The Nightly Show - Not "Just" The Sequel to The Daily
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I've only caught one episode of this so far, but I found it enjoyable enough. I'll keep watching it, at least from time to time.
Funnily enough, "@midnight" has kinda become one of my favorite shows here of late. So keeping it on CC leading up to that just makes sense anyway.
Funnily enough, "@midnight" has kinda become one of my favorite shows here of late. So keeping it on CC leading up to that just makes sense anyway.
The show actually reminds me alot of Collin Quinns old show which I still really miss. So to me this show has little that it needs to fix. I like the soft radicalism it uses and I think the guests so far with two exceptions have added their own valuable take on the issue being discussed. I Disagree with you bob that he needs to hold someones feet to the fire to give it a purpose. I do not want to see god damn cross fire on Comedy Central. But I do personally wish he went harder against that selfish anti vaccine lunatic.
Wait, they're doing ANOTHER Minority Report movie? I like Spielberg but I thought the last one was good enough to stand without being redone immediately.
On topic, I've been liking The Nightly Show, a good panel discussion show on more than once a week (like Maher) is nice and so far I've really liked the people they've gotten, a mix of actual talking heads and media personalities with irreverent comedians. I also really like the "theme of the day" format rather than trying to multi-task and do a lot of things, because it allows for more in-depth discussion than a few jokes being lobbed its way, like the Daily Show. At times I think that while Wilmore gives off the dry deadpan intellectual act he can sort of fall into anti-intellectual hyperbolic traps ("black folks are just trying not to get shot walking down the street!"), but I think overall it's a solid show. Pushing guests to be as "real" as possible regardless of their position is also a nice touch, as one does grow bored of the pre-rehearsed safe answers that everyone is accustomed to.
On topic, I've been liking The Nightly Show, a good panel discussion show on more than once a week (like Maher) is nice and so far I've really liked the people they've gotten, a mix of actual talking heads and media personalities with irreverent comedians. I also really like the "theme of the day" format rather than trying to multi-task and do a lot of things, because it allows for more in-depth discussion than a few jokes being lobbed its way, like the Daily Show. At times I think that while Wilmore gives off the dry deadpan intellectual act he can sort of fall into anti-intellectual hyperbolic traps ("black folks are just trying not to get shot walking down the street!"), but I think overall it's a solid show. Pushing guests to be as "real" as possible regardless of their position is also a nice touch, as one does grow bored of the pre-rehearsed safe answers that everyone is accustomed to.
My understanding is that its a Minority Report television show, I really just hope if it does get greenlit it doesn't turn out to be a futuristic Fugitive.hentropy said:
As far as The Nightly Show goes, I am alright with most of the show the one part that I normally will stop watching at is the 100% for it just seems forced and not necessary to the show.
I think my biggest problem with the "Keep it 100" segment is that guests are actually encouraged to play against audience expectation and surprise them. Playing to the audience seems like the exact opposite of keeping it 100.
As it stands, my larger problem with the panelists is that they'll have one, MAYBE two voices that actually have something interesting and insightful to say on a subject, and then Wilmore fills out the panel with a couple of his comedian friends. In the Cuba episode, for instance, hearing John Leguizamo boil things down to "Mexicans want cars," while some comedian who has clearly never been to Cuba starts extolling the virtues of the presence of Americans, like once we show up as tourists THEN suddenly the Cubans are going to be interested in democracy (and the look on his face when it was pointed out to him that Germans and Canadians go there every year.) Wouldn't it have made more sense to knock that wanna-be correspondent from the at-the-desk segment, let the guy who could ACTUALLY give some insight into America's history with Cuba sit at the desk, and then let three comedians and, I guess, Soledad O'Brien guess about Cuba. That episode was incredibly disappointing.
And it's just one example.
I guess I'm of the opinion that if you're going to have a panel show, you might, I don't know, get panelists who have something on the subject to actually say (like the crazy anti-vaxxer lady... though, honestly, the panel on that episode was just another friendly circle-jerk.) and then let them actually say it. Why keep jumping in? If you don't want your panelists at each other's throats, why do you have them sitting at a table where, ostensibly, you're about keeping it real while discussing politically charged subjects that people get passionate about? Why is this show here if it isn't going to take any kind of risks?
Basically, I want to like this show, but Wilmore's tendency to shy away from controversial viewpoints- a problem I had with him back when he was just a correspondent on the Daily Show- and avoid conflict just reinforces my earlier thought that they should have just given the show to Jessica Williams. Or hell, Sam Bee. A View style parody show with Sam Bee drinking wine and doing one-woman-shows about morning news shows? I'd be down. Shit, at least Jason Jones will call somebody an asshole to their face.
As it stands, my larger problem with the panelists is that they'll have one, MAYBE two voices that actually have something interesting and insightful to say on a subject, and then Wilmore fills out the panel with a couple of his comedian friends. In the Cuba episode, for instance, hearing John Leguizamo boil things down to "Mexicans want cars," while some comedian who has clearly never been to Cuba starts extolling the virtues of the presence of Americans, like once we show up as tourists THEN suddenly the Cubans are going to be interested in democracy (and the look on his face when it was pointed out to him that Germans and Canadians go there every year.) Wouldn't it have made more sense to knock that wanna-be correspondent from the at-the-desk segment, let the guy who could ACTUALLY give some insight into America's history with Cuba sit at the desk, and then let three comedians and, I guess, Soledad O'Brien guess about Cuba. That episode was incredibly disappointing.
And it's just one example.
I guess I'm of the opinion that if you're going to have a panel show, you might, I don't know, get panelists who have something on the subject to actually say (like the crazy anti-vaxxer lady... though, honestly, the panel on that episode was just another friendly circle-jerk.) and then let them actually say it. Why keep jumping in? If you don't want your panelists at each other's throats, why do you have them sitting at a table where, ostensibly, you're about keeping it real while discussing politically charged subjects that people get passionate about? Why is this show here if it isn't going to take any kind of risks?
Basically, I want to like this show, but Wilmore's tendency to shy away from controversial viewpoints- a problem I had with him back when he was just a correspondent on the Daily Show- and avoid conflict just reinforces my earlier thought that they should have just given the show to Jessica Williams. Or hell, Sam Bee. A View style parody show with Sam Bee drinking wine and doing one-woman-shows about morning news shows? I'd be down. Shit, at least Jason Jones will call somebody an asshole to their face.
I like the Nightly Show enough, but I think it plays more to characters and entertainment than it does to caring about any of the news discussed. I miss the Colbert Report.
I think the biggest problem with the show is how they bring on serious guests to their panel, and then have to throw on a comedian or two. The comedians are pretty much required to be a distraction and try as hard as they can to just say anything for a laugh to validate their placement on the panel. The number and variety of guests really muddles the focus, and it feels like there isn't enough time for everyone to get a clear word in for the effort and time it took to get them all on the show. They don't even have extended web-exclusive segments where they can keep talking off-air like the Daily Show has.
I see people here hating on the "keep it 100" segment, but I find it's quite entertaining. It's like the moment of zen, 'cept longer and blacker.
I think the biggest problem with the show is how they bring on serious guests to their panel, and then have to throw on a comedian or two. The comedians are pretty much required to be a distraction and try as hard as they can to just say anything for a laugh to validate their placement on the panel. The number and variety of guests really muddles the focus, and it feels like there isn't enough time for everyone to get a clear word in for the effort and time it took to get them all on the show. They don't even have extended web-exclusive segments where they can keep talking off-air like the Daily Show has.
I see people here hating on the "keep it 100" segment, but I find it's quite entertaining. It's like the moment of zen, 'cept longer and blacker.
I gave the show a few episodes... It didn't impress me. It doesn't make sense to me to have a mix of comedians and "serious guests" to talk about serious issues. I know Bill Maher does it but he covers a variety of subjects so there's more of a chance of a funny or witty insight from them. Also, Bill Maher uses a lot more "serious guests".
Personally, I like the 'Keep it 100' segment as it does give it a chance to hold people to difficult questions. I like the fact that the panel segment is less confrontational, the last thing America's political discourse needs is people yelling past each other. I don't think anyone would have benefited from everyone piling on to the anti-vaxxer's nonsense, she was obviously wrong and ganging up on her would have just looked like bullying. While I'll miss the Colbert Report, I'm enjoying the Nightly Show.
You say Larry Willmore being less agitating than Bill Mahr is a bad thing. But I like how laid back he is while letting some of the night's panelists get their point across (like discussing American Sniper with a couple of ACTUAL VETERANS) or let them make fools out of themselves, i.e. the anti-vaxxer lady.