The Nightly Show: Season One Talk

[ChelseaNH]

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

 

Plus, how much time do children spend interacting with the free market?  Not nearly as much time as they spend in school, which is why schools require vaccinations.  Not everything in life is a business transaction, you nitwit.

 

Measles party -- exposing your children to the disease so they'll develop immunity?  What a novel concept!  If only there were some way to expose them without actually making them sick...

 

Does "fat acceptance" just encourage unhealthy behavior?  There are so many things wrong with that question, you can't even try to answer it.

 

I just don't understand the point of this show.  If they're trying to inform people, they need to do a better job.  If they just want people to argue, am I supposed to find that entertaining?

[Kaoteek]

I don't know. Contrary to Stewart, Colbert & Oliver, The Nightly Show just feels like Larry & co are bashing me over the head with their POV about whatever theme the show has chosen that day, spend the entire half-hour enforcing that POV, and make it clear during the panel section that if you don't agree with the show's consensus, you only deserve boos & weak tea. That's not particularly informative nor constructive, as far as i'm concerned, and something about Larry's self-satisfied delivery & nervous giggles at the show's own jokes kind of rubs me the wrong way (and again, I like Larry, I just don't really care for him as a serious, biased pundit).

[walnutqueen]

I am trying to keep an open mind about this show, but it isn't funny, clever or informative, and neither are many of the guests or the host himself, in this context.  So far, it is a fail. 

 

When Stewart retires, I might be done with late night altogether.

[ruby24]

I was kind of enjoying this at first, just because I like Larry, but I missed the last couple of episodes, and then I realized I didn't even care. I'm just not getting anything out of this panel stuff. I don't care what any of them have to say, and there's not enough time to get into a thoughtful discussion anyway. That's why I never watched The View. I didn't think I'd miss having guests on who were promoting something, but I actually do, because at least a lot of those people have things to say.

 

I'm also sorry to say that the fact that they did a whole show recapping topics they've already covered tells me these writers are probably struggling to come up with material already, which is NOT a good sign. I may be dropping out of this one, as much as I was looking forward to it. It's just not working.

[ABay]

I've been fastforwarding through it to get to @midnight (I have the DVR set to record from TDS-1 a.m. because CC has had problems with time keeping in the past).

[Traveller519]

Well, at least Larry's Keep it 100 segment was probably the best one of his of the year. 

 

But the show needs some serious fine tuning. I appreciate what they're trying to do, get into a more in depth talk about the big social topics at hand (Stewart usually only has time to hit on a couple in brief, and John goes in depth on issues that aren't being widely discussed). The problem here is it's not breaking any new ground. We've heard most of these debates and we're tired of them!

 

Where he's been at his best is when he's dealing with the issues of being African-American in today's society. And I've got to think that was the original intention of the program, in it's "Minority Report" concept-stage. But I think the concept of being a completely "Black" show scared off CC. Guys, Lot's of white people find black issues interesting when presented through the comedy frame. Chris Rock made a career on that.

 

I have to think CC is going to start working on the show, but you've got to let Larry be himself and do his show.

[ganesh]

I'm a white guy, but I'd rather see more shows like Black Fathers and Bill Cosby. Honestly, there's nothing new they covered with vaccinations except to underscore how deplorable scientific literacy is in this country, but I didn't this show to convince me. 

 

Marriage equality? Why cover that ground? Here's the summary, anyone who claims "deep seeded religious beliefs" as to why all legal American citizens shouldn't equally be protected under the law is either just flat out filled with hatred or knows nothing about religion, probably both. So this new show is shedding what on this?

 

If you're going to cover the same old topics then you have to call BS on the usual, typical, wrong arguments. You aren't "showing both sides of the debate" on vaccinations. Put the woman on the show, and tell her she's wrong. Because that's what she is. Put the preacher on the show and list every single biblical law and ask him if he follows all of them. 

 

You don't have to respect people's opinions if they're assholes. Being tolerant doesn't mean tolerating bullshit. 

 

Or, just stick to really interesting topics like black fathers, etc. 

[possibilities]

The panels feel to me like people making small talk at a bus stop, not really delving into issues. Why do I need to see that? It's tedious. Whether they are actually offending me or just being shallow, it's boring. Say something funny or insightful, but don't waste my time.

[Wax Lion]

If you want to cover issues that pertain to voices that aren't usually given the mic (to paraphrase the goal of this show from memory) you really should find the opinions you don't hear often. If you're going to discuss marriage equality, find a guest who is a leader in a church like the UCC or the Episcopal church that have a long history of conducting same-sex commitment ceremonies and bring up a topic like, "If marriage is a religious institution, haven't we had it for a long time?" At least half the panelists were gay but they both had worn-out arguments to make.

 

As I said, Melissa Harris-Perry has this covered, except without punchlines... except punchlines seem to disrupt it all. Maybe theres a MHP producer who could consult on finding the depth not usually covered.

[Milburn Stone]

Where he's been at his best is when he's dealing with the issues of being African-American in today's society. And I've got to think that was the original intention of the program, in it's "Minority Report" concept-stage. But I think the concept of being a completely "Black" show scared off CC.

 

This is what I've been saying since day one. The opportunity to do a nightly humorous topical show on race was the one opportunity this show had to do something different, make a name for itself, give the audience a reason to watch. They're squandering it.

 

The only part I don't know is whether the squanderers are the meddlers at Comedy Central, or if the squanderer is Wilmore himself because he wanted more variety or more "mainstream appeal." In any case they're pissing away the one shot at must-watch TV they had.

[Victor the Crab]

I've only watched a few episodes of TNS. And maybe I'm spoiled after watching Stephen on TCR unleash his comedic genius on a nightly basis, but I just can't get into Larry's new show.

 

I think a panel discussion taking up two thirds of the show is just lame and not really creative for a comedy show. And if members of the panel can't be funny on said comedy show, then why bother? Besides, I've seen this before on whatever show Bill Maher is hosting.

 

As for Larry, he has his moments of funny, like his running bit on Michael Moore a couple of weeks ago. But there are more times when he falls flat. And I just find it annoying when he opens the show with "Tonightly" and ends it with "Good nightly everyone".

 

Larry needs to pick up his game soon, and the show needs some tweaks to it. Because with Jon leaving TDS this year, I'm afraid TNS isn't going to have much of a shelf life.

[attica]

And I just find it annoying when he opens the show with "Tonightly" and ends it with "Good nightly everyone".

 

I actually find that charming.  But on the other hand, I find soccer dull. :)

 

(Only love V the C! Only love!)

[formerlyfreedom]

Okay, I really enjoyed Larry and Martin Short tonight.

[sandwoman]

I tried watching this show again after not really being able to get into it. The panel tonight just made me want to change the channel with Tara Setmayer yelling over people. It made me feel like I was watching Fox News or a nonsensical CNN panel. You can tell she was a 24-hour news creature. If I wanted to watch people yelling nonsense, I have plenty of options already. I thought Martin Short was awesome though. 

[attica]

Tara S is going to watch the tape of this show and call her hairdresser to fix her weave. One's media training should be expanded to expect a camera at your back, those of you wanting to be tv-pundits!

 

I share Larry's incredulity about Common's real name. I also don't get why the fuck the Oscars can't have their stage names on the deal -- it's not like Michael Keaton's award (had he won) would be announced as "Michael Douglas"! Is it only for the musicians? I sort of remember Eminem being tagged as "Marshall Mathers" when he won, as well.

[ganesh]

You can tell she was a 24-hour news creature.

 

This is the exact person who should *not* be on the show. With the parsing of the words. She obviously knows that there is a little bit of racism in Palin's and Guliani's statements. To turn it around with the 'he liked hearing the Muslim call to prayer' is irrelevant. As Larry pointed out, so? "Apply to both sides." Both sides of what? They don't like him because he's black!  You don't like the country because you said you wanted to fundamentally change it. Yeah, I know, it's awful to want to give 10 million people access to quality health care. 

 

She was completely full of shit about electing a racist president. 

 

Larry needs to frame the show better. This is your show. You set the table for the panel the way you want and stick to it. 

 

You know what? I've lived in different places in the world. I'd encourage anyone who has the opportunity to take it if they can. I would think that having a president with that kind of experience would be beneficial to the office. 

 

I don't know anything about the rapper, but he seemed good too. Short is always informed and has something good to say.

 

I still think the 100 segment works better when it's the same 2 questions for everyone.

Edited February 24, 2015 by ganesh

[pivot]

Just watched the the first two segments of last night's show online and it was hysterical. I am really liking Larry's sincerity and that he gives a damn about politics, etc. I've been over Stewart's cynicism for years now and his both sides are to blame nonsense and Larry is a breath of fresh air.

From what I've read, the ratings of the show are doing well and it is doing even better with online viewing. Hope that means he's here for awhile.

[trow125]

Just watched the the first two segments of last night's show online and it was hysterical. I am really liking Larry's sincerity and that he gives a damn about politics, etc. I've been over Stewart's cynicism for years now and his both sides are to blame nonsense and Larry is a breath of fresh air.

 

I thought the first segment (about the Oscars and Giuliani) was fantastic, but the panel was, again, a mess. Tara kept shouting over everybody and Frank Rich, who is probably one of the most insightful commentators in the business -- his new story about Ben Carson is great -- barely got a word in edgewise.

 

It's been said here before, but one of the reasons Bill Maher's panel works is because they have at least 30 commercial-free minutes for their discussion. Larry's panel has 6 or 7 minutes. I sometimes fast-forward through the "Nightly Show"'s panels, but I really wanted to see Rich and Martin Short last night; I was disappointed but not surprised by the result.

[Samsnee]

I only see the 2 minutes of the show when my DVR goes over The Daily Show and before @Midnite and the "Tonightly" and "Good Nightly" bug the hell out of me too. It's not as clever as they seem to think it is.

[BBG]

I really wish Martin Short had have answered with a simple "Steve."  We all knew he was thinking it.

[iMonrey]

Oh, Good Lord. Tara Setmayer would really elect a Republican racist over her own best friend? Is she for real? Because if so, it speaks to the success of right wing media in working their ditto-heads into a frenzy, enough to make this woman think the greatest threat to her own life is terrorism on foreign land - even more important than her own  civil rights. Good God. You'd have to be either incredibly stupid or shamelessly disingenuous, and neither is a flattering look. I was so floored by that statement I just had to respond to it here. 

 

Haven't really warmed up to this show since it began. Still watch out of habit - I'm just used to leaving the channel on for an hour after Jon Stewart. Wilmore's delivery is better suited to short, comedic commentary on Jon Stewart's show than an entire half hour telecast. There is something very grating about the way he speaks, and while he seems fairly well prepared during his monologues, he's a mess at the panel discussions.

[pivot]

I thought the first segment (about the Oscars and Giuliani) was fantastic, but the panel was, again, a mess. Tara kept shouting over everybody and Frank Rich, who is probably one of the most insightful commentators in the business -- his new story about Ben Carson is great -- barely got a word in edgewise.

 

It's been said here before, but one of the reasons Bill Maher's panel works is because they have at least 30 commercial-free minutes for their discussion. Larry's panel has 6 or 7 minutes. I sometimes fast-forward through the "Nightly Show"'s panels, but I really wanted to see Rich and Martin Short last night; I was disappointed but not surprised by the result.

I can't sit through any of the panels but then I never sat through the interviews on the Daily Show or Colbert. Just not my thing.

[biakbiak]

I share Larry's incredulity about Common's real name. I also don't get why the fuck the Oscars can't have their stage names on the deal -- it's not like Michael Keaton's award (had he won) would be announced as "Michael Douglas"! Is it only for the musicians? I sort of remember Eminem being tagged as "Marshall Mathers" when he won, as well.

It's how both of them are credited on the song, they both write under they given names not their stage names, same with Marshall Mathers. If they wrote under their stage names they would have used them.

[ganesh]

It was shamelessly disingenuous. This is the problem with keeping it 100. You shouldn't "win" because you answered the question quickly and with conviction.

Larry should have given her the tea and said, "you're just being a troll."

It's the same thing when the other woman said she wouldn't stand up and clap for the President.

Larry doesn't have any obligation to be fair. Or show both sides. It's his show.

[Wax Lion]

The Oscars/Juliani segment was great but I stopped watching a couple minutes into the panel. Setmayer was unbearable. I presume I could watch CNN and get just as insightful a panel.

 

That said the Islamophobia panel was pretty good... probably because they didn't feel the need to include a Pam Gellar-type.

I think that the problem with including opposing viewpoints isn't the viewpoints as much as the way they all seem to be people trained to derail conversations or to stop people from disagreeing with them by loudly interrupting. It's a problem MSNBC's panels had for a long time, but they worked really hard at it and they usually can find conservatives who can have a conversation.

 

But the conservatives who show up on TNS so far have largely been the media trained actors, the kind Jon said are just playing their role instead of having a debate on Crossfire.

[Skyfall]

The show flowed way better without the KI100 segment last night. So either they should jumped straight into the panel, scrap the panel KI100, or both.

[ganesh]

Black Ice was a good gag.

 

Yeah, I think the hate crime panel worked better. I don't need to see "both sides" when the other side is wrong. 

 

This is kind of the problem. If anyone watches the news regularly, it's been reported that ISIS has killed a shit ton of muslims in comparison to the westerners. They declare the muslims apostates, which means that they are 'real muslims' so they think it's legal to kill them. The lawyer was right to point out that. 

Edited February 25, 2015 by ganesh

[ChelseaNH]

One thing I wished they'd addressed is the assumption of a Muslim hive mind.  "What Muslims think about ISIS" is like "What Christians think about Israel".  There is no Muslim point of view.  There are all the points of view of people who are Muslim.

[attica]

I didn't know Reggie Love had quit POTUS, nor that he'd written a book. Something new to put on my TBR pile!

[Kaoteek]

Man, that "Mars" panel was a huge waste of time. And Larry the Martian was just... well... pointless.

[ganesh]

I actually don't mind the mars panel. There's no "other side" to bloviate about. I thought Cheadle was sincere in asking why people would want to go and what they would be doing there. I don't know why they didn't get more into that.

 

Nothing against the woman, but she was weird. "Oh, my husband is *totally* fine with me leaving my family and kids." Really? How did that discussion go exactly? I'd like to know the criteria of how these people were selected. If I'm sending people to Mars, they're going there to work.

 

If you're going to do a show about little known topics, do the show. They let the woman off the hook. 

[attica]

I've read elsewhere that the ratio of scientists to non-scientists for the Mars cohort is very bad indeed. I fear they've just, like, cast a reality show, instead of mounting a mission.

[Brandi Maxxxx]

If they're like most reality show casts you won't feel bad when they die after 68 days.

[Kaoteek]

I actually don't mind the mars panel. There's no "other side" to bloviate about. I thought Cheadle was sincere in asking why people would want to go and what they would be doing there. I don't know why they didn't get more into that.

 

Nothing against the woman, but she was weird. "Oh, my husband is *totally* fine with me leaving my family and kids." Really? How did that discussion go exactly? I'd like to know the criteria of how these people were selected. If I'm sending people to Mars, they're going there to work.

 

If you're going to do a show about little known topics, do the show. They let the woman off the hook. 

 

Thing is, the subject of that panel was interesting, to me, and I too would have liked for it to dig deeper... but you can't make me believe that for such a subject, there was nobody better to cast as a panelist than a comedian, a director, and an actor, none of them had anything particularly interesting, funny or relevant to say about the panel's theme. Sure, they cracked jokes about the Mars woman, and they all, unanimously, declared that they wouldn't take part in such a journey... but aside from that, that's it, a big ball of nothingness. And the Larry the Martian gimmick was possibly an even bigger waste of time, given the bland "answers" given by the panelists to Larry's questions.

 

(that said, it's funny that most previous panels, even the most controversial ones like the anti-vaxxer one, didn't annoy me as much as this one did)

Edited February 26, 2015 by Kaoteek

[Kromm]

Okay, I noticed they experimented with an episode where they ditched "Keep it 100" (although still calling back to it in Larry's goodbye piece). Frankly the pace of the show seemed much better without it. Despite their desire for a signature piece, I think this proved what a waste that piece ultimately is.

[trow125]

I wonder if they tried to get Neil DeGrasse Tyson (who was mentioned in Larry's intro)? I would have preferred a longer one-on-one with the panelist who has applied to go to Mars. Though I guess I should stop complaining about the four-person panel format since it's obvious they're planning to stick with it come hell or high water.

[formerlyfreedom]

Though I guess I should stop complaining about the four-person panel format since it's obvious they're planning to stick with it come hell or high water.

 

I really REALLY wish they'd drop to a two- or even three-person panel. It does seem that there's always at least one panelist who is marginalized in the conversation.

[Skyfall]

Okay, I noticed they experimented with an episode where they ditched "Keep it 100" (although still calling back to it in Larry's goodbye piece). Frankly the pace of the show seemed much better without it. Despite their desire for a signature piece, I think this proved what a waste that piece ultimately is.

Past two days actually

[DXD526]

Why is Larry shown playing air guitar in a bathroom in the show's opening? I don't think it's prudish to say that I don't ever want to watch anybody do anything in the bathroom. Go to your office and play air guitar. Bathroom time should be private time. It's a small thing, but it irritates me every night.  

[Kromm]

Okay, I had a bit of an issue with one part of the special "black women" episode.

 

In the equal pay/equal treatment part, virtually all of the points raised had major validity, but the show somewhat shot itself in the foot by trying to represent that with a panel made up of women in two professions where the gap has been overcome a bit more in recent days than in many other fields--the entertainment business and higher education.

 

This is not to say that gap doesn't still exist and isn't huge, even if those fields, but it's like putting your least effective examples front and center to represent a whole. Whereas if you'd had businesswomen on the panel talking about pay in Fortune 500 companies, or lawyers, talking about law firm wages, or medical professionals, talking about representation there, or even people in domestic fields discussing those fields, you'd have had far more powerful examples.  Now whether or not that panel would be easily available, or entertaining to watch is a total other issue.

 

Not that the Oprahs, Shonda Rhimes, Whoopi Goldbergs, Wanda Sykes' of the world should be ignored in any such discussion.  But it would have been nice to see a context placed onto the comments that acknowledged that these black women had to create their OWN opportunities to overcome the prejudice.  And that maybe if they hadn't then that field would be in exactly the same hole that many others still are in.

 

Maybe the problem is that they tried to represent too many topics with this panel, because they later talked about other issues--like interracial dating and the "bossy" issue (where arguably the professions of the panel as either entertainers or academics didn't give them a slightly different skew from other black women).

Edited February 28, 2015 by Kromm

[ganesh]

Bottom line for me, this panel and the 'black fathers' panel, were probably the best of the show. They need to step back and assess the show they have. 

[trow125]

OMG a show with no panel!!! When DiBlasio was announced, I was afraid it was going to be him, two comedians and a conservative who is nostalgic for the Giuliani administration. I had no problem watching this ep all the way through, and thought Larry did quite a good job as an interviewer.

[attica]

I wish somebody on the panel would have brought up how, since most campus rapes are committed by acquaintance (rather than by outsider ambush), the presence of guns would make that problem worse. Now it won't be just alcohol used to make girls submit, it'll be guns! Great! Whoo! Yay! What could go wrong?!?!?

 

I fear for the republic.

[ChelseaNH]

Kinda hard to shoot straight when you've been roofied.

[ALenore]

I wish somebody on the panel would have brought up how, since most campus rapes are committed by acquaintance (rather than by outsider ambush), the presence of guns would make that problem worse. Now it won't be just alcohol used to make girls submit, it'll be guns! Great! Whoo! Yay! What could go wrong?!?!?

 

Exactly!  I mean, it's not like they are proposing that only "hot little girls" would be allowed to have guns.  Guns are a great offensive weapon, they are a lousy defensive weapon.  

When I was in college (many years ago) a friend of mine came within a minute or so of getting shot in the head.  She was studying at her desk and got up to use the bathroom.  She heard a noise, and when she came back to her room there was a bullet hole in the wall behind her head. The guys in the room next door decided to do some target practice and hung a target on the wall of their room, not realizing the bullets would go straight through to the next room.  

Edited March 5, 2015 by ALenore

[iMonrey]

The one girl on that panel who was the Republican/pro-gun representative tried to make a point of saying women would be "trained and permitted" to carry guns on campus. I wanted so badly for someone - anyone - to point out that the NRA is opposed to any kind of restrictions like a training requirement or a permit. 

[ganesh]

Didn't the Georgetown student basically counter with that?

The NYU student just struck me as naive. The news woman was right: this is about promoting guns, nothing else.

As the NYU student pointed out, there is a lack of resources for campus law enforcement. Isn't that really the issue? Tuition is through the roof. Why isn't safety better?

Not to mention that "hot little girls" is kind of contributing to the problem itself.

Edited March 5, 2015 by ganesh

[Ottis]

OMG a show with no panel!!! When DiBlasio was announced, I was afraid it was going to be him, two comedians and a conservative who is nostalgic for the Giuliani administration. I had no problem watching this ep all the way through, and thought Larry did quite a good job as an interviewer.

 

 

The only episode I deleted as soon as I saw no panel. I don't need to hear propaganda. I like the panel format. Larry just needs better panelists, and more POVs.

[attica]

Another panel with Godfrey! Happy!

[ganesh]

I think the show needs to stick with the racial issues. Those have been the best episodes. I don't think they need to be 'fair'; i.e., Larry should just present his own pov and build the conversation around that.