The Nightly Show: Season One Talk

[marceline]

I do not have respect for people who believe in creationism. They're wrong and shouldn't be in charge of nuclear weapons. That shit gets shut down in my class.

 

Thank you. I don't play nice with creationists, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers or MRAs. You want to cling to a desperate lie? Fine. But I'm not going to indulge you just to be nice.

Edited March 25, 2015 by marceline

[ganesh]

I didn't get the comment that "some evangelicals believe in climate change" in response. Ok, but if that's the case, then I'm doubtful you believe in creationism then and that's irrelevant to Larry's comment that we have to make nice with them for the sake of making nice. Not all religious people, probably most, are creationists. If you're a creationist, this is an indication that you don't know how the scientific method works. If you don't know that, then you're unfit to make policy decisions, among other kinds of decisions. 

[jbrecken]

I'm not sure how I feel about going from actual confrontation on the panel to a cut to a commercial to coming back and everyone getting along to play a stupid game.

[ChelseaNH]

I think the root problem is that the show doesn't have a strong, clear, distinct voice.  It needs to figure out its identity.  Right now, it seems most closely tied to the idea of "keep it 100" -- but I'm not sure how that is supposed to translate into an entertaining show.  Is honesty inherently entertaining?  It can be hard and uncomfortable, and I've seen the show shy away from holding themselves to that kind of rigorous scrutiny.

[wknt3]

I grew up watching Politically Incorrect. Perhaps that's why I think the show can work. And I thought it was 30 minutes too. But I was a child/teenager, so my memories may be too rosy. When I watch Real Time, I think the panel (if you strip away his stupid forced sketches), works well for the short amount of time that they really go at it.

 

I also grew up with Politically Incorrect and follow Real Time. I agree that Bill is better at hosting panels than Larry and just about everyone who's ever tried it. I also remember that there were more than a few dud shows, bad guests, and panel discussions that cut off too quickly. I think it was part of the reason PI's ratings eventually dipped. They also did 2 panel segments IIRC instead of just 1 and a bit/game of some sort so if the guests had something interesting to say it wasn't cut off so quickly. I think if you had someone who was as good as panels as Bill Maher the show would be better but it still wouldn't have enough time spent on the panel and still would have too much time spent on the social media stunts.

[marceline]

I think the root problem is that the show doesn't have a strong, clear, distinct voice.  It needs to figure out its identity.  Right now, it seems most closely tied to the idea of "keep it 100" -- but I'm not sure how that is supposed to translate into an entertaining show.  Is honesty inherently entertaining?  It can be hard and uncomfortable, and I've seen the show shy away from holding themselves to that kind of rigorous scrutiny.

 

I think the show is slowly finding its way. I think the "news" segments have gotten sharper. I like the addition of field pieces like the Starbucks thing. I actually think the games work better than the panel. I could see the last part of the show being CC's version of Hollywood Game Night. The panel discussion just doesn't work. Because at least one or two panelists never get to say anything.

[Paws]

Fewer panelists would help. Bill Maher has a whole, commercial free hour and the bulk of his panel time is taken up with 3 panelists, and then another guest joins in at the end. Larry only needs 2 people, with differing viewpoints, and I think we'd all be better for it.

[ruby24]

Yeah, maybe he should only have two people on, and then the conversation can get more in depth.

[SpiritSong]

Fewer panelists would help. Bill Maher has a whole, commercial free hour and the bulk of his panel time is taken up with 3 panelists, and then another guest joins in at the end. Larry only needs 2 people, with differing viewpoints, and I think we'd all be better for it.

Totally agree with this.

In the meantime, if you want the show to be funnier watch it with the closed captioning on. "Gnome Chomski" made me laugh out loud.

[attica]

I believe the world is better now that we have a word for the 'half-Cosby.'

[Wax Lion]

I turned off Tuesday's episode as soon as I saw Amy Holmes. One panel of her disingenuous arguments was enough to cover me for a few years.

 

I really liked the bits about defining "slut" and "satire" but something was off with the pacing, that end was so abrupt.

 

I think part of the problem is that there are too many subtopics covered, if a comedian derails things with a dismissive joke that's all the time there is for the question. From what I recall of Politically Incorrect, they would get back to the topic. I think Larry comes to the panel with too many questions and should just stick with one or two of them.

 

But I still think the big problem is that the topics rarely get to dig deep and they're usually happy to rehash discussions that have been done again and again on the internet.These panels really need better discussion points. There's an opening for a comedic panel show for the Tumblr/SJW age, but it's following the wrong current trend -- the talk show ADD that requires every talk show to do 5-6 topics every episode, even if the topic could fill an hour.

[ganesh]

You should watch because Lewis Black told her to basically fuck off. That's worth it alone. 

 

The problem is the comedians are basically there to try out new material more than talk about the topic. LB actually wasn't like that, and I don't recall Colin Quinn being like that, but they're the exceptions. On the other side, the pundits like Amy Holmes similarly derail the discussion because they have to get in their talking points.

[Kaoteek]

I really liked the bits about defining "slut" and "satire" but something was off with the pacing, that end was so abrupt.

 

The pacing of the entire show is off, from the opening to the jokes, the segment, the panel, and it boils down to one single thing : the Nightly show doesn't have anything resembling transitions & graphics.

 

Just compare Colbert opening his show to Larry opening his : on one hand, you've got an enthusiastic Colbert, camera changes punctuating each joke, on screen graphics, rhythm, and energy, energy, energy !!! And on the other, you've got nonchalant Larry standing awkwardy in front of a single cam, in front of a widescreen tv, reading his prompter without much energy, and waiting for each joke to land before going on, all the while some flat, rhythm-less music plays on. And then Larry walks off screen before the opening credits are launched.

 

And the entire show is the same : cuts & transitions are non-existant, and there's just no momentum built, there's no energy, there's nothing to help sell the jokes... and when there are transitions & cuts, they're just as lifeless & flat as the rest of the show (eg : the "Knowledge College" bit, last night : it had no punch, no energy to it, the editing was rough, and it just killed Larry's point, which wasn't too strong to begin with).

 

Maybe they should hire a new director & a new graphics guy, or something, along with a couple new writers.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Kaoteek

[futurechemist]

The pacing of the entire show is off, from the opening to the jokes, the segment, the panel, and it boils down to one single thing : the Nightly show doesn't have anything resembling transitions & graphics.

 

Just compare Colbert opening his show to Larry opening his : on one hand, you've got an enthusiastic Colbert, camera changes punctuating each joke, on screen graphics, rhythm, and energy, energy, energy !!! And on the other, you've got nonchalant Larry standing awkwardy in front of a single cam, in front of a widescreen tv, reading his prompter without much energy, and waiting for each joke to land before going on, all the while some flat, rhythm-less music plays on. And then Larry walks off screen before the opening credits are launched.

 

Maybe they should hire a new director & a new graphics guy, or something, along with a couple new writers.

I agree completely.  Last night with "Word Blurb" and then "Knowledge College" I was wondering how long it would take until they took that random picture of a college building off the screen and let Larry tell his joke.  Then we had to wait for Larry to finish putting on his tweed patches.  And then we finally got to his joke explaining what the word satire meant.  A special segment only really works if the segment is long enough to warrant a special introduction.  "The Word" was a nonstop series of puns, even little segments like "Who's Honoring Me Now?" had several jokes about the topic.

 

I want the show to succeed.  1 of the reasons I like "Last Week Tonight" is that they have ample time to really delve into a topic from several angles.  So I think there's a market for a show devoted to 1 topic each night.  TCR lucked out in that they had a very charismatic host with experience doing his "character" and the show took off.  They also had a target that was ripe for mocking - obnoxious blowhard pundits.  The Daily Show has a very clear topic - mocking current events, but it really only exploded in popularity during the 2000 election.  And it was fairly awkward without the right host, does anyone remember the Craig Kilborn years fondly?  The show needs to have the right goal, and the right host.

 

The Nightly Show doesn't have any of that.  There's no clearly defined mission (were people like Bill Maher or McLaughlin begging to be mocked?), and it doesn't have a very charismatic host, nor a obvious character gimmick.

 

Unrelated note, are the opening credits with all the random pictures spoofing something?  I can't figure it out.

Edited March 26, 2015 by futurechemist

[HelenBaby]

I actually liked Kilborn until he gave that interview where he stated he could get Lizz Winstead to blow him anytime he wanted. It took years for me to tune in even after Jon took over.

[Kromm]

Just saw the Larry as an Alien stupidity (in the Slut Shaming episode).

 

Lord that sucked.  

[calliope1975]

Just saw the Larry as an Alien stupidity (in the Slut Shaming episode).

 

Lord that sucked.  

 

I haven't found that bit funny any of the times they've done it. Please stop. 

[attica]

That bit would work if the panel got the questions before hand and could prepare a good quip. Or if the writers gave them one to use. Watching people do the whole "it's when, um, um, well, when a person, um um..." is pointless.

[ganesh]

I wasn't in a fraternity and I don't think I missed out on anything.

 

I don't think the greek system should be banned either, but I didn't hear a good counterpoint to Reich. Pretty regularly, something bad happens with a fraternity, they apologize, it goes away for a couple of years and then something happens again. Maybe they shouldn't be located on campus or something. Or maybe there needs to be some independent board. There clearly has to be more oversight and more severe penalties for this. 

 

I didn't the panel was that bad. 

[Hanahope]

I did meet some of my best friends in my college sorority.  But, I possibly could have also met great people at clubs, or at dorm parties, or other events that I didn't go to at college because I was doing stuff with my sorority.  It does make for a relatively small(er) group of people to get to know, and generally you start out already having somethings in common, as you find out during rush conversations.  Course, my experience was over 25 years ago.

[nicolin]

That bit would work if the panel got the questions before hand and could prepare a good quip. Or if the writers gave them one to use. Watching people do the whole "it's when, um, um, well, when a person, um um..." is pointless.

 

Thank you, attica.  At the time I couldn't understand why they were having such a difficult time trying to explain things.  But your post (and maybe this should have been more obvious to naïve me while watching) helped me understand that they were trying to make something funny out of nothing.  And I guess you have to give them credit for trying since this is a comedy show (at least, this is assumed).  I guess that's why JB Smoove, whom I love, did not come off as funny to me last night at all and I was pretty surprised.

[wknt3]

That bit would work if the panel got the questions before hand and could prepare a good quip. Or if the writers gave them one to use. Watching people do the whole "it's when, um, um, well, when a person, um um..." is pointless.

 

Totally agree. You either need to have material prepared, skilled improv pros, or a dynamite premise that doesn't require the participants to say something funny. And it was actually a pretty good panel too with participants who were funny and nobody monopolizing the conversation. I wonder why they feel compelled to stick with the format so strictly. Another panel segment would have been a lot more entertaining.

[ganesh]

Maybe they're just still finding the right panelists for this format. Because this last panel was fine. The panel with Lewis Black wasn't bad either despite Holmes being there. 

[LJonEarth]

That bit would work if the panel got the questions before hand and could prepare a good quip. Or if the writers gave them one to use. Watching people do the whole "it's when, um, um, well, when a person, um um..." is pointless.

 

You're absolutely right! I just never understand why the panel in general seems to have a hard time putting together coherent thoughts like they do on other shows. I never thought I'd miss sound bites, but in this amount of time, with this format, they need to be prepared. With the exception of a few, he usually has at least some guests who are knowledgeable enough to handle the topics. I've seen many of them do it well on other shows.

[shmeep]

I find the show moderately entertaining, but agree that a lot of it falls flat. I always knew it would be unfair to compare him with Colbert, but in one way, I can't help it. Larry is a likable guy with quite a lot going for him, but he lacks the one thing "Stephen" oozed more than anything else: gravitas. Larry's voice is thin and, as others have pointed out, his delivery has no confidence behind it. I miss the gravitas to which I had become accustomed most whenever I hear, "Tonightly!" That just rubs me wrong and makes me want to hit delete without watching.

[Traveller519]

I do think one of the big issues with the show is it's timing/pacing. 

 

I'd be interested to see them pick a broader/larger topic and tackle it from multiple ways over the week.

 

Monday: Larry introduces the topic from the desk, provides the background, and offers his initial take, perhaps with an interview with an "expert on the topic"

Tuesday: The correspondents get into the topic through field pieces and/or sided interviews

Wednesday: Panel discussion with comedians/people we want to listen too digesting the information they've seen presented during the week.

Thursday: Larry and the correspondents wrap up the topic.

 

You can combine some of the things they've already discussed.

[solotrek]

I know a lot of people here were upset about Larry having Mike Tyson on the show. So the lovely people over at TDS side of the forum found a way to help me find my old taping reports that were on TWoP. And this was from the pre-show Q&A that Jon does, from January 5th, 2011:

 

Someone asked -
Are there people that you don't want on your show? They had a great exchange that sort of went like this:
-Yes, lots of people.
Who?
- Rapists.
No, I know like rapists, but...
-Rapists, murderers
Like specifics
-I can name different rapists...is there someone that you don't want me to want?
(I know she responded with something...)
- I know that people are upset that I have certain people on the show. But I think it's good to have them on to be able to talk and debate our differences. I think that dialogue is important to have. I remember that a few years back, they wanted Mike Tyson on the show. And I said "no"...the rapey thing...

 

I know we're having that Trevor Noah debacle over at TDS, but I wish TNS was run a bit more tightly as well.

 

Funnily enough, while going through the TWoP forums to get to my reports, I found a ton of old posts talking about how good Larry is and how he should get his own show.

Edited April 3, 2015 by solotrek

[Victor the Crab]

Larry can now breathe a sigh of relief he won't have to be baby bird fed. Wisconsin defeated Kentucky 71-64 tonight.

[Lantern7]

It's a mixed blessing . . . now he either wears a suit of armor (Wisconsin) or dresses in spandex (Duke). Good concept, though.

[Skyfall]

NEW TABLE! THREE PANELISTS! SPANDEX! The Easter break was good for this show!

[ganesh]

The three panelists worked better, and the woman was an actual news person so she could talk more. 

 

The gay pizza game was stupid. No one knew what the hell was going on.

 

I really, really, really want to know the people who say, "Let's get our wedding catered by the pizza place."

 

From what I saw, the pizza girl interviewed by the news was just ignorant and didn't really have a clue of what was really going on. I think they kind of took advantage of her. She should be old enough to realize right from wrong, but that was a total set up. 

[gesundheit]

From what I saw, the pizza girl interviewed by the news was just ignorant and didn't really have a clue of what was really going on. I think they kind of took advantage of her. She should be old enough to realize right from wrong, but that was a total set up. 

Don't quote me on this because I can't find the stupid article now, but I did hear that the pizza place had literally never catered a wedding before, that the reporter asked that hypothetical in particular, and that someone involved in planning/producing that TV segment "felt bad" about it and is the one who started the GoFundMe page. Hmm. Way to fan the flames of a culture war.

 

Even if that's not exactly how it went down, it was certainly untoward.

 

Regardless, while I liked last night's panelists, I don't think any of them really had anything informed to say on the topic.

[attica]

I don't think any of them really had anything informed to say on the topic.

 

Except Batali, who astutely noted Deep Dish isn't pizza. :)

[Hanahope]

I really, really, really want to know the people who say, "Let's get our wedding catered by the pizza place."

 

I went to a wedding that was held in a restaurant that was primarily known for its "great pizza", and there was pizza served, along with other entrees.  The bride and groom (nor their parents) couldn't afford a fancier place.

 

I too thought about Larry when Kentucky lost.  Though spandex, hmmmm.  Could be worse.

 

I just do not get the deal with refusing to serve gay people or provide their product to a gay couple that want to get married.  Didn't they used to use the same arguments and claim that the Bible forbid interracial marriage and yet no one would refuse to do that today.

 

Great point learned on the Good Wife Sunday, Jesus never once spoke out against gay people, but he certainly opposed divorce.  How many of those establishments happily provide goods and services to couples where one or both had been divorced?

[ganesh]

I'm saying if you're at the point where you're considering going to a pizza place for your wedding, then you're probably short on cash. Just go to the courthouse and then have a pot luck at the park with byob. It would be way more fun imo.

[iMonrey]

I'm catching this show about once per week and when I do it just annoys me all over again. Larry bypasses the hard questions in favor of lame jokes and stupid games. The question isn't whether the government has a right to tell people what to buy with their food stamps. The question is why they want to do it. Republican legislatures are pandering to their base who think (like Mitt Romney) that 47% of Americans are just lazy shits who don't want to work and want to live on government hand-outs. That's really what they think. They think if they take away or severely limit government assistance people will get up off their lazy asses and go get a job.

 

That's why it annoyed me to no end to hear Rand Paul give lip service to "personal responsibility" during his campaign launch. It's bullshit. The country isn't going bankrupt because of welfare. And the reason people are out of work is because we give huge tax breaks to wealthy corporations who ship decent paying jobs overseas to increase their profits. Let's talk about their personal responsibility, and let's put limits on what they can and cannot do with our tax money.

[ChelseaNH]

They have all these controversial topics but it's been a long time since I heard anyone say anything with any particular substance to it, so why bother?

[6 MeowMeowBeenz]

I have to say I really enjoyed Mario Batali as a guest. He's a sharp individual and brings more to the table than his chef bona fides. 

 

Agree that fewer comedians in general is a good idea, except Lewis Black. 

[ganesh]

As soon as I hear a politician say "We have to take America back", I'm out. What you mean is, "shove all the gays back in the closet and tell the nonwhites to know their place". People are living their lives and equality is finally achievable, and you realize that if they vote, you won't be elected anymore. Go away.

 

I like the three person panel. I wish they'd pick better topics though. Recently, they've been, eh. I still say the show is better when Larry has an opinion. They don't need to "show both sides." 

[attica]

All right, I was actually surprised when Bernie Sanders was as forthright as he was about running for POTUS. I hope he does. I don't think he has a chance of winning (although a girl can dream about his SCOTUS picks if he did), but even if not, he'll push the conversation leftward.

[ganesh]

If a Sanders run just opens the door for a legit third party in politics, then I'd consider it a success. Actually, a primary season with him, Clinton, and Warren would be entertaining.

 

I liked how he was so dismissive of republicans.

 

They should just do a panel with him and Frank on something like, 'what's wrong with politics?'. That would be cool for the show.

[Hanahope]

The question isn't whether the government has a right to tell people what to buy with their food stamps. The question is why they want to do it.

 

Agreed, though I totally believe that those people interview hundreds before they find the one person that bought a lobster or sushi with their food stamps for some special occasion.

 

How about government restricting what companies do with their tax-cuts and waivers, they don't get said tax-cut until they prove the tax-cut went to employee salaries or benefits and not to executive board bonuses.

[jbrecken]

Will the panel be in spandex?

[futurechemist]

Between the extended "Larry" chant and him blatantly stealing Jon's "let me drink something before hearing some shocking news" Larry didn't do a great job for showcasing his own humor tonight.  Also I thought the spandex tux defeated the purpose of wearing all-spandex.  I was expecting something more like a wet suit or a power ranger.

 

I also thought it was a little disingenuous to show a graph that says college is 12 times more expensive than 30 years ago without also noting that $1 was worth 3-4 times more 30 years ago.  Yeah, college has gotten a lot more expensive, but it's not as drastic as Larry said.  And a huge chunk of it is because states have drastically cut funding to public universities. If a university loses 1/3 of their funding, they have to make up the difference somehow (seeing as how cutting athletic staff salaries is off the table).

Edited April 10, 2015 by futurechemist

[Wax Lion]

If a Sanders run just opens the door for a legit third party in politics, then I'd consider it a success. Actually, a primary season with him, Clinton, and Warren would be entertaining.

 

From what I recall of earlier talk, if he did run he would switch parties so he could participate in Democratic primary debates (actually, that would be the main point of running. He wants to put pressure on Clinton to strike some liberal positions.

 

Now, third parties that could be an interesting topic.

[Hanahope]

Lawschool tuition is priced for the top 10% who get the top jobs in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc., yet even those that get public defender jobs making only $40,000 year pay the same $45,000/year tuition.

 

I wonder if the topics are being coordinated with TDS, since both touched on student loans on their Thursday episode.

[Lantern7]

Do they also coordinate with @Midnight? Because they did a bit about the panda banging a night or two prior. In Larry's defense, they actually showed the consummation, as opposed to showing stills. Also, I was going through a backlog of Rob Dyrdek's Fantasy Factory, and they did a The Price Is Right takeoff called "The Cost Is Correct"  a few months before Larry pulled it out. Could be a coincidence, or maybe Larry's a fan.

[Traveller519]

Now, third parties that could be an interesting topic.

 

Didn't Kang and Kodos teach us all we need to know about third parties?

 

Actually I do think it would be an interesting topic, especially the perception that in the narrow window of the Presidential Campaigns these days that an independent candidate will only steal votes from whomever they're most closely aligned, and tend to draw the ire of main line voters.

[ganesh]

This panel was rather ok too. AKS was actually a decent segment. 

 

I don't doubt Clinton is qualified to be president. I really hope more democrats run though. If she's the only democrat candidate in the primaries, *all* the republicans are just going to pile on her so hard. Basically, I would think they'd do anything they can to distract from her actual qualifications. That would be hard to handle for anyone. I very curious what her strategy would be. 

[Skyfall]

Warren and Booker is staying away until 2020 or 2024 depending which party wins this cycle. Bernie Sanders will likely run.

 

Also seems like they have pulled away fro the keeping it 100 part.