The Nightly Show: Season One Talk

[Wax Lion]

Back when he was on Last Comic Standing, I hated Lavell Crawford because most of his jokes struck me as being fat and enjoying overeating. And here he was interrupting people to make jokes about wanting to eat cookies and seeing an all-you-can-eat buffet as a challenge. I thought he encouraged stereotyping the way Ant did. (If they ever have Ant on the panel to discuss gay issues, I am done with this show.) Actually, I might be ready to start tuning in only when there's a guest that interests me, like tonight.

[bmoore4026]

A big steaming cup of weak tea from me to Larry and the show for wanting to have it both ways last night. You don't get to call out others for their demeaning/belittling attitude about obesity in the midst of your ongoing barrage of fat jokes. And no, half-hearted apologies and justifications (that are immediately negated by your next quip) don't earn you any kind of a pass. If you're gonna keep going back to the fat-shaming material, keep it 100. Don't give us your version of the "It may not be right, but it's so damn funny!" excuse that bigots always trot out when they get called out for denigrating someone or some group.

 

He said that emotions were running high in the writers room.  I wonder if that's code for "Almost pissed ourselves from the fat jokes we were making".

 

And, you're right on the hypocrisy about the fat jokes.  I'm obese myself (and I hate that term - makes me feel like a plague bringer) and I can tell you that comedians are the last people to be talking about fat sensitivity.  Comedians who fall back on fat jokes are part of the problem. 

 

Also, fuck Spurlock.  I read on an article on Cracked that scientists have tried to replicate Spurlock's McDonalds diet but with little to no similar results.  Thus, there is high probability that Morgan Spurlock is a fraud.

 

Tonight's episode is about gay marriage.  Oh joy.  What's next?  Autism?  Fat, gay, and has the Autism spectrum, that's me.  I think I shouldn't watch this show.  I miss Colbert so damn much.

Edited February 4, 2015 by bmoore4026

[Luciano]

I did crack up them taking a detour into discussing Whole Foods's brownies (?)- Lavell bought them up and the other comedian started talking about how you put icing on them.

Spurlock was barely there.

[The Luvly Junkie]

He said that emotions were running high in the writers room.  I wonder if that's code for "Almost pissed ourselves from the fat jokes we were making".

       Gee, it's already been 2 weeks and now TNS is receiving some sour feedback. Though I can't speak on behalf of Larry and the crew (and also because I've watched only half of his run), what I can say is that judging from the comments here, it either sounds like some people want to join in and speak their own beliefs if they were part of Larry's panel, or that, for the sake of exciting or surprising the viewers, they want Larry and the writers to push the emotions aside and get a little bit more risqué on the subject. Maybe that's why some people aren't favoring the show. The subjects are great, but not sustainable enough without rich evidence and wittier remarks, which I think everyone is expecting Larry to do. 

 

        bmoore4026, I respect anyone's opinion about the show, or pretty much any show, but I think you, along with anyone else who wants to criticize TNS, should keep that patience on hold. Larry still has a lot of responsibility for following after TDS, and hopefully once they find a voice, they can be free to stretch it into a unique direction. But for now is not the time. We'll still have to see and wait. I know Larry has something up his sleeves once he's settled.

 

       On a happier note: if Larry is struggling, at least Jonny-bun will continue checking on him a little longer. It's not the same, but I still like my Tosses.

[bmoore4026]

Here's an article I found that puts things into perspective.

 http://www.shakesville.com/2015/02/on-larry-wilmores-obesity-in-america.html

 

Also, in searching for a review article, I came upon reddit's /fit (which has some choice words about fat people) and /fatpeoplehate sub-forums.  Don't tell me that fat prejudice isn't a problem nor is it in the same class as racism or homophobia!  I'm sick of being hated for who I am.  Christ forbid we judge someone on the content of their characters - politicians and some comedians would be on the same level as pedophiles.

 

Also, while I was searching for a review article, I came upon one that an article link featuring the close-up of a tapeworm head.  I, ironically, don't have an appetite now.

Edited February 4, 2015 by bmoore4026

[peeayebee]

I'm out. This show doesn't do much for me. Even if they iron out the kinks, I don't like the format.

[ganesh]

That religious guy needs to stfu and go away. The rule of law was based on classical liberal principles found in the works of Locke et al., that have nothing to do with religion. 

 

"Tradition" isn't an argument. It means you want to keep everything the same because you are afraid of change. 

 

This panel should have eaten this guy alive. 

[Milburn Stone]

       Gee, it's already been 2 weeks and now TNS is receiving some sour feedback. 

 

For the record, that was happening after the first 2 nights.

[maraleia]

Yeah I really want to like this show but the panel and Keep it 100 segments have to go.

[ganesh]

They need to figure out what they want the last segment to be. Are they silly questions that the panelists have to play straight? Or are they serious moral dilemmas that they have to answer honestly?

I mean, there is no situation where the pastor was going to be ok with marriage equality, so the question was nonsense. The real question would be: what if one of your parishioners came out as gay?

[trow125]

Tonight: Common, Mike Yard, Joe Jones and Charles Blow - Discussing fatherhood in the black community

Wasn't Spike Lee initially announced for last night's show? Ugh, I don't even know if I want to watch last night's ep if there's an anti-gay marriage pastor on the panel. People's civil rights should not be up for debate.

[giovannif7]

They need to figure out what they want the last segment to be. Are they silly questions that the panelists have to play straight? Or are they serious moral dilemmas that they have to answer honestly?

Yeah, that one about "Would you murder a Supreme Court Justice if that would ensure that your side won on the same-sex marriage ruling?" was more than a bit over the top. I can't believe that made it past the first stage of brainstorming in the writers room, let alone on the air.

[gesundheit]

They just need to skip these silly hypothetical questions. They take up too much time and don't add to the discussion.

 

I enjoyed that pastor hanging himself. What a fool. 

 

Larry didn't even answer his Keep it 100 question last night. Lame! If you're going to stick with this silly game, you have to play.

[BabyVegas]

That religious guy needs to stfu and go away. The rule of law was based on classical liberal principles found in the works of Locke et al., that have nothing to do with religion. 

 

"Tradition" isn't an argument. It means you want to keep everything the same because you are afraid of change. 

 

This panel should have eaten this guy alive. 

I was screaming basically this the entire show. Like, literally yelling at my TV. Much of our law evolved out of English common law, a lot of which was discussed in the Magna Carta which is not an inherently religious work. And then I took huge issue with his point that the church has "traditionally" defined marriage. No. No it hasn't. Marriage has been around long before the Christian church and even at that point the Church has not consistently held authority over marriage. Marriage is both a civil and religious term. A civil marriage is a contract between two individuals and the church has no place in what is effectively a legal contract. If they want to deny a religious marriage then go ahead. Be bigoted. Do you. But that doesn't change the point that marriage as regulated by the state is not a religious institution.

 

And then when he got his Keep It 100 question I started yelling again because really, which argument does he need? Does he need the argument that the Old Testament as he has read it is a translation and that every translation, no matter how good the translator, is subject to dual meanings and idiomatic phrases? Or how about how many times does it have to be repeated that homosexual relationships are discussed in Leviticus which is the Old Testament and the New Testament supposedly replaces the old Testament. So even if I accept your premise that the Bible is the underpinning for how we should deal with gay marriage (hint: I don't accept that premise) then your logic is still bad logic. I would have loved to have his Keep It 100 question be "Leviticus states that man shall not lie with man as he lies with woman. It also prescribes that you can't wear clothing made of mixed fabric nor can you eat pork and shellfish. Will you give up pork, shellfish, and clothing made of mixed fabric?" 

[ganesh]

That's a silly question too, but it's a better silly question because it points out that his opposition really has nothing to do with religion. They should have flipped the script and had on a muslim cleric who supported marriage equality. 

 

I don't understand why the bother having someone religious as the voice of the "other side" of this debate. Their opinion is irrelevant, essentially, because gay people just want to go to the courthouse and get a marriage license so their afforded the same benefits as everyone else, spouse health insurance, pension, etc. 

 

Getting married in a church is ceremonial. 

[Skyfall]

So I think this episode may show them how to make it work. Jump into the panel and have the clips and jokes flow from there.

[attica]

I agree, Skyfall. I thought this iteration was way more effective (plus it was a terrifically composed panel. Has Common always been this hot?).

I mean, there is no situation where the pastor was going to be ok with marriage equality, so the question was nonsense.

 

I don't agree. I think the question perfectly displayed that the pastor's hate of Teh Gay trumped his god-belief, despite his claims of religious defense. So it's useful in cueing everybody else in that he and his bigotry can be dismissed from the public discourse.

Edited February 5, 2015 by attica

[ganesh]

No, I think there could have been better questions that could underscore that point better, as I said above.

 

The black dads show worked a hell of a lot better than pretty much all the others combined. You just need more time if you have 4 people on the panel. I also liked the quick 'in the street' clip. It was informative to me since all the guys guessed high numbers and kind of funny too. 

 

Know the audience. Respect the audience. Ask them to be informed. You don't need to do a whole segment introducing the topic, just jump into it with the main points you want to discuss. 

 

It was really funny when they asked about bossy women and the regular contributor was like, 'just give me the tea!'

[dusang]

I haven't watched every episode but, based on your comments, just watched the Black Fatherhood one.  I really enjoyed it -- although was it me or did four out of five of them say their father was an (former) addict?  Or was it three out of five with a fourth who was a recovering addict himself?  That is some shitty stats right there.

[Hanahope]

So, as to the Obesity episode, I too am a bit disappointed that the panel/Larry didn't get more into the issue of fat discrimination, and that seriously a fat person cannot just "flip a switch", "decide to be thin" and it works, thus proving fat people "choose" to be fat.  That is so not how it works.  Once a person is fat, especially, if they've been fat for years, it is very very very hard to not only lose the weight, but keep it off.  One's body metabolism has adjusted to accept the fatness, the slowness (really, its hard getting a 250 pound body to move fast in an exercise class), its hard to change that.  And many fat people have dieted so much, that even when they do add exercise to the equation, there's not a lot of weightloss happening right away.  It took some of us 30-40 years to reach this weight, it isn't coming off in 6 or even 12 months.  After a year of an exercise program, I've only lost 12 pounds.  And what's hardest?  Knowing that if I ever stop, if I ever let up on the exercise, if I ever slip on my eating more than just a very rare occasion, that weight will reappear almost overnight as if by magic.  Its pretty stressful.

[Kromm]

I was screaming basically this the entire show. Like, literally yelling at my TV. Much of our law evolved out of English common law, a lot of which was discussed in the Magna Carta which is not an inherently religious work. And then I took huge issue with his point that the church has "traditionally" defined marriage. No. No it hasn't. Marriage has been around long before the Christian church and even at that point the Church has not consistently held authority over marriage. Marriage is both a civil and religious term. A civil marriage is a contract between two individuals and the church has no place in what is effectively a legal contract. If they want to deny a religious marriage then go ahead. Be bigoted. Do you. But that doesn't change the point that marriage as regulated by the state is not a religious institution.

I'm sure the bigoted Christian bible-thumping assholes don't like to be reminded that the ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Greeks, Indians, Chinese, etc. all had marriage.  And not always defined as "between one man and one woman", by the way.

[Luciano]

I also liked the quick 'in the street' clip. It was informative to me since all the guys guessed high numbers and kind of funny too.

That one man who got into specifics, breaking down the percentages by communities (East Harlem, Chicago, etc.) amazed me. He obviously gave it a lot of thought.

[The Crazed Spruce]

Last night's show was probably the best one so far. It's probably a one-time thing, but if they have a full-episode panel at least once a week, I'll be happy. (Happier if they did it for every episode, but still....)

Keep It 100 should probably stick to the "lightning round" style they used, too. It seems to work better that way.

[trow125]

Tonight's show is about designer babies. @larrywilmore welcomes @itsgabrielleu, @RachelFeinstein, @HollyPhillipsMD, and @pennjillette. #NightlyShow

(that's Gabrielle Union, comedian Rachel Feinstein, Dr. Holly Phillips -- hey, wasn't she also on the vax show? -- and Penn Jillette.)

[attica]

I generally assume Penn Jillette to be a misogynist, so I was surprised to hear him advocate for more girl babies. Maybe he likes the idea of girls better than he likes actual women who might contradict him -- wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened.

[ganesh]

I think the 100 segment works better with the same question for all the guests. This panel was pretty good too. 

[Kromm]

I generally assume Penn Jillette to be a misogynist, so I was surprised to hear him advocate for more girl babies. Maybe he likes the idea of girls better than he likes actual women who might contradict him -- wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened.

Why would you assume that about him? With the notable exception of having naked breasts on Bullshit! a number of times, what's he done to foster that impression?

Mind you, he's often a blowhard/jackass, and pushes his atheist point of view as hard as many bible thumpers push theirs, but that's different from being a misogynist. In fact, I seem to recall him calling himself a feminist in some interview. Which may be insulting to some when a man does that, but it's certainly leaning in the opposite direction from being a "wimmins hater!"

Wait. There is that one time he called a well known feminist "a cunt".  But I saw that more of him being a gigantic asshole than being a misogynist.  

[attica]

Here's the way I see it: If your go-to insult to a woman who disagrees with you is 'cunt', the burden of proof falls on you to convince me you're not a misogynist. (And no, that wasn't a one-time thing.) Still, I give him points for his statement here, on a public tv show. Credit where due.

[stillshimpy]

I really want to like this show, because I wish Larry Willmore so many good things.  I like him, I always liked him on TDS.  Beyond that I've seen some of the clips from Jon's very early days on TDS -- I'm talking when he was still swimming in Killborn's suits -- and I'm okay with the idea that it might take him some time to find his footing here.  

 

I have to say though, this format is just not working for me.  They are trying to discuss incredibly serious subjects and unfortunately they can't seem to find the right tone or balance with this setup.  Either the people on the panel are trying too hard to make it all comedy -- like Lavell trying to throw in one-liners about buffets -- or they've got the super serious participants (like the genetics expert) and rather than serving to fuel an interesting debate through contrast....the person attempting to be comedic just usurps the conversation, so there really isn't much balance to be had. 

 

The 100 segment is just faltering and usually not funny, it's also just a time waster.  At its worse it's insultingly tone deaf too.  I can't believe half of those questions clear the writer's room as being ...forget a good idea...anything other than a dreadful one.  They seriously just asked a panel of men about how bossy black women are on a scale of 1 to 10?  Wha.....??  No wonder Larry was besieged by angry emails, he completely deserved to be.  Ew, dude.  Way to be a cliche monger.  I don't think the problem there was just with the "the answer better not be under 5"  thing. 

 

I want to like the show, I just hope they reassess the current approach.  

[ganesh]

I actually think having the same question(s) for the entire panel is better. What the questions are is up for debate, but asking 4 distinct questions took up too much time. 

[ChelseaNH]

Either the people on the panel are trying too hard to make it all comedy -- like Lavell trying to throw in one-liners about buffets -- or they've got the super serious participants (like the genetics expert) and rather than serving to fuel an interesting debate through contrast...

 

Yeah, I'm left wondering about the purpose of the show -- entertainment or enlightenment?  So far, it's not really nailing either option.

[ZoqFotPik]

I don't know how this show is going to survive, given today's news.

[Skyfall]

It'll be expanding to an hour! Jon is an EP I beleive so just merge the contributors from both shows.

Or have Ollie host TDS and the block will be fine.

[Unusual Suspect]

I thought Monday's episode had a pretty strong panel segment. Everyone contributed, it was a mix of decent discussion and humour. More please.

[futurechemist]

I think the 100 questions are better when they're open ended, rather than just having to choose between 2 unpleasant options.  Those sort of questions (like choosing between sexism and Islamophobia) feel like the show is just looking for soundbites rather than getting raw honestly out of people. 

 

So how is Wednesday going to work?  Are we meant to ask Larry questions that he himself will answer, or a random panelists will answer, or are they bringing back people from previous panels?  Because either that will be an episode entirely of 100 questions, or it will be an incredibly unfocused discussion that leaps from topic to topic, hoping to put right what once went wrong.

Edited February 11, 2015 by futurechemist

[attica]

Those sort of questions (like choosing between sexism and Islamophobia) feel like the show is just looking for soundbites rather than getting raw honestly out of people.

 

Yeah, I agree. It's like the party game Fuck, Marry or Kill, when a lot of the time, the 100 answer would be Kill me. But though Death is not an Option may be fun at parties, it's less enlightening here.

[ganesh]

Normally, I'd agree. I think the Islamophobia/sexism question is the exception to the rule. I didn't think it was a gotcha one. 

 

I still think the same question or two for the panel works better. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by ganesh

[attica]

I would like to confess that I thought Flashback Larry and his 'hit him in the back of the head with a book -- it gets his attention and gives him something to read' advice were awesome. I'm not sure I'm proud of that, but there it is.

[ganesh]

It is interesting how kids in the 70s were spanked regularly. I was. I got a few backhands. So did my cousin. Nothing makes you take notice like a backhand. I don't think it made me behave better; just made me smarter not to get caught. 

[Kromm]

I don't know how this show is going to survive, given today's news.

The reverse.  Stewart on the way out gives this show MORE of a chance, not less.  Short of CC deciding on a total clean slate (or a new one hour show), they'll  be furiously developing this half of the hour so they don't have to transition two shows at once.

 

I keep wondering if they'll simply rename @midnight (to something with no time reference in the name) and move it to 11.

[Pippin]

I could not believe the news stories from last night's episode on parenting.  Parents charged because their kids walked home alone from a park???!!!  Hell's bells, my folks and the parents of all of my friends would have been in the slammer forever when I was growing up. 

We all went to the playground, library, downtown or wherever on our own.  You walked to school, unaccompanied (the only kids who rode a bus were those out in the valley who lived on farms) in all kinds of weather.  And since I grew up in Northern Ontario, when I say all kinds of weather, I mean all kinds.

 

I feel sorry for kids today.  Kids should have the opportunity to go off and be kids without adults hovering over them constantly.  (I call it "looking for tadpoles").  Kids today seem to be so overly-regimented that it's a wonder any of them can develop an imagination or sense of play.

 

As for discipline, (I used to do the "nanny" thing over summer while in college; I figure I've helped raise about 5 kids in all) I am a great believer in consequences.  You leave your toys all over the room and I have to clean them up?  Guess what!  Your toys are in a box in the closet and there they will stay!  You don't want to eat your lunch?  Fine, you don't have to.  But that's all there is; I'm not running a restaurant so you're not getting anything else until dinner. 

I've only spanked a couple of times and those were for truly "dangerous offenses"; one boy slipped my hand and ran across a dangerous intersection through traffic and another persisted on walking on top of icy snowbanks on a bus route.  I talked with hiim, his parents did until we were blue in the face, trying to explain how dangerous it was, to no avail.  So he was warned he'd get paddled the next time, and he did, and he stopped.  I believe he was testing his limits.

(On the flip side, I said thanks,when help was given and sincerely praised their efforts.  Little people like to feel that their efforts are appreciated, just like anyone else.)

 

But as I said earlier, those news items are just unbelievable.  They ought to be chasing after people who really abuse their kids.  You know, the ones who forget to clothe and feed them, or like to use them as punching bags?

[Qoass]

Two general things that bug me:

 

1.  It's been a month.  You can stop explaining what "keeping it 100" means and that you haven't seen your own question in advance.

 

2.  This is true of TV in general but it annoys me on this show especially:  do announcers have to identify twitter contributers by their "handles"?  It's really hard to take a comment seriously when I hear that it was sent in by "sweetcheeks69".

[Kaoteek]

Is it me or was that "recap" show just a huge cup of weak tea from everybody involved in that panel ? They were dodging bullets left and right, I almost felt like I was watching The Matrix...

[attica]

You can stop explaining what "keeping it 100" means and that you haven't seen your own question in advance.

 

I agree with you philosophically, but I've come to depend on these time-wasters because they save me having to back up if I've fast-forwarded through the commercials too far (which is always).

 

SE Cupp's idea that 'the free market' will shame people into vaccinating is colossally stupid. How, exactily, is Starbucks going to enforce checking vaxx rates amongst its patrons? How will customers anywhere know if there are unvaxxed around anywhere they want to patronize? Wait until there are outbreaks? That's a bit too late, there, sparky.

 

Even if Anthony Anderson showed that he doesn't know how vaccines/antibodies work, I still find him delightful. (I love his show, too.)

 

Final note: dogs are pretty good swimmers. Not all humans are. Save the human. Unless it's an asshole; then call 911.

[ganesh]

Sorry, exec producer, there is no "other side" to the vaccination debate. Also, Anthony Anderson, you're a good actor, but you know nothing about science. I don't get the flu vaccine is a completely different paradigm than MMR and is not debatable within the same context. 

 

Jon Oliver did this on his show. You want to show the other side? Then you have 100 doctors on and the 1 anti vaccine person. It's not a "debate" because there's not an equivalency. "Showing both sides of the debate" is weak.

 

Injecting yourself with the disease to protect yourself against the disease is literally how vaccination works. This is something I learned in high school. 

 

SE Cupp's idea that 'the free market' will shame people into vaccinating is colossally stupid.

 

This is the exact type of person who should not be on this show. I've only seen her on Real Time, and she's insufferable. You're trying to tell me a tv show set in NYC that has an all-white cast doesn't warrant criticism? 

 

Some idiot with measles was on my public transportation last week. I'm ok, but what if there was a mother with an infant, or older people on the train? Oh, but it's a choice. No, it's not. 

Edited February 12, 2015 by ganesh

[LADreamr]

I tried to give the show another chance, but last night ended it for me. It seems like it thinks it's thoughtful and intelligent, but I don't see evidence of either. Too bad. I was really looking forward to this.

[Qoass]

 

I've come to depend on these time-wasters because they save me having to back up if I've fast-forwarded through the commercials too far (which is always).

Me too!!!

[MrWhyt]

Sorry, exec producer, there is no "other side" to the vaccination debate.

 

There is an "other side", they're just stupid, paranoid and wrong. I'm in favor of trotting one of the out ever so often as an example for others not to follow.

[ganesh]

You only quoted part of that. As I said, if you want to make it equivalent, you have to have on 100 doctors and 1 anti-vax. Having on one doctor and one anti-vax isn't showing both sides of the debate. It's propping up the fringe and making it seem legit when it's not. 

[Unusual Suspect]

More episodes should end in a tea tossing fight.