended Posts

The early part of the episode, with the Texas pool party story, was good.  The rest, eh.

 

Again, LW seems to shine on these race relation issues.

 

I've been saying it from the beginning. (But will anyone listen? Grrr!) This show should have established itself from the outset as the one where you go, "Hey, honey, something racial happened in the news again today, I wonder what Larry Wilmore will have to say about it." So obvious. But nooooo.

  • Love 2

I've done a little reading on why women get involved with murderers/convicts, and it's actually pretty interesting. The women who do tend to fall into a very specific category: they're usually raised in a very strict household, with strongly enforced gender codes, and their fathers either control their early dating lives or if absent, loom very large in the imagination of the household as dominant figures. By taking up with convicts, these women are at once rebelling against the strictures of their youth while reinforcing their affinity for alpha-male types (the kind of guy who kills to get what he wants). When the Manson-getting-married story first surfaced, I remember sharing this info with friends, and not a day later saw reporting on the woman confirming all of those tropes. I'd be interested to know if the woman assisting the jailbreakers fits the pattern.

  • Love 1

Susie Essman always cracks me up. All the time. I really liked the Doctor on the panel, but I don't think the topic was that great for the show. I think they could have stuck with the topic of choosing the last name when you get married. I think it's an interesting topic because I think its relevance is way outdated, but clearly, for a lot of people it's not. 

  • Love 1

I have to agree with Susie Essman that maybe there are other non-physical reasons a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband.  To wit, emotional reasons, as in, she's essentially ignored until the husband wants sex.  Maybe if husbands paid more attention to their wives, talked to them, treated them nicer, took them out now and again (w/o the kids), helped out around the house without complaining, the wife would want to have sex more.  Seriously, I bet flowers would cause more sexual encounters than this drug.

 

Seriously, the Texas girl deserved to be assaulted and sat on by a police officer just because she didn't leave quick enough when she was doing nothing wrong?

 

I'm glad women no longer have to take their husband's name.  I probably would not have done it, had it been more acceptable back when I got married, for many  of the reasons the doctor stated.  It was a pain to change my name with the government and in my work.  Plus everytime I have to submit some sort of identification documentation to the government (such as when my husband applied for his citizenship), I have to gather all my prior marriage and divorce documents to prove all my name changes.  And I remember that during a lot of the debate over voter ID laws that a lot of women had the same problem, having to track down documentation of name changes from birth certificate, marriage license, divorce papers, court orders on name changes, etc.  If we never have to change our names, most of these problems are solved.

And I remember that during a lot of the debate over voter ID laws that a lot of women had the same problem, having to track down documentation of name changes from birth certificate, marriage license, divorce papers, court orders on name changes, etc.  If we never have to change our names, most of these problems are solved.

 

Name changing is not the problem with Voter ID laws; it's the laws themselves that screw everybody.  But I take your larger point that name changing can be more trouble than it's worth, trouble that falls almost entirely on women, who are just supposed to suck it up, or put up with the 'but you haven't taken my naaaaaaaame' whining at home.

  • Love 3

I loved the discussion on the name changes. My husband and I got married about six weeks ago. I wanted us to have the same last name, but wasn't willing to totally give up my maiden name. We decided to both hyphenate our last names, so we've been going through the whole name change debacle. I put his last name first, mainly because I wanted to jump up in alphabetical order (went from W to B), so that's been another thing we've had to explain. It's really just a giant hassle. 

  • Love 3
(edited)

I know for me I hate having to explain why the degrees and licenses on my wall all have different last names (maiden name, first marriage name, second marriage name) or that its obvious to anyone immediately that I've been divorced, when its really none of their business.  I would definitely recommend for any woman who is going into a profession with similar issues, just to stick with their maiden name.

Edited by Hanahope

The show does well when it gets more experimental, like the gang sit down at the diner or this soul food sit down.

 

Who was that rapper on the panel? I thought he was really good. Actually, I thought the topic was good too.There's no way an unmarried candidate gets elected president in this country. It's not going to happen. Too easy to campaign against. Graham would make a terrible president, but being unmarried doesn't have anything to do with it. The point that there's something wrong with you, if you're not married by a certain age was spot on imo. Larry made a good point, 'you're damaged or people think you're gay.' Which is a terribly false equivalence. 

 

I don't think Graham is seriously running for president anyway. For most of these candidates it's about expanding their brand. 

(edited)

I know it's not his fault, but when TDS covers a topic and then Larry does, it strikes me as tired. I guess Trump is comedy gold and his speech was too tempting not to include. We seem to be in near-agreement here though that the show is better when he covers more narrowly focused and not a newsy topics. They could have done a ton with Mexico legalizing marriage equality versus what's wrong with the USA not.

 

I've seen Lewis Black as a guest frequently over the last month or so, and he never fails to deliver. Jokes aside, the point about satire and reality being blurred was spot on. If you had someone do a Trump impression and a skit where he's announcing he's going to run for president, you could not write a better monologue than what Trump pulled off in real, actual life. 

Edited by ganesh

I know it's not his fault, but when TDS covers a topic and then Larry does, it strikes me as tired.

 

It's not like I want to jump all over TNS, but it kind of is their fault. I remember reading how The Coilbert Report always got a rundown of what TDS was doing that night, so as to make sure they didn't cover the same ground. (Or at least didn't cover it the same way.) It wasn't "fair"--neither show "owned" the news that happened that day, so it's not like TDS had more of a right to it--but The Colbert Report dealt with the reality that their show came after TDS, not before, and that their show would look tired if they trod the same turf.

There were plenty of times that TDS and TCR covered the same topic, sometimes in similar ways. There may have been some coordination at one point, but I don't think that was the case all along. Back on Television Without Pity "whose take was funnier, Jon's or Stephen's" was an occasional point of discussion.

Certain news stories, like Rachel Dolezal and Donald Trump's campaign, are too big (and too funny) to ignore, I think. Personally, I feel like Jon Stewart owns the Trump-is-comedy-gold franchise, but I don't blame Larry and his writers (and panel) for taking a whack at it.

  • Love 3

Killer Mike is a good panelist. This is the second panel I've seen him on; he's been on point both times.

 

ITA. I happen to see him on the Bill Maher show a week or so back. I was glad to see him again.

 

Incognegro! My friends and I have been saying that for years but not to cover a situation like Rachel Dolezal's. "Who brings pizza rolls to a Juneteenth cookout?" had the hubby and I dying. I thought the one at B.E.T. was going to get called out for being incognegro during that part of the show.

 

Donald Trump is a straight up a-hole. Yes! He is a gift from the comedy gods. I look forward to Jon's and Larry's take on his nonsense.

Women's soccer is quite exciting. I'm really glad all the World Cup matches are on tv. They play with just as much technical quality and pride as the men. The top women's college basketball teams actually are exciting to watch. The problem is I don't think there's enough talent at the college level to make a good pro women's basketball or soccer product. Women's tennis has always been reasonably popular. College softball is actually entertaining too. 

 

ESPN Sportscenter can go pound sand. They shouldn't the arbiters of what people should like or not. 

 

This was a good topic for the show. I wish the panel was actually longer. 

  • Love 2

I think Larry did an excellent job with the Charleston shooting. I was curious how he was going to approach it. Where Jon channeled frustration and hopelessness, Larry did a good job of "keeping it 100" and allowing for a smattering of gallows humor. This is the first time I've wanted a panel to be longer although I kept wincing at the language they used in front of the minister. It's in my DNA not to swear in front of clergy.

  • Love 5

My theory about why women's sports are not as popular as men's is that girls are not raised to aspire to be like professional athletes, the way boys are. A friend of mine (female) said that when she would go to the gym to work out, other women would come up to her all the time and say they were afraid to work out too much because they didn't want to look too muscular. So, if women are afraid to be like the athletes in the pro leagues, their enthusiasm will be less than that of men cheering on the male leagues. And the men who love sports are probably having the same reaction. The lesbians I know tend to either not care about sports at all, or they like women's sports, but lesbians are the minority population that likes strong women. Maybe there are straight men who think women athletes are sexy, but there are a lot of other avenues that cater to men who want to look at women's bodies and the favored look for females is not usually the jock, anyway. Generally speaking, strong men are admired and strong women are threatening or at least somewhat marginal and a little weird.

 

I can't even talk about Charleston. I'm glad they decided to stop trying to be funny and just talk in a real way. Maybe they should do that more often, actually. But especially right now, there really wasn't another way to play it and I'm glad they didn't balk.

I have to agree with everyone about how well Larry handled Charleston. In fact I think I preferred it to Jon. I do wish that whoever was in charge of the audience had told them this was going to be a little different than usual and asked them to tone down the chanting and hollering at the top of the show. It kind of detracted from the tone.

  • Love 1

I have to agree with everyone about how well Larry handled Charleston. In fact I think I preferred it to Jon. I do wish that whoever was in charge of the audience had told them this was going to be a little different than usual and asked them to tone down the chanting and hollering at the top of the show. It kind of detracted from the tone.

 

I kind of agree and yet hearing them chant "Lar-ry, Lar-ry, Lar-ry" kind of felt right to me because this was his first show after a national tragedy and it fit the fact that he came out swinging.

  • Love 1

I've been wondering why somebody with access to a cherry picker and a bolt-cutter hasn't  taken down the SC rebel flag. That seems a good civil disobedience project to me. So I'm glad Larry agrees with me. Why are we always* so careful about the tender fee-fees of the wingnuts and racists that we can't just do the freaking right thing? By the time the Leg meets and debates, public outcry will have moved on, and the likelihood of nothing being done increases.

 

*Even US Grant was careful about Lee et al's fee-fees. It's one thing to treat the vanquished with some modicum of respect; it seems to me another to treat their symbols likewise.

  • Love 2

Oh, I think that's totally the point, in hindsight. The governor comes out fairly quickly and calls for the flag to come down, knowing full well it's not as simple as signing an executive order and it's most likely a months long process. So, yeah, it's going to die down, and everyone will forget about it. I bet though the presidential candidates will want this issue put to bed by the time the debates and primaries rolls around.

 

I think Obama using the n word was a good topic for the show. The CBS news woman was good. 

 

I like how kind of stupid the audience is. They were all surprised that it took 2/3 of the legislature to take the flag. Hey, guys, you can watch what we call "the news." 

Gee, an old white guy like Bill-O doesn't believe America is racist at all.  Shocking.  Old white guys were probably saying the same thing during Jim Crow.

 

And to that woman on panel who doesn't think institutional racism exists .. uh, really?  Did she read the DoJ Ferguson report?  (answering my own question as well -- probably not.)  And hasn't she been watching the news (you know, acutal news channels -- not her on Fox News network)?  Blacks certainly have been treated differently by police than white people have.  Guy sells cigarettes outside of a store.  He gets confronted by a regiment of police officers and is strangled to death.  Murdered. 

 

White guy who kills (ok, allegedly...kinda sorta) peaceful worshippers in a church get escorted by police to a Burger King for a snack.    Yep, no difference there!

  • Love 1
(edited)
Badass indeed. What a wonderful caper that was. Very impressive how she scooted up and down that poll and was still respectful to the flag when many people would have just burned it or cut it to shreds or something. Surely SC won't have the gall to put it back up.

 

Unfortunately, the flag was put back up 45 minutes after it came down.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/27/south-carolina-confederate-flag-remove-activist-ferguson-action/29383973/

Edited by ottoDbusdriver

Well it looks like you were right, trow125. Larry giving full support for Bree Newsome justifies how amazing she is and how bad South Carolina's reputation is looking since they aren't discussing flag removal.

 

Now, considering that I've been keeping a close eye on Jonny-bun's show with the final weeks drawing near, I was very interested how both TDS and TNS would handle the overall coverage of the Same-Sex Marriage Ruling. While I do think Jonny-bun is taking a victory run picking out Scalia and all the conservatives whining about the end of democracy (and the cute Scalia cartoon), props to Larry for at least giving the Main Story a quintessential treatment, with all the Rainbow Pride. I would have liked to see Jonny-bun wave the Rainbow flag just like Ollie-Scone did during his hosting term, but alas, you can't have everything (not even a extra run for Jonny-bun).

 

And congrats, Jake Tapper, for making it on both shows thanks to your interview with Trump, further proving just how idiotic he is for running. Seriously, he almost ran in 2012, or to go way back, 1999. Just jibber-jab long enough until Jonny-bun retires, von Clownstick.

 

Now if you need me, I'm gonna tweet Larry and ask if he's got any leftover champagne so I can guzzle my joy. 

  • Love 1

Last night's show was really good. I think the opening segment might have been better than TDS's and the panel was strong too. It seems this show is at it's best when Larry has a strong personal investment in the story being covered. I hope they realize that and don't feel compelled to cover the "story of the day" when Larry doesn't have any particular connection to it.

  • Love 1

I think it was Guy who said that. He can be very funny, he's often very thoughtful, too. I liked what he had to say about Trevor Noah's tweets.

 

I wish Comedy Central's Standards & Practices department had their shit together enough (or was it the other way around?) to come up with a song that would be cleared. It was weird having a song bleeped and I had a hard time following it.

 

In general I like Jordan and he had a great comment in Monday's panel, but it's odd that they keep having panels with two people who have a personal connection to the issue being discussed and a Nightly Show staffer who is on the sidelines of the issue trying to find something to say.

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