|
What will the Nightly Show be like? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| A news parody, like the Daily Show |
|
15 | 13.27% |
| A pundit satire, like the Colbert Report |
|
7 | 6.19% |
| Something else entirely |
|
91 | 80.53% |
| Total: | 113 votes | ||
|
Yinlock posted:Nothing upsets people more than someone not blindly taking a side on things. Especially when that someone is a comedian on a fake news program. Jon Stewart sometimes has trouble picking a side between "just making jokes" and "legitimate socio-political commentary" and everyone is completely aware of this, but for some reason people decide to ignore that fact in favor of making snide comments about other people on the internet. I'm not sure WHY that is, exactly, but it's certainly there.
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
Yep, that Nightly was about as bad as I expected it to be. You know it's troubling when Larry ends up having to be the most sensible guy in the panel. It was initially encouraging that Larry brought up Frank Luntz in the first bit, but it quickly devolved into "College students want to ban 'gypped'!!! What's the deal with that?" To continue the whole "Stewart pick a side" thing, I still have a hard time wondering why Jon Stewart should be invested in the political fortunes of Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. I think a lot of liberals and progressives still buy into the narrative of Democrats vs. Republicans; liberals vs conservatives; etc; and assume a denunciation of that narrative is automatically pulling a South Park or whatever. Stewart was trying to make a point about political amnesia. I don't want to sound like "hey guys, I'm a poli-sci major who just read a bunch of Glenn Greenwald!" but there's plenty of reasons why it's fair to compare the bullshit of politicians and pundits despite their nominal political tribe. When Stewart bashes Fox News, it's toothless pandering to the left. When he decides to go after a Democrat in power, it's suddenly a toothless false equivalence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Yep, that Nightly was about as bad as I expected it to be. You know it's troubling when Larry ends up having to be the most sensible guy in the panel. It was initially encouraging that Larry brought up Frank Luntz in the first bit, but it quickly devolved into "College students want to ban 'gypped'!!! What's the deal with that?" Agreed. Having DiPaolo on was an especially horrible idea. quote:To continue the whole "Stewart pick a side" thing, I still have a hard time wondering why Jon Stewart should be invested in the political fortunes of Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. I think a lot of liberals and progressives still buy into the narrative of Democrats vs. Republicans; liberals vs conservatives; etc; and assume a denunciation of that narrative is automatically pulling a South Park or whatever. Stewart was trying to make a point about political amnesia. Well, but there are better examples that he could have used to make that point - ones that didn't involve drawing an equivalence between a one-on-one meeting between Pelosi and Assad on one hand, and a group of senators actively trying to sabotage an arms control agreement purely out of spite on the other. Because that really is a false equivalence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Von Sloneker posted:I'm glad someone dredged Nick DiPaolo up from whatever hole he'd been in just to remind me he's a piece of poo poo. He looked like he was going to murder Liz Winstead -- and I don't think she was even aware of the rage daggers coming from his eyes. They found him in the old Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn set.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:58
|
|
wins.
|
Last night's panel suuuuucked. Almost everyone missed the point. One college campus banning words is dumb but not a "liberal" thing. And it's not about being PC (sorry, but if you use the term PC you don't know what the gently caress you're talking about) or offending people. You don't offend someone when you say something lovely. You hurt them. And that hurt is real. We shouldn't be banning words, but we should be talking about how to be nicer to each other. So everyone on that panel missed the point by a mile. No one wants to ban words, reasonable people just want to talk about how lovely we can be to each other and what we can do to understand it and not be so lovely. But nope, a bunch of smug people get to blame "both sides" and talk about "political correctness" as if it's not a thing that a adults say to give them cover for being an rear end in a top hat to someone else. And yeah Nick DiPaolo was ridiculous for thinking that a "liberals are the real racists" argument is going to go over well with people who have even a sliver of understanding of nuance. edit: When Jonathan Chait wrote that article about "PC" a few months ago he missed the point completely. He also probably had a great time grabbing a ton of eyeballs by painting liberals as the real problem. Instead of writing about pain and why people experience it, he used anecdotes with strawmen to make his case. It was an awful awful argument and I knew as soon as I read it that a new generation of people would be using it as cover for being oppressive. Don't like that I said this slur? Well, free speech sucker. Sorry you were so offended, but suck it up you big baby. Oh great here comes the PC police. blah blah blah. And I've seen it in so many places, "PC" as a term has come roaring back and it's being exclusively used by people who are missing the point and trying desperately to cover for their lovely remarks. Instead of saying "I'm sorry, tell me about how I hurt you" and learning about another human being's experience and stretching your empathy muscle, these people can instead say "I'm sorry you were offended, but that's your problem." That's some weak rear end tea if you ask me. Syjefroi fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Syjefroi posted:Last night's panel suuuuucked. Almost everyone missed the point. One college campus banning words is dumb but not a "liberal" thing. "Liberal" has basically become conservative code for "something that hinders my ability to be a shitlord to other people." Because lord knows nobody likes to ban poo poo like the American Right, but for some crazy reason it's not portrayed in a negative light when they do it. Or if it is, it's called "liberal" until they realize a conservative is responsible for it and everybody shuts up and pretends the conversation never happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
I almost think Nick DiPaolo told a bad racist set at a college show or something and everyone got pissed at him and he just never let it go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Also that whole game they did with the beanies was loving stupid, not a single person came anywhere close to guessing what was on their hats. It was a giant loving waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
ROCK THE HOUSE M.D. posted:Also that whole game they did with the beanies was loving stupid, not a single person came anywhere close to guessing what was on their hats. It was a giant loving waste of time. Yeah, the dumb rotation of party games is almost as bad as Keep It 100. I don't know what's so crazy about just doing two straight panel segments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
bobjr posted:I almost think Nick DiPaolo told a bad racist set at a college show or something and everyone got pissed at him and he just never let it go. He's just a huge piece of poo poo who's always been a sad bitter little man in the comedy world, it's just his recent string of being nothing but a bit player at best on his friends' shows has left him going 'gently caress it WHITE MEN ARE THE MOST OPPRESSED GROUP IN AMERICA PC POLICE'
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
I forget who said this, I think it was a comedian, but political correctness is not about banning words, it's about fostering institutionalized politeness. I can see why comedians would object to this more than anyone else, but anything that stigmatizes people for being hurtful assholes is probably a good thing in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:I forget who said this, I think it was a comedian, but political correctness is not about banning words, it's about fostering institutionalized politeness. I can see why comedians would object to this more than anyone else, but anything that stigmatizes people for being hurtful assholes is probably a good thing in the long run. Yeah, I think a lot of the language that progressives use to try to destigmatize things like being black or gay or female or whatever might need to be made more accessible to people. We should replace "political correctness" with "not being a loving dickhead to people," because in all seriousness, that encapsulates it perfectly. We're not trying to ban words; we just want people to stop being loving dickheads to each other, especially people who have had to put up with way too much poo poo for way too long.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:I forget who said this, I think it was a comedian, but political correctness is not about banning words, it's about fostering institutionalized politeness. I can see why comedians would object to this more than anyone else, but anything that stigmatizes people for being hurtful assholes is probably a good thing in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
raditts posted:shitlord  I've never heard of Nick DiPaolo, but he sounds like what Patton Oswalt is on the path to becoming in five to ten years. Larry's really setting his show up for failure by inviting people like him and Adam Carolla as panelists. And again, the main problem with the show is that it's not funny. It certainly isn't a chaser for The Daily Show like Colbert was. Speaking of which, I'm getting a little tired of The Daily Show. Jon's jokes seem very forced when he's in the middle of being angry at racist frat bros or disrespectful (but probably not treasonous) Republican senators (by the way, the "both sides do it" argument doesn't fly when it's 46 members of one party's senators against a couple of another party's elected representatives over the years). John Oliver is better mostly because he can get passionate about an issue but also not sound forced when he drops a pop culture reference in the middle of it. There aren't nearly as many correspondent segments either, and that's when The Daily Show is at its best. Perhaps I'm subconsciously transitioning to a world where I don't watch Comedy Central's 11:00pm time slot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:I've never heard of Nick DiPaolo, but he sounds like what Patton Oswalt is on the path to becoming in five to ten years. How? What in the world do they have in common now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Someone in tonight's audience has a laugh reminiscent of dragging a razor blade over a pane of glass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
This fat gently caress talking about getting in a fight 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Speaking of which, I'm getting a little tired of The Daily Show. Jon's jokes seem very forced when he's in the middle of being angry at racist frat bros or disrespectful (but probably not treasonous) Republican senators (by the way, the "both sides do it" argument doesn't fly when it's 46 members of one party's senators against a couple of another party's elected representatives over the years). John Oliver is better mostly because he can get passionate about an issue but also not sound forced when he drops a pop culture reference in the middle of it. I thought Jon's segment on corruption tonight felt like a throwback and very John Oliver-ish. The jokes all built on each other nicely and he only derailed himself a couple times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Rob Corddry sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:This word should be banned. Jon Stewart's been circling the drain for a good long while now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
This is the funniest thing that's been on The Nightly Show, and that's just because Mike Tyson is inherently hilarious. Like, to the point that I want them to make The Nightly Show with Mike Tyson.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Mike Tyson Mysteries is pretty much Peak Tyson so just watch that and be thankful for it. Why would Mike Tyson believe he could be beaten by Soda Popinsky? I mean Little Mac maybe, but that diabetic son of a bitch?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:Someone in tonight's audience has a laugh reminiscent of dragging a razor blade over a pane of glass. Man, it was REALLY distracting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Oh my god the loving laugh aaaaaaggghhh My friend can't hear it, I think it's literally at too high a frequency for her older ears to hear. D1Sergo fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
I can never hear it when you guys are complaining about somebody's laugh in the loving audience, you're all crazy people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Rob Corddry sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
raditts posted:I can never hear it when you guys are complaining about somebody's laugh in the loving audience, you're all crazy people. I envy the deaf.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:I envy the deaf.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
amaranthine posted:This is the funniest thing that's been on The Nightly Show, and that's just because Mike Tyson is inherently hilarious. It was so annoying every time Tyson got interrupted by one of the other idiot panelists . Hell the 4th guy didn't even talk once, what the hell was the point of even having him? Goddamit it Larry, you have MIKE loving TYSON, you don't need 3 other people. The first segment was also just so bad, 20 mins of just talking with Tyson about boxing ala the Mayor interview woulda been fantastic and instead its just another super flaccid episode. With Wilmore flailing so badly and Jon leaving be interesting to see what happens to the night time field, I could see new formats other than talk/interview shows suddenly taking over that slot if someone does something interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Yeah it was pretty hard to miss that obnoxious laugh.spronk posted:It was so annoying every time Tyson got interrupted by one of the other idiot panelists . Hell the 4th guy didn't even talk once, what the hell was the point of even having him? Goddamit it Larry, you have MIKE loving TYSON, you don't need 3 other people. The first segment was also just so bad, 20 mins of just talking with Tyson about boxing ala the Mayor interview woulda been fantastic and instead its just another super flaccid episode. And of course the keep it 100 poo poo was lame as usual, and Larry's answer was his usual copout bullshit. He asked everyone who is the best boxer ever, and you can't say Mike Tyson, and then at the end Larry kissed Tyson's rear end and said he could beat Ali.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
I used to watch the daily show, colbert, then conan at late night, all in a row. Then for years conan moved into conflict and I sadly saw him less. I guess I could just watch him on TBS if the comedy central late night falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
ROCK THE HOUSE M.D. posted:Yeah it was pretty hard to miss that obnoxious laugh. The Keep It 100 poo poo is just bad in general. It's basically just giving people questions they can't possibly answer well, and then scoring a cheap laugh when people can't answer them well. It's the illusion of giving someone a challenging question without having to have it actually question their beliefs or hypocrisies in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:The Keep It 100 poo poo is just bad in general. It's basically just giving people questions they can't possibly answer well, and then scoring a cheap laugh when people can't answer them well. It's the illusion of giving someone a challenging question without having to have it actually question their beliefs or hypocrisies in any meaningful way. I know it's bad, I've said earlier in the thread it got old after the very first episode. But my big gripe with it now is you can tell Larry doesn't keep it 100 in his answers, he just gives the most copacetic answer. Larry is so loving boring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
And he laughs at ALL of his own jokes. That poo poo is so bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
RedneckwithGuns posted:Apparently some poll someone conducted said most respondents would prefer Tina Fey be the new daily show host? I would wholeheartedly support it if it had a snowballs chance in hell of actually happening. It's Comedy Central. She's Tina Fey. They don't have that kind of budget.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Deuce posted:It's Comedy Central. http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/who-are-the-highest-paid-stars-in-tv-1200585236/
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Deuce posted:It's Comedy Central. And didn't she "win" that poll with like 19% of the votes? Not exactly overwhelming majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
The Nightly Show with Killer Mike. Someone please make this happen. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
I'm not a big fan of Tina Fey. Yeah, I'm one of those who people who still have a huge hateboner for SNL. I like some alumni and I've enjoyed a handful of 30 Rock episodes; but I don't want to be reminded of Weekend Update at a period of SNL that I particularly dislike.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Rob Corddry rules. No, the other guy was right. That was awful because he sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 08:44
|
|
