The Nightly Show: Season One Talk

[Blue Castle]

I thought the second episode was much better than the first and I think this show has a lot of potential.  I don't really enjoy the 100 (too bit-ty for my taste) and I agree that limiting the panel to three people and one discussion would make that half of the show better.  I really liked the writer from Ebony Magazine (blanking on her name) and I thought she made a lot of good points and I appreciated her personal story in regards to Cosby (being inspired to go to Howard because of him, but then being severely let down by him)--she was my favorite panelist last night, actually.

[retrograde]

I thought tonight was the first time the Keep it 100 bit worked well. I think it works so long as the questions are revealing and the panelists feel a sufficient amount of pressure to answer honestly and succinctly. The people who do answer honestly get respect, so the more candid one panelist is, the more pressure the others are under to do so as well. If he can get it to the point where answering honestly and controversially is the norm and weaseling out is really frowned upon, I think it could be a good forum to force some honesty out of politicians in the future. 

Edited January 22, 2015 by retrograde

[ruby24]

I don't know how Amy Holmes can live with herself, honestly. Ick. I can't understand minority or female republicans at all.

[The Luvly Junkie]

I don't know how Amy Holmes can live with herself, honestly. Ick. I can't understand minority or female republicans at all.

        Yea, I applaud her for "keeping it 100", but I don't know if that candidness was appealing enough to earn that sticker. I mean, it's equal pay for women, after all. Either she, as a conservative, would stand by the 'better' possibilities to obtaining equal pay, or she's been managing on her own with her pay. I don't blame Larry for not following up with a "Why?" question, but remembering her position, that would sound redundant to repeat. Female republicans confuse me, too.

 

         I think tonight's panel fumed more heat than the previous two. Also, it sounds like the audience wants to reminisce on the 11:30 chanting nostalgia. Larry definitely looks flattered at the beginning of the show. 

[possibilities]

This show is still not working for me. It's like they've chosen the worst possible format for saying anything actually interesting-- small talk, rushed, with too many people participating.

 

It looks to me like Comedy Central didn't really have any interest in the show, gave them no budget, and so there's no writing going into it. They're just packing the studio with a random assortment of people, and asking them to compete for airtime, saying little.

 

I also think the table is bizarrely ugly and oversized for the group.

 

It reminds me of all the daytime group chat shows that I don't watch, or the "political roundtable" shows I also don't watch, because the clamor to content ratio is too high.

[Queena]

I'm really enjoying this show. I find Larry to be very funny. I watch TDS, but not on a regular basis (changing that now), so I was familiar with him. I don't stay up to watch it, but I do watch it and TDS each morning.

Great show imo.

[LADreamr]

I want this show to do well, and to be good, but the fact that no one can finish a thought without everyone talking over them is really annoying. And it seems like Keep it 100 is really "answer how we think you should." Taking a moment to give a thoughtful, honest answer does not equal lying. Amy Holmes always bugs.

[peeayebee]

I don't know Amy Holmes. I actually thought the 100 question she got was a softball. Not that I agree, but there was no surprise or risk in her saying that she wouldn't applaud for the equal pay line. I would have preferred if Larry asked a question like, "If Obama had said that he loved his family and his country, and all the Democrats applauded, would have have silently sat on your butt?"

 

When I saw that Jon Lovett was going to be a panelist, of course I thought of SNL's Jon Lovett. I know about this Lovett, but I still jumped to that conclusion.

 

I didn't know Godfrey but he cracked me up.

 

I agree with LADreamr that it's frustrating that people aren't allowed to finish their thoughts. Cutting the panel down to three would help. 

[lovinbob]

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?

I was at the taping of the first Colbert. It was NOT perfect from the get-go by any stretch. Of course that's a matter of perspective, but I thought Colbert showed flashes of brilliance while having some major clunky moments early out. Same with Conan O'Brien, when he replaced Letterman.

 

And I missed the first show, so I can't speak to that, but Tuesday night was sharp as hell and anything but dull. I am thrilled to see Larry do his thing, and to hear from a panel of voices I haven't heard before. While I feel like I'm getting a new perspective, I also felt like I was hearing from a grown-up.

 

Also, on a shallow note, I'd like to dive into Larry's dimples!

[attica]

I didn't know Godfrey but he cracked me up.

 

I saw him do a stand-up set at a club once a bunch of years ago, and I still remember how much my abs and cheeks hurt the next day from laughing. He slayed. I keep hoping he'll get a break that showcases his talent, but it really hasn't happened yet.

[futurechemist]

When I saw that Jon Lovett was going to be a panelist, of course I thought of SNL's Jon Lovett. I know about this Lovett, but I still jumped to that conclusion.

Did you mean SNL actor Jon Lovitz?

 

For the most part I like the show, except for the middle panel segment.  I like Larry Wilmore's comedy style, and I like the "Keeping it 100" idea (and look forward to when he doesn't have to give the same speech explaining what it is every time).  But I'm a shy person, and in loud, crowded situations I start to shut down.  So when I see and hear 5 people shouting over each other, I just go blank and don't enjoy it.

[ganesh]

I don't know how Amy Holmes can live with herself, honestly. Ick. I can't understand minority or female republicans at all.

 

She wasn't the right fit for the show. She was totally in "pundit mode." So, your president wants to pass laws/executive actions for equal pay and you don't clap? This underscores the last 6 years perfectly. *Anything* Obama is for is bad. 

 

The real question isn't "would you clap" because you know she wouldn't. It's "is there anything Obama is for that you actually support"?

[peeayebee]

Did you mean SNL actor Jon Lovitz?

DOH! I guess I did a mashup of Jon Lovitz and Lyle Lovett.

[sadiegirl]

Now I want to see Godfrey live. I like him but unfortunately he doesn't have any shows coming up.

I thought this episode was better, so they are definitely improving. But, yeah, how can you be a woman and hopefully supporter of women's rights and not clap, no matter who is saying 'equal pay for equal work'.

[dusang]

I just watched.  Larry's Ki100 to Godfrey, if, prior to the 2008 vote, he had witnessed Obama murdering a man would Godfrey have still voted for Obama, is actually upsetting me -- I had to pause for a minute to remember who he was running against in 2008 and when I remembered it was McCain/Palin the very thought or suggestion that there would be a reason to put them in the White House instead of Obama... my heart is racing.  I'm like, distraught over a theoretical, past tense issue.  Oh GOD!  To have PALIN in the White House!!  OH GOD!!

[Hanahope]

I think we do need to know why she wouldn't stand up and clap.  Seriously, why are women not worthy of equal pay?

[attica]

Because the people that pay her aren't for it.

[ChelseaNH]

I'm not sure yet if it's a show I want to watch, but it's a show I want to exist.

[dusang]

I think we do need to know why she wouldn't stand up and clap.  Seriously, why are women not worthy of equal pay?

 

I would stand up for it but at the same time, isn't there something a bit sad in that the simple statement that women deserve equal pay is so brave and revolutionary for the President of the United States to say that it's worthy of a standing ovation?

Edited January 22, 2015 by dusang

[Hanahope]

Because the people that pay her aren't for it.

 

Fine, I want to see her (and others like her) admit it.  Admit that your position is that because your lobbiest, political contributor, boss, whomever, is paying you to have that point of view and make that statement.  Show us that it really is all about money wielded by the wealthy.

 

I have no problem with Larry (and others) saying he voted for Obama because he's black.  I will say that he should, though, qualify that statement by saying that he voted for Obama because he is a black Democrat.  I seriously doubt that Larry would have voted for someone like say, Clarence Thomas, just because he's black.  Its like how I have no problem voting for Hillary Clinton because she's a female democrat, even though I don't agree with everything she says (though I do like most).  If Hillary is running against some other man, and the policies/viewpoints are mostly equal (Democratic primary, for instance), I'll vote for Hillary just because she's a woman and I want to see a woman president.  However,  I wouldn't in a million years vote for someone like Sarah Palin, just because she's a woman.

[possibilities]

The real question isn't "would you clap" because you know she wouldn't. It's "is there anything Obama is for that you actually support"?

That's what's so annoying about this show. They ask questions but don't let the person give a meaningful answer. It's all gotcha for show, no real teeth. Maybe she'd say she doesn't stand up for Obama saying he's for equal pay because she thinks her party is for equal pay, also and doesn't want Obama to get credit. Then we could ask her to demonstrate hy she thinks that. Why did her party oppose the Lily Ledbetter act? The ERA? There could actually be a conversation happening which had actual ideas behind it. But whether she stands up or not during SOTU is an easy gotcha for yuks. Is it that she admits to buckling to peer pressure? Is it because she hates anything Obama is for? Is it because she thinks equal pay is a non-issue? What?

 

Also, why do I care what she thinks in the first place? I don't know why some of these people they've invited are on the panel in the first place. Is the criteria that they be POC? Comedians? Journalists? Experts on the subject under discussion? The conversation is so surface, they could do person on the street interviews and get as much insight, depth of analysis, and likely as much humor, out of it.

 

I will say, it doesn't seem like the panelists are just there to sell something. That's kind of interesting to me, because most of the talk shows have guests who are there to sell their latest project, and TNS hasn't had a whiff of that whatsoever.

 

 

 

And I missed the first show, so I can't speak to that, but Tuesday night was sharp as hell and anything but dull.

If you watch the first show (it's probably on the CC website, but I haven't checked), I'm curious what you'd think about it. But I agree that Tuesday's show was the best of the three they've aired so far, and much better than the day before. Even setting aside the content, the camera angles and editing were a dramatic improvement.

 

It looks like you can stream the Godfrey "Comedy Central Presents" stand up from 2005: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0829667/

 

Also: I kept wanting someone to ask the panel, if Obama had not existed, would you have voted for Herman Cain?

 

RE "what if Obama had killed someone?" I still think I'd have voted for him. When the news breaks, let's say he gets impeached and thrown out of office we'd have had Biden for President. Better than the carnage of McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan. Presidents do kill people, with policy and with direct orders.

Edited January 22, 2015 by possibilities

[trow125]

I have no problem with Larry (and others) saying he voted for Obama because he's black.  I will say that he should, though, qualify that statement by saying that he voted for Obama because he is a black Democrat.  I seriously doubt that Larry would have voted for someone like say, Clarence Thomas, just because he's black. 

 

Or, God help us, Herman Cain. I hope he runs again just to see what TNS does with regard to his candidacy. He practically became a featured player on TDS during and immediately after his campaign -- John Oliver interviewed him numerous times. I think Colbert had some fun with him as well.

 

Re: Amy Holmes, the fact that she was hand-picked by Glenn Beck tells you everything you need to know.

[ruby24]

Fine, I want to see her (and others like her) admit it.  Admit that your position is that because your lobbiest, political contributor, boss, whomever, is paying you to have that point of view and make that statement.  Show us that it really is all about money wielded by the wealthy.

 

I have no problem with Larry (and others) saying he voted for Obama because he's black.  I will say that he should, though, qualify that statement by saying that he voted for Obama because he is a black Democrat.  I seriously doubt that Larry would have voted for someone like say, Clarence Thomas, just because he's black.  Its like how I have no problem voting for Hillary Clinton because she's a female democrat, even though I don't agree with everything she says (though I do like most).  If Hillary is running against some other man, and the policies/viewpoints are mostly equal (Democratic primary, for instance), I'll vote for Hillary just because she's a woman and I want to see a woman president.  However,  I wouldn't in a million years vote for someone like Sarah Palin, just because she's a woman.

 

That's exactly what I thought the question at the end should have been. Because I don't quite believe it- I know there's an immense amount of pride in having a black president, but would you vote for Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas against a white man too? I really don't think a black Republican could garner over 90% of black support the way Obama has. They might pick off some support, but I still think the party affiliation/policies matter to the black community. They know that Democrats support them and Republicans do not.

[ganesh]

Fine, I want to see her (and others like her) admit it.  Admit that your position is that because your lobbiest, political contributor, boss, whomever, is paying you to have that point of view and make that statement.  Show us that it really is all about money wielded by the wealthy.

 

That's a better question than mine. 

 

I'm hoping the panel session sharpens up. I don't think they quite have the cred that TDS/Colbert have in order to get away with pushing the guests yet. You need people to want to be on the show and know what it's about. 

[KerleyQ]

I don't know Amy Holmes. I actually thought the 100 question she got was a softball. Not that I agree, but there was no surprise or risk in her saying that she wouldn't applaud for the equal pay line. I would have preferred if Larry asked a question like, "If Obama had said that he loved his family and his country, and all the Democrats applauded, would have have silently sat on your butt?"

 

 

I assume her answer would be "yes, I'd sit on my butt."  Because her side is disgusted by the President's family and they remain convinced, in some deep sad corner of their minds, that his country is not the US.  

 

I like the show so far.  It'll take a while to find its footing, but I like that they're trying to find that balance between covering serious issues and being funny.  It's not an easy mix to master.  I'll be interested to see what it's like in a few months.  

[Skyfall]

Drop the panel to 3 and it'll be much better.

[peeayebee]

I think we do need to know why she wouldn't stand up and clap.  Seriously, why are women not worthy of equal pay?

I assume it's not that she doesn't think women deserve equal pay, but the idea of telling companies how to pay their employees. Actually, I'm not sure how equal pay is supposed to be enacted.

[Saylii]

My biggest problem with the show is that it's hard for someone to be both the moderator of a panel and the host of a comedy show who needs to have the loudest voice. I think the panel would work better if a neutral party was the moderator and Larry was always the fourth guest. The moderator could ask the questions and then shut up; Larry could still drive the conversation. Right now you have Larry asking the questions, Larry driving/changing the conversation, and Larry trying to voice his opinions all at the same time.

I like the concept of Keep It 100, but I think it would be better served to cut out the standalone segment. There's no reason why, when conversation is happening, that Larry couldn't break out the Keep It 100 to have a panelist answer a question in regards to what they were just talking about. Not every panelist would have to get a question every night. Conversation could continue depending what the answer was. It may help some of the forced breakpoints where a question is asked, answered, begs for an explanation but there's no time for follow up. It may be too hard for Larry to do that right now though because I don't get the sense he could improve that much or that he's comfortable with improve.

[Kromm]

Ep 1 was pretty weak, but I know we gotta give this at least 2-3 months to judge it fairly.

 

It must be tough being compared not only to Colbert, but Oliver (who's show gelled almost instantly).

[LADreamr]

I like Larry getting a question at the end of the show that he has not previously seen, but I think it might be interesting if he had to also answer something on the panel and let them decide if he kept it 100 or if he should get weak tea.

[Latverian Diplomat]

She wasn't the right fit for the show. She was totally in "pundit mode." So, your president wants to pass laws/executive actions for equal pay and you don't clap? This underscores the last 6 years perfectly. *Anything* Obama is for is bad. 

Yes, they need to avoid such people or the panels are going to be as useless as the one's on Real Time.

 

Conservatives get too much air time as it is, if you really want to "Keep it 100" it's better to avoid people who "message" for a living.

[peeayebee]

Granted, I wasn't paying complete attention during this one, but I think the only part I really liked was Larry's final question.

[Milburn Stone]

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

 

Has this gotten any better? I watched the first two nights, hoping that on the second night he'd have received some coaching to tell him to speak a little more slowly and mumble less. But it wasn't any better the second night.

 

I don't think the problem is that I'm white and can't understand "black," because I never had this problem with Larry when he was "Senior Black Correspondent" on The Daily Show. So I tend to think it's nerves. I hope he settles down. Because I think he's smart and the show does something important. But nerves or whatever the reason, I can't comfortably watch a show where I can't figure out half of what the host is saying. Good diction is good diction, no matter who.

[ganesh]

Yes, they need to avoid such people or the panels are going to be as useless as the one's on Real Time.

Conservatives get too much air time as it is, if you really want to "Keep it 100" it's better to avoid people who "message" for a living.

 

These 'professional pundits' are largely useless people. I never really think any of them believed much of what they say. Because there's so many of them, there's more and more inane and outrageous statements. 

 

I'd rather the show have on funny people like Godfrey, and people I don't know much about, like the guy who used to be a speechwriter. What possibly interesting thing could a pundit say?

 

Obviously, she was going to say she's not standing up for the president. When Larry said, "just because you don't agree with her, doesn't mean she's not keeping it real," I was saying, "the audience is booing because she's acting like an asshole, not because she's lying."

 

I thought the question about what will you say when your grandkids ask you about Obama was good. *That* response was the weak tea. 

[Brandi Maxxxx]

Obviously, she was going to say she's not standing up for the president. When Larry said, "just because you don't agree with her, doesn't mean she's not keeping it real," I was saying, "the audience is booing because she's acting like an asshole, not because she's lying."

I think the booing was completely deserved but I can't really fault Larry as a host for trying to take some of the heat off his guest. I do think he should have asked her to justify her answer though (because really, how does she?).

 

I'm starting to agree with the people who say they need less panelists. I wasn't bothered by it in the first episode or two but all the interrupting and shouting is getting annoying.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Brandi Maxxxx

[alias1]

I don't know.  I want to like the show but right now I just don't.  I think the 100 segment is useless (irrelevant answers for the most part).  There needs to be a change to the format.  Too many shows are already like this and having only 3 guests wouldn't necessarily improve it, in my opinion.  Real Time with Bill Maher only has 3 initial guests and as soon as he has a talking head republican on, it just turns into them doing talking points over everyone else.  I thought the topic on Bill Cosby was interesting.  The topic on the State of the Union address (or the First Black President) was boring.  And really, who was surprised at the answer Amy Holmes gave.  Something needs to be done to freshen it up or I'm probably out.

[ganesh]

I do appreciate that he's taking on fairly newsworthy topics and trying to find people that have a vested interest in them. I'm assuming 

 

To be fair to Real Time, when Bill has actual adults on, it's a good panel. He's got a good rotation of guests, and I'm assuming that's the point of these initial panels here. Find people who fit this format better. 

[jbrecken]

I don't think the half hour is long enough for doing the show in three acts. He needs to drop the first comedy segment and cut straight to the panel after an abbreviated topic intro.

[alias1]

I think I might like it better if he only had two guests, then he could still do his monologue at the beginning.  Having 4 guests takes too much time in that segment and I'm not sure 3 would be much better.  I think the question he gets at the end is one of the more interesting aspects of the show.  I want more Larry Wilmore and not so much of guests I never heard of.  And normally, if I have heard of those guests I've seen way too much of them already on other shows.

[Latverian Diplomat]

I think people are already figuring out that the way to "Keep it 100" is to cop to the embarrassing answer right away, avoid details and complications,  and then change the subject to how honest you are.

 

I think it's interesting that women seem to have more trouble in that segment, because (I think) women feel more pressure in general to choose their words carefully and put their opinions in context, at least when men are present.

 

I thought John Leguizamo did a great job, more guests like him, fewer political operators, please.

[Skyfall]

I like the never before seen question but if they could intergrate it with the rest of act 3 it make work better and give a potential area for a toss between Larry and Chris or a MofZ type ending.

[trow125]

Don't know if anyone else is on Comedy Central's mailing list for surveys, but I received one today about TNS. There were some questions about the structure of the show and I put in a big plug for a smaller panel. There was also a long list of adjectives (positive and negative) and you were supposed to pick the ones you felt applied to Larry and then applied to the show. At the end, there was a question about whether you'd like to receive future surveys about "TNS," and I said yes... so I guess they are soliciting feedback from their most loyal viewers. It would be interesting to see the results. If they do go to a smaller panel, I'll feel vindicated!

[alias1]

I finally watched the Thursday night show (topic was Cuba) and the panel was a lot better than on any previous show.  Larry seemed more relaxed, too.  There is hope. 

[retrograde]

Definitely the best panel so far, but even then, we still didn't really get enough time to hear people finish their thoughts or really debate each other. 

 

I think a good lesson from John Oliver's show is that if you just do one thing and do it really well, you can hold people's attention for a long time. I like Larry's monologues, but I think this show could work as a full half-hour panel if they cut it down to three or even two people. 

[annabel]

Larry should talk for maybe a minute or two, introducing that night's topic, then introduce the panel (3 at most), they can riff around for several minutes, then come back after the commercial. Topic discussion; commercial; keep it 100 (which would take less time with less panelists). Also, so far not everyone has gotten 100.

Edited January 24, 2015 by annabel

[Wax Lion]

I think in general it's hard to find good conservative guests. The ones who do a lot of media mostly get on Fox News where being insightful is nowhere as important as taking the level of hateful rhetoric to the next level. I like Michelle Bernard who is a black conservative whose opinions don't fall down some kind of party discipline checklist.

 

 

I assume it's not that she doesn't think women deserve equal pay, but the idea of telling companies how to pay their employees. Actually, I'm not sure how equal pay is supposed to be enacted.

 

I think the first steps is to remove the barriers like rules that say you can't talk to other employees about your pay (since that's how you find out the men are starting at a higher rate than better-qualified women) you go after court rulings that say that a group of women can't say that a pattern of discrimination has to be handled with dozens or hundreds of individual court cases instead of a single class-action suit. There's also the Lily Ledbetter Act which widened the statute of limitations on a pay discrimination lawsuit. (Ledbetter proved her case in court but SCOTUS rules the statute of limitations ran out before she ever knew about the pay discrepancy.)

 

I'm kinda liking this show but I'm a little disappointed the panel doesn't try to be more of a parody of all the panel shows currently on the air like The Five, Outnumbered, The Cycle and whatever CNN might have where there is a panel of regular hosts with different niches. That might be too expensive and complicated. Still, that could have been fun, especially if you let a variety of comedians try to come up with their own fake news persona.

[dusang]

Definitely the best panel so far, but even then, we still didn't really get enough time to hear people finish their thoughts or really debate each other. 

 

I think a good lesson from John Oliver's show is that if you just do one thing and do it really well, you can hold people's attention for a long time. I like Larry's monologues, but I think this show could work as a full half-hour panel if they cut it down to three or even two people.

True, but JO has the benefit of no commercial breaks and a full week to prepare.

[ganesh]

I think in general it's hard to find good conservative guests. The ones who do a lot of media mostly get on Fox News where being insightful is nowhere as important as taking the level of hateful rhetoric to the next level.

 

Actually, there are plenty of good conservatives. They're on PBS news a lot because PBS don't play that BS. 

 

At the end of the day, this is a new entertainment show, and they need ratings. They're going to have these people on because they know and we know, they're all going to say something ridiculous. 

[Kromm]

True, but JO has the benefit of no commercial breaks and a full week to prepare.

And Larry has the benefit of a nightly platform.

 

Each has advantages you leverage.  In Larry's case I think sticking with being topical is key, but clearly he does also need to better figure out how to pace such a short show.

 

I'm gonna be controversial and say the "Keeping it 100" segment is what needs to go. A few days and it's already getting predictable.  I get this was a conscious attempt to develop a signature phrase and segment for the show, but when it's clear we know almost exactly what's going to happen, it's already outlived it's usefulness. 

 

So take that segment out and simplify to his opening comedy piece and then the panel (each a bit longer than they currently are).  That's it.

 

Actually I'm forgetting about the final tiny piece where he "keeps it 100" with a viewer question.  That's extraneous too.  If they really need an opportunity for him to talk the show out there are better ways to deal with that last 90 seconds.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Kromm

[dusang]

And Larry has the benefit of a nightly platform.

Each has advantages you leverage. In Larry's case I think sticking with being topical is key, but clearly he does also need to better figure out how to pace such a short show.

In terms of taking the lesson from John Oliver for the potential length of an audience's attention span, the nightly platform is a detriment. There's little to no chance that a topical, nightly program could produce a 14-minute segment every episode. Combined with the fact TNS has to break for commercial approximately every 8 minutes, John Oliver is not an object lesson for Larry Wilmore. Edited January 25, 2015 by dusang