|
Naylenas posted:I really like his tendency to shush the audience almost immediately after telling a joke. Makes me hope they'll just nix the audience altogether at some point. I think it's important for a comedian to have an audience and kind of control it for pacing. Some do it by steam rolling the audience by just delivering jokes over the top of them and others let the laughter play out. I think the former really gives a sense of urgency and for his one spot at you a week I think it's great. Feels like a packed chunk of comedy. I don't think stand up-ish comedy without an audience is ever a good idea. Feels like some avant garde performance piece of a guy telling jokes to no one. You avoid the audience wrangling, sure, but it's just so sterile. The Bugle is great because Andy and John are there to be their own audiences. I like the show. It's very much HBO wanting their own Daily Show episode on a Sunday. I think the international slant helps it avoid being a retread and The Bugle has proven Oliver's comedy is fantastic about international affairs.
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
PassTheRemote posted:Senior twitter correspondent The Iron Shiek. Incorrect premise. Penises should be drawn on absolutely everything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
I think the strongest argument against him taking Colbert's spot is that he's too similar to Stewart. Inarguably he has his own thing and his stint running TDS had its own feel, but it was still essentially The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight is so very TDS-esque. Without the benefit of being on a different station (with no censor restrictions), I'm afraid a Stewart and Oliver hour would feel like incredibly same-y until they branched out. Like a condensed version of the problems of The Late Show and The Late Late Show only just closer together. Colbert's show thrives because the extreme character he has so the satire makes even repeated stories okay. I know it sounds like unfortunate timing but I think getting onto HBO is creatively a better thing. I hope it thrives because I think he might have been in trouble in Colbert's slot. Especially if Colbert's audience follows him. And at least HBO isn't as comically cancel-happy as Comedy Central. I don't have any clue what kind of show could thrive behind TDS right now. It has to appeal to the TDS people, can sit opposite Colbert and do well, and maintain enough to prop up @Midnight. Maybe they should just rerun old TDS episodes from years gone by.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
I just moved to Oregon and saw those commercials and they're strange but very, very Oregon. What's amazing is that the website is as much of a disaster as it is. As far as I can glean, they contracted with a recognized company for the website (Oracle) with a reasonable development timeline and it completely poo poo the bed. His outrage would be fine if the website worked, but as mentioned it's like the band on the Titanic was playing folk music instead of classical.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
I think that was a good second episode. Echoing everyone else who recognizes the brief little asides as being a good replacement for commercials for pacing and giving the show some flow. Makes it feel much better even if it does feel a bit strange because they're over so quickly. I got a few good things out of the death penalty segment so that was good. Pointing out the percentage of the UK that wants to have the death penalty was a nice way to show that desire isn't uniquely ours. Given he was comfortable about sharing his own views, I was surprised he waffled on the last bit about the family deciding though. Maybe he's just undecided. It was a long, long bit and if it wasn't for the promise of tiny burritos running out of steam like that would have been really disappointing. But then there were tiny burritos. Thurm posted:The official Youtube channel put up two web exclusive videos. This is why I'm so glad he has a show. His performance is so drat great, just dissecting a letter and it's magical. This segment makes me wish that he had a "however much time you need" 30-45 minute window for his show. quote:An interview with Vice journalist Simon Ostrovsky about being held captive in Ukraine: This would have been awkward but great in the show. It's not particularly funny and he doesn't drive the interview especially hard, but he's not bad in there. But it's a good subject and some nice context for Ukraine where most of what I get is high level detail. Put into the show, I'm not so sure. It's an interview that needs to happen but John isn't necessarily the person who should be doing the interviewing. I'm sure it's a confluence of Vice and HBO to get him there but it would have felt more like an obligation to be more TDS-like to have it in the show. Maybe having more freedom with the structure and design of the show is something they can play with. Include an interview occasionally if it's really good and if John brings his A game, otherwise youtube it so it gets out there a little bit without impacting the flow of the show.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Well, that is certainly a way to leverage the freedom HBO provides. I also like how it has elements of putting the candidate into a good light right before going super dark in the negative direction. Given three episodes, it seems like they've settled on a strong international balance with both US and abroad represented, which I think is awesome. John's performance still comes through well and the lack of commercial structure also keeps me on my toes toward the pace of the show. I'm kind of glad he didn't land the Colbert slot just to see where they can take this.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Drifter posted:So it seems like the segment about Bill Nye was really showcasing how Bill's not only rather ineffectual in getting his point across to 'the other side' (it's a communication bridge that probably can't be crossed at this time) but how he's actually doing a disservice to the scientific community/crowd at large by willingly allowing himself to be this sort of easily disregardable figurehead of the idea of climate change by the owl deniers. The thing that gets me disagreeing with you is that Bill Nye is the silliest of scientists that the world can recognize. He does nothing to feed the "Big Science" or oppressive atheist regime these people have developed in their minds because he's inherently goofy. You can't feel victory if your one scientist you've got to back your position is opposite someone kids love. Like winning an argument against Big Bird, there's no takeaway victory there. But it's kind of a best of both worlds type thing because Bill Nye can bring the argument to a forum but he also has this persona which is likable so he's a good face to go on these pointless "debates". I don't know if it's better that they have no dissenting voice on their channels or have one shouted over, but if it has to the latter, I'd prefer to think that having Bill Nye seem like he makes a valid point between the nonsensical statements thrown around, it might sink into one person out of a thousand who watch it. Unopposed I doubt there'd be much call to really pay attention to what's being said. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 01:49 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
The Crossfire thing happened after an extremely long term drift in the Daily Show since taking over from Kilborn. Looking back at his era and the early bit of Jon's it's amazing how E! channel it really was. And it makes sense because funny and politics was kind of niche and already taken by Dennis Miller. But over time and especially because of the 2000 election, they found that sweet spot of political comedy and, by extension, cable media's coverage of it.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Those last two crack me up every time. Old Bowser/Old Donkey Kong is such a great gay couple. Especially since their meet cute was in the hospital recovering from getting the poo poo beat out of them from Mario. Worse still, it seems both of them stole Princess Peach and it turns out that absolutely nobody wanted to screw her, they were just desperate for a beard in the homophobic 80s.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
FlyingCheese posted:I thought everyone knew Bowser trying to marry Peach was just a power play. The king of the Koopas marrying the princess of the Mushroom kingdom was all about unification of the land under Bowser's power. How would a 18 ft tall dinosaur even have sex with a woman anyway? Micropenis. It's a sad biological fact that they don't want to get out. They don't actually devour the princesses sacrificed to them, they just pay them a hefty payoff, buy them a one-way ticket to Aruba, and they have to sign an ironclad confidentiality agreement. Watching the gifs, it's genius that they had the Peach one just keep going further than necessary. I assume those are done by that overseas team that will make an animation of absolutely anything. I would really enjoy it if LWT established a long standing deal with them for "footage".
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:That whole episode was brilliant and I can't decide if I enjoyed the American Tail bit or the Hawking interview more. I love this show. Seriously, this show has gotten really drat good really drat fast. I know he was given some footing by running TDS for the summer, but it feels like a show he's comfortable with already and personalized to him and it's only been like a month and a half. Amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
I agree that it isn't quite TDS without commercials or censorship. It's taken me a while to work it out but I think the limited time they have for one week is why there's a different feel. It doesn't seem to have segments they feel "obligated" to do because they're doing two hours of comedy a week. They basically get to cherry pick stories from the week or even from the greater global landscape and really have fun with it. And, from a comedy perspective, brevity and a quick pace is a very strong asset. It's why I don't long for an hour any more than I wish every show I love had more after it's done. The show feels exhausting because it's so tightly wound just like an excellently crafted stand up set. The fake commericals are incredible if only because they take an expectation for the ignorable downtime of a commercial and use it for more comedy. I hope they keep changing up the structure with interviews when they want them and none when they don't because it makes the whole thing congeal into a handcrafted package that feels like it was made to fit that singular week rather than being a formula with the days events plugged into their necessary slots. And I still love TDS and TCR but I sincerely appreciate the ways this show can ignore their structure. That said, I do so very much want an Andy Zaltzman segment just so John can invoke the power vested unto him by the people at HBO for Andy to stop a pun run in progress only for it to continue because a pun run is a force of nature that answers to no man.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:The international angle (despite being very American in approach) is really smart : it means it's far, far easier to sell to other English speaking countries. I know they run it on Sky Atlantic, which is where HBO have their main UK deal, and maybe in Australia too, as they love importing and not big fans of making original programming themselves. This had me curious too. I couldn't really see them successfully poaching writers because correspondents leave TDS all the time. However, the showrunner for LWT is the former head writer for The Daily Show. And looking it up, the writing staff has one Colbert Report and Demetri Martin veteran, several from The Onion, many who mostly write for cartoons (!), and the head writer for W. Kamau Bell's show. The TDS head writer had been with the show since 2004 so he is probably why LWT hit the ground running so effectively. But only the showrunner seems to have worked with Oliver previously. http://splitsider.com/2014/04/talking-last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver-with-showrunner-tim-carvell/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:#BetterCIATweets has already got some great stuff.   Really enjoying the freeform nature of the show. Longform segments are awesome and they're clearly having fun ignoring structure and just spending as much time as they need for solid jokes and well presented arguments. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Notsosubtle posted:I'm not saying that we should punish comedians for having a point of view - indeed a point of view is potentially essential for good comedy, art, etc. Nor am I saying that they have to hold themselves to the same scrutiny as real journalists. Obviously, comedians' priorities are fundamentally different from journalists''. I was simply pointing out that there is a lot of "he doth protest too much" going on in interviews with Oliver and others. The first thing they do is to completely reject any sort of news-explaining or reporting role - which is just patently false. Maybe the key is not to entangle "trivial" and "just comedians" with "influential". I think comedy can be strong and impactful in many different ways and comedians can be just as influential as anyone. Black comedians can make insightful and meaningful commentary about racism while not being considered trivial even though they are only operating as comedians and not as politicians. Perhaps if you consider that Stewart and Colbert (and it seems Oliver as well) can be considered influential without needing to be journalists or politicians. When they say they're just comedians it is to properly place them in terms of their responsibilities. A comedian doesn't have any allegiance to the truth, integrity, or even consistency. Patton Oswalt has separate sets where George Bush is alternate a retarded moron and then a genius Bond villain. And nobody really cares when they take the truth or reality and bend it endlessly towards making a better joke. As an audience, we make subjective choices about whether integrity or reality matters in them being good comedians. Al Franken started as a general comedian, then an influential political comedian, and then a full on politician. He really can't be a comedian anymore because his responsibilities have changed. He wasn't exactly cavalier with facts and reality in his political comedy but if he were to engage in comedic exaggeration on the Senate floor it's not going to go over well even if it's funny because his audience has requirements for him that require a level of seriousness and accountability as their representative. On the point of whether satire can be critiqued about it's level of accuracy or bias, that's a subjective argument but it doesn't prevent it from being entertaining. I can think Dennis Miller has some pretty funny sets while also thinking he's got some terrible foundations and some bad world views. But he's shown some skill in crafting a joke (from time to time) and can perform. I think the due dilligence that Oliver and his crew put into his show has a lot to do with his brand of comedy. I think the three of them draw their comedy from the absurdity of the observed world and so the detail helps feed both their comedic senses and their passion about a subject. Digging down to see the hideous entanglement of public figures and private interests in the prison system is such drat good fodder for the comedy because absurdity and comedy go hand in hand. That due dilligence makes for great comedy and their dedication to it helps them with performance because they loving care about the topic (something I'd argue helps comedians who aren't just drawing from a joke book but instead from their own lives and perspectives). Edit: Haha, yeah, those are now very optional and even detrimental qualities in our elected officials.  V V V Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:There's a big difference in subject matter there. Joking about Bush being dumb or an evil genius is obviously meant to be absurdist humor, and both sets come from the same political perspective anyway. Eh, I don't really give a poo poo if they send people down the wrong path. Patton has gone from being sort of aggressively misanthropic and proud of being childless to softening and talking extensively about his kid. And Dennis Miller can go on about the moronic stuff he puts forward and Denis Leary can defend his smoking and then go on the opposite side. And on the other point, John and team just scratched the surface on jokes made about prison rape. Joking in favor of awful positions is sometimes the crux of a comedian's satirical persona, just like Colbert. And again, the argument that they're just comedians is not a defense about being influential, it's about them meeting the same standards of the media and politicians they focus on. Regarding their level of influence they usually point towards their ratings which are very Comedy Central-esque in size.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 03:32
|
|