|
Timett posted:I started listening to old episodes of The Bugle because I can't get enough of this show. It's great but I'm already a little bored of Andy making stuff up. Talking out of his rear end (obviously so; he isn't trying to actually make us believe these things) is like his main source of humor. The more Bugles I listen to the less I like Andy. I even prefer (gently caress you) Chris to Andy. The only time he's ever funny is reacting to John.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
Timett posted:So you just have the cutaway video not say "and now..." and you get the best of both worlds, right? I suppose. I suspect they produce the video segments so that they could be used as standalone clips on youtube or something if need be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Andy delivering his son is hilarious, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmawrm801ng
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
A Pale Horse posted:The more Bugles I listen to the less I like Andy. I even prefer (gently caress you) Chris to Andy. The only time he's ever funny is reacting to John. I think you need more punruns!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
A Pale Horse posted:The more Bugles I listen to the less I like Andy. I even prefer (gently caress you) Chris to Andy. The only time he's ever funny is reacting to John. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxiAe3ULuxI
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
The beast way to think of Andy is a walking-talking LF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
A Pale Horse posted:The more Bugles I listen to the less I like Andy. I even prefer (gently caress you) Chris to Andy. The only time he's ever funny is reacting to John. Or he's constantly funny, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Postal Parcel posted:Japan: Nothing but blood colored school girls. Bah, that's just Paruru. I don't understand why they chose her, she's the meekest of them all. Or maybe that's the point, she needs wotas to protect her? Here's the CM in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvtoL5i4dms Momusu did it with more panache and showmanship back in 2003. Urinals and uniforms, that's what gets people to join the navy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivu76DXX2Es Dulce et decorum est pro idoru mori
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
I wonder if John would deliver a fuckeulogy on LWT rather than the Bugle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:I wonder if John would deliver a fuckeulogy on LWT rather than the Bugle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:I wonder if John would deliver a fuckeulogy on LWT rather than the Bugle. Given that fuckeulogy needs to enter the lexicon of general use, I hope Dick Cheney finally dies. Of course HBO should fly Andy over if he's going to do one not to speak, just to wear a funny America outfit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Given that fuckeulogy needs to enter the lexicon of general use, I hope Dick Cheney finally dies. Would he be riding a jetski?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Would he be riding a jetski? A jetski with fireworks flying off the back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Caught this the other day while I was flicking through the channels. Gives a little insight into the show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:A jetski with fireworks flying off the back. A jetski with fireworks and guns, and a grill with ribs being cooked on it in old style barbecue sauce.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Heners_UK posted:A jetski with fireworks and guns, and a grill with ribs being cooked on it in old style barbecue sauce. You forgot about the home run derby!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
They should joust on jetski's with fireworks while F-35's fly by (the most American of fighter jets) while the Rockettes have a homerun derby.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
All of these plans are missing t-shirt cannons and are therefore invalid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:All of these plans are missing t-shirt cannons and are therefore invalid. That is just assumed!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Fafenefenoiby posted:Caught this the other day while I was flicking through the channels. Gives a little insight into the show. It is pretty interesting how John Oliver, Jon Stuart, et al. so vehemently deny any sort of news reporting or explaining responsibility. It seems to me that there is a real difference between comedy that tackles real, but non-political topics such as child rearing and dating/marriage and comedy that focuses in on a particular racial or political point of view. Someone like Dave Chappelle understands the conflict and significance inherent in making a loaded topic like race a central part of one's comedic outlook. But the political/news comedians outright reject any similar responsibility. I mean, this last segment was not just making fun of news outlets, but seriously questioning the motives of American voters and how the elite are able to cynically tap into American optimism in order to ingratiate themselves. While John's indignation is certainly part of the joke-as-crafted, and the hypocrisy of the elite and unfairness of the system are presented in a funny manner - they represent the point of view of John and the show's writers. Further, they are crafted as arguments as well as jokes. They have a thesis and they argue the empirical and normative evidence for that thesis. As such, these long form segments are undoubtedly meant to serve an information-relaying function. John implies as much, in the above-linked video, when he talks about how little coverage the Indian elections were getting in the US relative to their significance. They took on that segment in part to see if they could make a complicated and foreign issue funny, but also - again as John implied - to relay the importance of this issue and to call out the US media (and indirectly the average uninterested, insular American citizen) on their misguided priorities (see also: his talk about net neutrality on Fresh Air). I know they don't want the responsibility that comes with being inherently political, but to say that they aren't at least a source of news explaining, if not outright reporting in some instances, seems disingenuous - in a having your cake and eating it too, sense. Refusing to even broach the issue implies that it's an either/or question in terms of comedy being on one side and 'real' news on the other. Last Week Tonight and its ilk represent a grey area, John and others need to at least come to grips with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Notsosubtle posted:I know they don't want the responsibility that comes with being inherently political, but to say that they aren't at least a source of news explaining, if not outright reporting in some instances, seems disingenuous - in a having your cake and eating it too, sense. Refusing to even broach the issue implies that it's an either/or question in terms of comedy being on one side and 'real' news on the other. Last Week Tonight and its ilk represent a grey area, John and others need to at least come to grips with that. Jon Stewart, John Oliver, and Stephen Colbert do a lot of the same fluff, strawman, appeal-to-a-friendly-audience type stuff that they bash in CNN and Fox News. Every night Stewart is out there twisting words, moving the goalposts, editing interviews to make subjects look worse than they otherwise would. But there's real stupidity behind what he's criticizing, and it's entertainment, so it's not a problem. They don't do it as badly as Fox or in service of an evil agenda, so they retain the high ground. But the minute they claimed any serious journalistic legitimacy they'd be torn apart, and they know it. Which is why they're so vehement about denying it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
When I see people try to argue that Stewart, Oliver, and Colbert need to "admit" they serve a news reporting function or "admit" they are political actors, etc.; it often speaks more of the people raising their problem with satirists than it actually does on the satirists themselves. Like Dave Chappelle, they communicate from a political POV, but that communication is satire. Dave Chappelle doesn't consider himself a reporter or an activist either. Let's say they actually proclaim themselves as activists... what happens next? I think many liberals and progressives overestimate the general popularity of Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver with general audiences. Some people would like to believe it will further legitimize certain contested political positions, but it really won't happen like that. Their satire as it is communicates a point really well. We rarely see liberals lament that Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye from avoiding taking the additional steps beyond explaining the science of evolution and global warming. We don't see people calling them hypocrites or cowards for not flat-out endorsing political candidates that would fight global warming or whatnot; because the political implications of what they say are quite clear as it. Jimmy Fallon allowed Chris Christie to bury his scandal by dancing with him in some lovely skit. But he gets a pass because his so-called comedy never had any passion to begin with, even though The Tonight Show's reach is much wider.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
edit: nothing to see here, move along.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Jimmy Fallon allowed Chris Christie to bury his scandal by dancing with him in some lovely skit. On the other hand, Fallon also savaged Christie pretty badly with that "Christie's Traffic Jam" song he did with Bruce Springsteen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Jimmy Fallon allowed Chris Christie to bury his scandal by dancing with him in some lovely skit. But he gets a pass because his so-called comedy never had any passion to begin with, even though The Tonight Show's reach is much wider. This is a good example of why Colbert got Letterman's job and Stewart didn't, (not that I think he wanted it) despite the fact that The Daily Show has higher billing on CC. Colbert does character work, he's not really political compared to The Daily Show (despite the fact that politics is often the topic) and the show isn't as substantive in that area. He can easily drop his character and be entertaining to a broad audience. Stewart lives for the criticism of media and politics and puts it above celebrity interviews. I read a profile of him a while ago that talked about how his office has banks of DVRs to record all the news shows and he's glued to them with his staff for hours each day. A network job would bore Stewart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
A A 2 3 5 8 K posted:Jon Stewart, John Oliver, and Stephen Colbert do a lot of the same fluff, strawman, appeal-to-a-friendly-audience type stuff that they bash in CNN and Fox News. Every night Stewart is out there twisting words, moving the goalposts, editing interviews to make subjects look worse than they otherwise would. But there's real stupidity behind what he's criticizing, and it's entertainment, so it's not a problem. Jon Stewart has unarguably crossed the line between comedy satirist and actually political news figure. His appearance on the 2000s version of Crossfire makes that pretty clear. Colbert and Oliver clearly have an opinion but they never did that. I don't disagree with Jon Stewart at all (except that Crossfire was amusing in a trainwreck kind of way), but he can't cover himself in that satirist cloak anymore, and even if he could, he, Colbert, and Oliver ARE a source of news for a ton of people and whether it's comedy or not they can't handwave away their impact. I just don't like that they consistently try to. Sorry, but you're informing a ton of low-information voters, guys. Colbert based a drat SuperPAC around that for gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Jon Stewart has unarguably crossed the line between comedy satirist and actually political news figure. His appearance on the 2000s version of Crossfire makes that pretty clear. He told them their show sucked because it's theater, and it's just them yelling at each other. That's not really a political statement, it's media criticism. And he didn't provide a very detailed argument, he spent more time telling them they sucked than supporting why. Carlson came back at Stewart with the charge that he gives softball questions to the politicians on his own side, and Stewart had no choice but to fall back to the point that his show isn't news. He also made fun of Carlson for wearing a bow-tie and called him a dick. He didn't hesitate to stoop to the level that he was claiming wasn't journalism. (Maybe a lower level, depending on how Carlson treats his guests.) Stewart was bullying, the way he did with Jennifer Love Hewitt and Chris Matthews. It was amusing bullying and especially in the Crossfire instance I liked it, but lashing out and name-calling didn't make me take him more seriously. IRQ posted:I don't disagree with Jon Stewart at all (except that Crossfire was amusing in a trainwreck kind of way), but he can't cover himself in that satirist cloak anymore, and even if he could, he, Colbert, and Oliver ARE a source of news for a ton of people and whether it's comedy or not they can't handwave away their impact. Reminding people that they're entertainers first is them taking that responsibility seriously. If a "real" news channel can mislead with impunity, that certainly doesn't imply much about the level of responsibility we expect from a comedy show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Legalize drugs; end the war on drugs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Please tell me these are actual muppets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
He actually is a crocodile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
I think what makes Oliver better is that he does allow himself to become angry from time to time...or at least I wish he did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Was probably already mentioned at some point this week, but Oliver was on Stern on Wednesday for a decent interview. Worth a listen if you have SXM. Also, gently caress Rick Scott.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
A A 2 3 5 8 K posted:This is a good example of why Colbert got Letterman's job and Stewart didn't, (not that I think he wanted it) despite the fact that The Daily Show has higher billing on CC. Colbert does character work, he's not really political compared to The Daily Show (despite the fact that politics is often the topic) and the show isn't as substantive in that area. He can easily drop his character and be entertaining to a broad audience. I feel like the loss will be notable, though- Colbert's long-form piece on the whole SuperPAC insanity was an utterly brilliant exposé of just how sleazy that business was, and it was all just born out of an improv impulse- "My character should have one of those." Colbert's satire is less direct than Stewart's confrontation of horrible things, but sometimes that means he can be more insightful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
This loving episode. It was so good, and it touched on one of my more Sisyphean causes, prison reform. I punched my monitor like Bobby Moynihan reacting to a jumpscare when I heard that bit about advertising recidivism to investors. And I already knew about poo poo like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:When I see people try to argue that Stewart, Oliver, and Colbert need to "admit" they serve a news reporting function or "admit" they are political actors, etc.; it often speaks more of the people raising their problem with satirists than it actually does on the satirists themselves. Like Dave Chappelle, they communicate from a political POV, but that communication is satire. Dave Chappelle doesn't consider himself a reporter or an activist either. If you can't identify how the Daily Show and its offshoots are more inherently political than Neil deGrasse Tyson or Dave Chappelle I don't know what to tell you. Stewart's "we're just comedians" has always been a cop out to avoid the scrutiny leveled at other political commentators. Stewart, Oliver, and Colbert are absolutely, 100% political commentators before anything else, they just use humor to get their point across.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:This loving episode. It was so good, and it touched on one of my more Sisyphean causes, prison reform. I punched my monitor like Bobby Moynihan reacting to a jumpscare when I heard that bit about advertising recidivism to investors. And I already knew about poo poo like that. The part where Al Franken was asking the guy what the size of a solitary cell is and couldn't get an answer just had me going  the whole time..e: Jesus Christ it gets worse. raditts fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Stewart's "we're just comedians" has always been a cop out to avoid the scrutiny leveled at other political commentators. Stewart, Oliver, and Colbert are absolutely, 100% political commentators before anything else, they just use humor to get their point across. It's a "cop out" to avoid having their jokes scrutinized as news reporting, or their interviews held to journalistic standards. It's unfair to hold them to those standards because they have the obligation to be funny - if they aren't funny enough to draw an audience, they will be fired, eventually. They are absolutely not "100% political commentators before anything else" because if they ever decided to be 100% political commentary, they wouldn't have a show. They use humor to get their point across, but they are comedians first, if only by contract and social role. They are political commentators, in a very general sense, but they're not journalists, and they are beholden to a different set of standards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:It's a "cop out" to avoid having their jokes scrutinized as news reporting, or their interviews held to journalistic standards. It's unfair to hold them to those standards because they have the obligation to be funny - if they aren't funny enough to draw an audience, they will be fired, eventually. They are absolutely not "100% political commentators before anything else" because if they ever decided to be 100% political commentary, they wouldn't have a show. They use humor to get their point across, but they are comedians first, if only by contract and social role. They are political commentators, in a very general sense, but they're not journalists, and they are beholden to a different set of standards. It also says something that they're expected to be "100% political commentators" that should be held to journalistic standards by default, simply by virtue of the fact that actual news outlets and cable news stations are such information-free garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Yeah, this argument is just silly because it argues for the blandest form of comedy that doesn't advance a point of view or in some way suggesting political comedy needs journalistic integrity which is also bullshit. I would always defend the idea that some of the best comedy is derived from a strong point of view and that can include political and social comedy. But that doesn't have to be objective or even fair. Comedy which had to provide a nuanced and comprehensive perspective on a subject is so aggressively bland that nobody would care. And none of that prevents them from having a political point of view, because they're just people. The aren't journalists because their first objective is not to teach, educate, inform, or otherwise be the sole source of news. They have 22 minutes to provide solid entertainment and they chosen to skew that in the political and social arena. Jokes need foundation so they lay out a baseline so that the uniformed can follow but it always boils down to "to make a long story short, this person is an rear end in a top hat". And that's fine because comedy needs timing as much as it needs good structure and foundation. I just have to wonder what people imagine comedy would sound like if they had their way and comedians had to be journalists. I'm imagining Anderson Cooper's Ridiculist would be the model. TDS, TCR, and LWT are all first and foremost comedy and do it very, very well. That their hosts and staff care about their subjects is why they're so good. They only cover the subjects they can make jokes about and also only provide enough background to make the joke work. Absolutely none of that prevents them from criticizing the media, corporations, or politicians. Especially if they do things that they do themselves because they do not tell the public they're trustworthy. They don't suggest their jobs are to inform outside of satirical banner of having the most important loving news team on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Yes, Oliver, Stewart, and Colbert are there to make people laugh. But let's not pretend for a second that Oliver and his staff didn't devote the majority of last night's episode to America's prison system because they want to start a bigger conversation about it. And they're absolutely right to, because what's going on is horrifying. At every level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 18:54
|
|