The Nightly Show: Season One Talk

[iMonrey]

 

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.

 

I'll have to disagree, I think the show works better with Daily Show type "bits" like the one last night with the fake cop from Ferguson. Bringing a panel on in the third and final segment just makes them even more superfluous, they get maybe one question each. 

[The Luvly Junkie]

Whoaaaaa~ I think the way Larry handled the Department of Ferguson was a little better than TDS. The "WE CAN'T BELIEVE THIS S**T SO WE HAVE TO ACT IT OUT" was weird (well until one of the actors was hesitant to use the N-word, the REAL DIALOGUE, funny, uncomfortable, but true). Also nice parallelism/diss with Larry's timeslot in the cop segment, probably the most hilarious moment from the episode. I believe the "Unlawful Assembly's" arousing feedback is proof that Larry nailed it.

[trow125]

The first two segments of the Ferguson show were great. I laughed a lot (some of it was uncomfortable laughter, granted). The panel WAS more rushed than usual... if he had just had a couple people, I think it would have worked better in that short period of time.

 

I realized after watching the marijuana episode that one of the reasons I thought the panel worked was because there was no anti-drug zealot on there!! I don't think everybody was necessarily PRO-marijuana, but to me, it showed that you can have a good, informative panel without necessarily having to present "on the one hand, on the other hand." The "stoned, drunk or sober" bit was also funny.

[attica]

I was waiting for somebody to make the crack that Martin must be high to wear those ascots.

[Kromm]

If I'm REALLY "keeping it 100" I have to admit I was disappointed in the Ferguson episode.  The non-panel segments were fine.  But that panel discussion was just shit.  It just seemed to prove that you can't get anything intelligent out of that little time. 

[attica]

I confess I'm not all that up on rap lyrics, so I very much appreciated Larry's pointing out that Bam is cribbing from Jay-Z. Hee!

 

I laughed at Amish-ish more than it deserved. (Oh, but I love me some shoo-fly pie!)

[Victor the Crab]

Really lame of you Larry to concede the right's narrative that Republicans were the ones who supported civil rights far more than the Democrats five decades ago, and therefore continue to do so today. First, there were far more moderate Republicans in Congress during that time, that actually voted along lines of common sense then on overzealous party ideology, then there are today. Today's GOP has practically driven their own moderates out of extinction, or close to it.

 

And second, the Democrats had to contend with the blatantly racist southern Dixiecrats in their own party. Many of whom would have felt right at home within the ideology of today's Republican party, and whom they all jumped ship to after LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act, and when Nixon started wooing them with his Southern Strategy right after. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were Democrats, FFS!

 

I would have thought you'd have easily understood that by now instead of attempting some lame ass excuse of humor.

[ganesh]

Oh, there's no way the 21st century republican party is anything remotely like the one in the 60s, or even the 80s. They're also way way way downplaying LBJ's influence in passing the civil rights act as well.

 

Strictly speaking politically, however, I would have thought Boehner and McConnell would have latched on to this and made an appearance at Selma to promote this canard. They really just don't know how to do much right as the majority party. Such a mess.

 

Why didn't Larry devote the entire show to Selma. He talked about it at length, and then the panel was about the Apple watch? WTF? Terribly forgettable show. They've done their best work sticking to racial issues, a lot of which aren't covered much anyway. Go with that.

 

I mean, who cares if Cedric the entertainer is going to buy an apple watch?

[iMonrey]

I sense they are still working out the kinks in the format, but more and more the panel segment is becoming irrelevant, as is "Keeping it 100." If they are going to devote the first segment solely to Larry reporting on recent news, and devote the second segment to some sort of "bit," then at most the third segment should be Larry interview one person. A four person panel for five minutes accomplishes nothing. Honestly, I don't know why anyone would bother showing up for a "panel" for such a brief segment.

 

Can I address something that's been bothering me since this show debuted? Larry has a very odd speech tic I find extremely distracting. He has a tendency to go "Mm" between every sentence. Like he'll say something. Mm. Then he'll say something else. Mm. Then he'll tell a joke. Mm. Then say something else. Mm.

Drives me batty. Has anyone else noticed this and is anyone as bugged by it as I am?

[attica]

Noticed it; not bugged by it. Fwiw.

[Wax Lion]

 

Really lame of you Larry to concede the right's narrative that Republicans were the ones who supported civil rights far more than the Democrats five decades ago, and therefore continue to do so today.

 

I think the point was supposed to be "Okay, fine. You want to pretend the southern strategy and the exit/courting of the Dixiecrats never happened? Okay, great. Then if the Democrats are the party of racism then why were you guys absent while the Democrats were the only ones who looked like they gave a fuck about the anniversary of Selma?"

 

But it really fell flat because that joke requires you take seriously the idea that there was no shift in the parties and the punchline wasn't driven hard enough. I guess the pacing was off, there was too much time spent establishing the Democrats' racist history only for the point of the joke to get a few seconds. There should have been a bunch of follow-up jokes about the Rebublicans being the party that cares enough not to show up or that maybe the knew they'd only ruin things so this was their way of showing how much they cared about the anniversary.

 

I like the idea of the joke but in practice it was really off. In the end it just kinda reinforced the Repubican rewriting of history.

[ruby24]

Yeah, you have to understand that the parties underwent realignments because of the civil rights acts- that had strong political after effects. Dixiecrats became Republicans, etc. Also, moderate and even liberal Republicans existed back then, and lots of them were northern. The Republican Party at the time wasn't a regional rump party, like it is now.

[Kromm]

I sense they are still working out the kinks in the format, but more and more the panel segment is becoming irrelevant, as is "Keeping it 100." If they are going to devote the first segment solely to Larry reporting on recent news, and devote the second segment to some sort of "bit," then at most the third segment should be Larry interview one person. A four person panel for five minutes accomplishes nothing. Honestly, I don't know why anyone would bother showing up for a "panel" for such a brief segment.

 

Can I address something that's been bothering me since this show debuted? Larry has a very odd speech tic I find extremely distracting. He has a tendency to go "Mm" between every sentence. Like he'll say something. Mm. Then he'll say something else. Mm. Then he'll tell a joke. Mm. Then say something else. Mm.

Drives me batty. Has anyone else noticed this and is anyone as bugged by it as I am?

To me the answer is this:

 

As common sense has led to, "Keeping it 100" is and should continue to be history.  Just an annoying segment and a waste of time, and that became clear to them too, as much as they wanted to try to create some viral catchphrase for Larry.

 

The panel isn't inherently useless, just as implemented.  Here's what I'd do.  Decide show by show, topic by topic, if you want a panel show or a monologue/skit combo show.  Go with only ONE choice per topic.  If you have a panel show, it's as close to 100% of the episode air time as possible.  If you have a monologue/skit combo show, you have no panel.  At all.  

 

It's that simple.  Half-show or third show panels are a waste of time, almost as much as "Keeping it 100" was.

And the third variant would be a one on one interview episode.  Which since they ARE somewhat flexible can be combined with a monologue or a skit (never a panel), but probably only one of those two.

The point I think is not to get stuck on a specific format.  I know other shows of this type depend on spitting out the same format each episode, but it actually works better for this show's unity to be defined more by the SUBJECT MATTER than the format.

[attica]

The opening question to the panel "who holds women back more" made flames erupt on the sides of my face. Um, maybe in small group situations women are hard on each other, but society-wide? No contest: dudes hold women back. Dudes write and pass the laws, dudes run the religions, dudes control the money. Dudes. And no woman has ever sent me a rape threat after something I wrote on the internet, bee tee dubs. Way to derail the whole thing, there, Larry. Gah.

[ganesh]

I don't think Larry should have opened with the fraternity and then had the main theme be about women. Each can standalone as one show. As a result, he spent too much time in the opening and not enough for the panel.

 

The opening question to the panel "who holds women back more" made flames erupt on the sides of my face.

 

Especially since Larry himself said, if you don't know anything about the vagina, you shouldn't be making laws about it. That underscores it right there. 

 

I'm confused why Norton thinks Clinton is psychotic? Definitely shouldn't be compared with Palin ffs. One could question whether Clinton has what it takes to be president, but come on. At least offer a credible alternative if you're on the subject. 

[iMonrey]

 

The opening question to the panel "who holds women back more" made flames erupt on the sides of my face. Um, maybe in small group situations women are hard on each other, but society-wide? No contest: dudes hold women back.

 

Well, Egypt Sherrod is an idiot, so her reasoning was expectedly stupid. But you have to consider the fact that women voters outnumber men voters by a margin that makes it feasible for women, en masse, to decide any given election - yet those elections are still won by men 98% of the time even when one of the candidates is a woman. I think that speaks to the fact that some women are threatened by other women more than by men, and that some women are more comfortable having a man in charge than another woman. There is a sort of cultural issue here where a percentage of women would prefer a man to take care of them, whether politically or domestically.

[Milburn Stone]

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. 

 

From the beginning, I thought race was what the show was going to be about, and why it had potential. A comedy-news half-hour focusing on race night after night would would have been differentiating. But they frittered away that opportunity.

[attica]

I think that speaks to the fact that some women are threatened by other women more than by men, and that some women are more comfortable having a man in charge than another woman. There is a sort of cultural issue here where a percentage of women would prefer a man to take care of them, whether politically or domestically.

 

Yes, and that aaaallll ties back into the fact that everybody, men and women alike, have been marinating (inculcated, socialized)  in Patriarchy since forever. That it's demonstrably bad is sadly not necessarily a defense against its power.

[Paws]

The show really has some issues to work out but SO MUCH potential. The biggest issue, for me, is the quality of the panelists. He has WAY too many men on the show and too few women, for one.  He's had an all-women panel once; he's had an all-male panel  many times (although it is a small sample size right now).  And while I appreciate that he has on voices that are less represented, it would be helpful if these voices had something to say.  I think he had two comedians on last night, instead of women with a more political bent or stronger points of view/more finely tuned ideas about women's experiences these days.   I know the show has to be funny but i expect HIM to provide the humor, not the guests. 

[possibilities]

I was so looking forward to this show, and I have been trying to wait it out while they get their format and other problems worked out, but at this point I really just think Wilmore doesn't know what the hell he's doing, and is in way over his head not only as a show leader but also in terms of the material he's trying to address.

 

He is repeatedly saying utterly offensive crap about women and then smirking about how cute he is when he admits he made an oopsie. He acts like it's cute of him and then goes and does it again, when he really should just admit he doesn't have his shit together on sexism and women's issues and should shut the fuck up while he learns. An ability to call out the guy who doesn't know that the vagina and the GI tract are not a direct link does not make you anything special or give you standing to make jokes about women and our alleged horizontal hostility. So shut the hell up and stop going to this well.

 

Or hire a qualified female co-host. I'd like to see Wanda Sykes as a guest. She'd rip him to shreds. But she's actually funny and also aware, so he would never have her on. He prefers guests who are either not funny or not quick or not informed.

 

The panel is STUPID, partly because of time constraints but partly because he stocks it with unqualified participants and idiotic premises. He is clinging to the 100 bit when it doesn't work at all, and to a panel format that basically makes half the show so boring and superficial that I literally have trouble staying awake for it, and when I do get through it, I am usually angry afterwards because I feel like it was such a stupid waste of time.

 

He can't tell when things are funny vs inherently obnoxious. Choose to eradicate 2 out of three of cancer, sexism, and racism, and the one you don't choose will be with us forever at a grossly accelerated rate? Really? What would be the good answer to that question? Personally I'd choose cancer since at least in a world free of racism and sexism it might be an equal opportunity killer. But I wouldn't be happy about it and he also basically said: you can't choose cancer. So divide and conquer, Larry! Ask a Black woman to choose sides! Aren't you the clever host! It's just stupid. The show is stupid.

 

And smug. That's the worst part. It's like the format is self-congratulatory about how stupid it is. Why? At least shows it imitates, like "The View," aren't pretending to be super-funny or super-brave. If they just wanted to get some dummies to sit around shooting the shit, during late night instead of during daytime TV, they could do that and not try to sell it as anything more. I wouldn't watch it, but I wouldn't be angry about it, either. It's just so heartbreaking that we've lost TCR and replaced it with this weak shit that can't seem to decide if it wants to be smart, or will settle for being dickish.

 

I miss TCR more than I anticipated, and Totally Biased even more than that. What the hell is wrong with Comedy Central that they can't do better than this? And it makes me less confident that they will replace Stewart over at The Daily Show with anyone worth watching, either. You'd think that even if they just got lucky for the past decade and a half, that they might have studied it and learned enough from the success to replicate it, or something else as good, but apparently not. The network owes its success to shows it apparently had no hand in crafting, other than random luck when hiring hosts?

[attica]

On the upside, I thought Rory Albanese was pretty funny as the overaged frat boy.

[DXD526]

It drives me nuts when someone says 'more women should run for office.' That's not the issue. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are both women, and I wouldn't vote for either of them at gunpoint. I'd like to see more women in politics, but if the choice is between voting for a woman like Bachmann or a man like Bernie Sanders, there's no contest. 

 

He is clinging to the 100 bit when it doesn't work at all

 

Yes, it's pointless and should be dropped. Just because someone answers a question quickly doesn't mean they're not being disingenuous. And if someone chooses to think a moment, it doesn't mean they're lying. Drop this nonsense.

[possibilities]

That's it. I'm done. I'm taking this off my watch list.

 

Let me explain this, Larry: You don't get to define what other people's issues are, what battles they should fight, or whether or not they are being silly. If you don't give a shit about what other people say bothers them, why should they give a shit about how upset you are to hear they're bothered? I thought Liz was exactly right: people are finally speaking up who are not used to being heard, and no, it's not comfortable to face it, but if he can't understand how "bossy" has been used in a sexist way against women, or why "undocumented" is preferable to "illegal," and he thinks it's funny to mock people struggling with issues he personally does not face, I don't know why he thinks that's okay, but I felt like I was watching FOXNews during that panel, and I'm done. 

 

It's clear that in the past when he made cracks about black women and then about women in general, and laughed it off, that he thinks it's naughtily empowering rather than embarrassing to get caught with his consciousness down and that he thinks he can get away with it and oooeee isn't that fun? Maybe for him, but he's lost me as a viewer.

[Kromm]

The show really has some issues to work out but SO MUCH potential. The biggest issue, for me, is the quality of the panelists. He has WAY too many men on the show and too few women, for one.  He's had an all-women panel once; he's had an all-male panel  many times (although it is a small sample size right now).  And while I appreciate that he has on voices that are less represented, it would be helpful if these voices had something to say.  I think he had two comedians on last night, instead of women with a more political bent or stronger points of view/more finely tuned ideas about women's experiences these days.   I know the show has to be funny but i expect HIM to provide the humor, not the guests. 

I doubt it's boiled down to anything close to 50-50, like the actual population, but he's had far more women panelists on than most panel shows.

 

Very few of them are quality panelists though, I agree.  He's in New York, not L.A., so getting actual smart non-entertainment-industry people should be a little bit easier (it would be hopeless if the show was based there).  

[Kromm]

Or hire a qualified female co-host. I'd like to see Wanda Sykes as a guest. She'd rip him to shreds. But she's actually funny and also aware, so he would never have her on. He prefers guests who are either not funny or not quick or not informed.

As a guest, sure.  But a 2 host format might make the show even worse.  Replacing simple intro dialogues, for example, with banter.  Banter wastes time.

 

If we're being totally honest, Wanda Sykes would make a better host (not co-host) than most of the chuckleheads being bandied around for ANY of the late night jobs (or this one).  Her very brief FOX talk show, with the shitty untenable once per week Saturday night timeslot, is probably held much (and unfairly) against her.

[Wax Lion]

 

From the beginning, I thought race was what the show was going to be about, and why it had potential. A comedy-news half-hour focusing on race night after night would would have been differentiating. But they frittered away that opportunity.

 

I think in this day a show just about race would seem as dated as the panel format. People who are interested in discussion of race are well aware that fighting racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and other bigotries are related so he was on the right track when Wilmore talked about the show being about all groups that don't have a voice. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be good at it. W Kamau Bell had a lot of misses but he was on the right track, Totally Biased was pretty focused on making the bigot the butt of the joke (even if sometimes Bell made fun of the wrong thing, like their twitter handle). Instead, TNS has been doing a lot of "Sorry not sorry" jokes (like the series of apologies).

 

And, dear god, I only caught a few bits from tonight's episode but did I really walk in a bunch of comedians whining about political correctness? That just cements the dated feeling. And when Lizz Winstead had something smart to say she was ignored to go back to the whining like its 1993.

 

At the way things are going, I'm not worried about how I'm going to find an time to watch Colbert every night if his Late Show turns out to be really good.

[attica]

I guess I was unaware that Nick DiPaolo was such a meathead douchebag. Good to know going forward!

 

Are those slouchy knit caps really called beanies? I thought a beanie was a semispherical cap, likely as not to have a propeller attached to it. Another thing I've learned today!

 

Yeah, Larry's dismissal of how 'illegal/alien' aren't slurs was downright awful.

[gesundheit]

I guess I was unaware that Nick DiPaolo was such a meathead douchebag. Good to know going forward!

Holy crap was he awful! I thought for a second he was being satirical when he said political correctness exists to hurt straight, Christian, white men. But he wasn't. Also, Nick, if people are telling you nightly that you're racist, homophobic, and sexist, perhaps you might want to stop and consider why people are telling you that every day of your life instead of whining that they're using some sort of slur against you.

 

God. You hear that those people exist. You see their comments on the internet. But to see a real live one talking... yikes.

[Paws]

it always looks so promising when he starts the show....and then....ugh.   Nick DiPaolo was the very definition of the Fox news watching, white male who feels victimized. I was glad Larry said that the white guys have been in charge a long ass time, but he could have asked Nick why he seems to feel victimized by other people having the same rights he has.

[gesundheit]

 Nick DiPaolo was the very definition of the Fox news watching, white male who feels victimized. I was glad Larry said that the white guys have been in charge a long ass time, but he could have asked Nick why he seems to feel victimized by other people having the same rights he has.

I was also disappointed that Larry just jovially told him to stop hanging out with people who call him a bigot. I wish SOMEone there had suggested he might actually do a little self-reflection and figure out why.

[ganesh]

This was not a good show. I thought the show was going to be about climate change. The opening segment has been all over the place. 

[Ottis]

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.

 

 

And YMMV, but this is why I am close to stopping watching the show. It seems like so many of the discussions are about race, and those who are on one side of that argument are overrepresented. Once you acknowledge that racism does still exists - not everywhere, but in many places - and that those who are racists are wrong, and that we all want that to end, then where do you go? You either end up talking about examples of racism (we already know it exists), or ways we stop it (usually comedically violent, or government intervention). There is rarely talk about *why* it still exists, about why it so often seems targeted specifically to African Americans vs. other groups, about constructive ways to combat it or acknowledgement that in many places, people have worked hard to end it and it actually is minimal or nonexistent. In other words, it is the same discussion over and over.

 

I don't care for the "bits" at all. I prefered the longer panels, with different voices. I think maybe part of the show's panel problem is that the panel discussions, and the audience, are so far over on one side of these issues that anyone who wants to appear and earnestly represent a different angle feels it isn't worth the abuse. For instance, in Ferguson, the police chief and town manager resigned, and then two cops were shot. If the result of months of protests and media coverage and government investigation resulted in clearly identifying racism among city officials and ended the careers of the two key leaders of the city, why is then shooting two cops an appropriate community response?  But even asking that risks being attacked. When TDS covered the report/Wilson verdict a week ago, Jon Stewart dismissed the Wilson verdict (literally ... he said something like, "Forget about that ...") and focused solely on the findings of racism there. Which *should* be a main focus. But why dismiss the fact the Justice Dept. didn't charge Wilson? Why not talk about both? Larry's show seems to be following the same lead.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Ottis

[Kaoteek]

Aside from the content and the uneven writing, there's something that really bothers me in the show's format : it lacks energy. And by that, I mean that every night, you'll get something like that : Larry makes a joke, Larry waits for the crowd to laugh, Larry chuckles to himself self-satisfiedly, Larry waits a couple seconds, Larry ad-libs, Larry waits for the crowd to react to his ad-lib, and then, after another chuckle, Larry goes on to the next joke/part of his monologue.

 

That just doesn't work for me. It gives a slow, sloppy vibe to the entire show, which could and should be fixed by better direction/editing/writing... just give the show some energy, some punch, instead of having the Nightly Show meander from one joke to the other, from one segment to the other, with weak, half-assed transitions that make it look like the show is semi-improv'd, and its format has just been decided upon ten minutes before taping.

[ganesh]

Racial/sexism issues may lead to similar discussions, but clearly, as OU points out, they're discussions that need to be had. Every week there's something new happened to talk about. What the show needs to do is *not* have on the professional pundits and get underrepresented povs as much as possible. This panel was shit. Who cares about some old white 50 something comic?

 

I find it hard to believe a compelling show can't be built around this premise.

[futurechemist]

I think the show's format is hindering it.  Real Time with Bill Maher is 60 minutes with no commercials.  The Nightly Show is 30 minutes with commercials, so essentially 22 minutes.  That's not long enough to have a meaningful discussion, especially when the discussion often only covers the middle 1/3 of the show.  Or maybe take a page from the Daily Show.  If need be, have a longer panel discussion.  Edit the best bits for the show, and post the full panel on the website.

 

I like the idea of Keeping it 100, just not the implementation.  Instead of "Sophie's choice" questions - "sexism or racism?" - how about a hard-hitting question, possibly based on what the panelists said during the 1st segment.  Ask the white male comedian if he's ever been properly discriminated against, or something along those lines.

 

I also like them trying to vary the format from time to time.  Though the "guess the slur" game was painful to watch.

Edited March 12, 2015 by futurechemist

[ChelseaNH]

Oh, no, Nick DiPaulo feels marginalized.  But instead of developing some empathy for other people who have felt marginalized, he just cares about himself.

 

Involving the law, in the form of banning words, is the wrong solution to the problem, but pretending there's no problem because it doesn't affect you?  Talk about privilege.

[iMonrey]

 

Are those slouchy knit caps really called beanies? I thought a beanie was a semispherical cap, likely as not to have a propeller attached to it. Another thing I've learned today!

 

No, those are not technically beanies. And this game was even dumber than Keeping it 100. What a colossal waste of time - not only was it unfunny, there was no possible way for any of them to guess what ridiculous thing was written on their knit hats.

 

 

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.

 

I think a one-topic show four nights a week would get stale awfully fast. And a show that discusses only racial issues night after night is going to have very narrow audience appeal. 

 

That said, Larry is having a tough time not being Jon Stewart, not being Stephen Colbert, not being John Oliver, and still being interesting and relevant.

[shok]

 

For instance, in Ferguson, the police chief and town manager resigned, and then two cops were shot. If the result of months of protests and media coverage and government investigation resulted in clearly identifying racism among city officials and ended the careers of the two key leaders of the city, why is then shooting two cops an appropriate community response?  But even asking that risks being attacked.

 

Who ever said that shooting two cops was an appropriate community response??? The 'community', which has been out there protesting peacefully night after night (without media coverage...because it's peaceful) for seven months now is as upset as anyone. They are very sure it wasn't anyone from their group but of course certain segments of the media have made it a part of them. As they point out, the police in the St Louis area have shot and killed seven people since last August but the media isn't blaming all police for that. There's a very interesting and provocactive discussion to be had about it all but Larry and some comedians aren't the ones to have it.

[One Imaginary Girl]

I like this show, but if Larry ever has that moron Nick DiPaolo on again, I'm walking away and not looking back.  

[attica]

I refused to watch the Tyson panel. I'm not spending my eyeballs on a rapist, thanks very much.  (And all the people who think that being accused of rape ruins your life? Mike Tyson, felon and still adored, as rich as ever, is your rebuttal Exhibit One.) It galls me to watch people fawn over him. Horrible.

[possibilities]

I didn't watch, but it's interesting to me to hear they fawned over Tyson. Why is he okay and Cosby isn't?

[DXD526]

I didn't watch, but it's interesting to me to hear they fawned over Tyson. Why is he okay and Cosby isn't?

 

This would be a particularly good question for Larry, since he's been attacking Cosby pretty much on a regular basis since this show began, but led the Tyson fawning last night. 

[iMonrey]

This was the first one I skipped altogether. I switched over to watch Kimmel interview Obama.

 

I hate to say it, but I just don't think Wilmore has what it takes to pull this off. He was fine as a correspondent on TDS but I've given him a month on his own show, and it's not just the format that's the problem, it's him as well. You either have it or you don't, and after a month of this, I don't think he has it.

[Paws]

i think he has it, i just think the format and choice of guests are killing him.  Its only been on a month; Colbert had a bumpy start as well while he figured it out and we figured it out. And it was filling an empty timeslot, not a revered one.

[possibilities]

I watched Obama on Kimmel, too. And it was funny! I find Kimmel constitutionally unfunny, i.e. no matter what he does, he never seems funny to me, even if the same material would have been amusing if delivered by someone else. But he had Obama read "mean tweets" about himself, and Obama was funny doing it. This is what it's come to, Comedy Central! Jimmy freaking Kimmel won my insomniac viewership over you.

 

I thought TCR was funny from day 1. If TNS was just "not awesome" I would have continued to give it time to develop. But I think its actively offensive at least 50% of the time, and only occasionally funny or insightful. It also hasn't learned from its mistakes or shown humility about its goofs. It's doubled down on most of them. Of course, whether a show appeals to me or any other individual is a matter of taste. But I think what we're seeing here is more than growing pains. I'd love to be wrong. I'll continue to check in with the forum to see if the tide turns, but I'm not coming back as a viewer of the show unless it does.

[dohe]

The last two nights have been pretty darn horrible.  There are common problems with panels and one is a troll like Nick DiPaolo.  Wilmore often does a good job of getting people to a place of actual discussion but there are the times when he is flailing and it is cases like this when his POV is not as focused and certain.  As for the language thing, consider the kids who kill themselves after being called words.  The biggest lie ever is sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.  When someone uses a derogatory slur for gay men, it is piercing.  It takes the wind out of me and brings back the brutality.  I just finished Todd Glass's memoir and he nails how devastating it is.  So to have an episode about the power of words and have DiPaolo screaming his misery about not being able to bully without people questioning him was ridiculous.

 

More than that, Larry's point was screwed up.  Yes colleges should be about discussion and debate.  But how exactly is mocking people based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation debate?  This is just bullying plain and simple.

 

As for the Tyson one, I turned it off.  One of Larry's finest moments was the Cosby episode.  Now he has the one person who was defending Cosby from that panel and sure enough that guy is fawning over convicted rapist Mike Tyson.  But then Larry is too.  That left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

Panels every once in awhile.  The Cosby episode and the all black women episodes were terrific.  But once every two weeks is about enough. 

[trow125]

I remember Larry mentioning a couple of weeks ago that he was going through a divorce, and now every time he says something "jokingly" critical of women, I wonder if it's related to that. I'm not saying it's right or justified, but a lot of men seem to develop some hostility toward women when they're getting divorced.

 

(Off-topic, but since "Totally Biased" occasionally comes up in this forum: I was really glad to see that W. Kamau Bell got a new show. It sounds nothing like "Totally Biased" but I'm sure it will be worth watching.)

[Kaoteek]

Yeah, that last show just never worked for me. The whole "Wu Tang record/88 years later" segment just fell flat, for recurring reasons I've mentioned in an earlier comment (timing was off, crowd reactions were hesitant, and both the writing & the delivery were on the weak side... and then, the boxing panel. Opening the show with a "are combat sports a thing of the past ?" when MMA is thriving (heck, even Tyson is advising young fighters to go into MMA rather than boxing), and when big time boxing matches still draw big, was already some ill-advised choice, on (to be honest) a pointless subject, at least as far as "the Nightly Show" goes... and then there was the fawning over Tyson. I get it, he's done (part of) his time, he's (supposedly) a changed man, he's been making amends, and he's become a very affable, funny guy... but really ? Double standards much (re Cosby) ?

Edited March 14, 2015 by Kaoteek

[Kromm]

Given the CNN landing spot, and the way the show is described, I'm wondering if Tony Bourdain's long term partners, Zero Point Zero, are behind Bell's new show.

 

EDIT - Nope.  It's not (under "Company Credits").: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4515676/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Edited March 14, 2015 by Kromm

[blanchowens]

Still trying desperately to like this show...well I enjoy it until the panel discussions.  So I'll keep watching.  I mostly skipped Colbert's interviews too so I guess it works out for me although I always got at least one LOL moment with Colbert.