|
The Daily Show / Colbert Report Post-Strike Talk
Didn't see a thread on these guys coming back tonight. Discuss.
|
Jon Stewart was pretty terrible.
Colbert, so far, has been hilarious. |
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
Jon Stewart was pretty terrible.
Colbert, so far, has been hilarious. |
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
Jon Stewart was pretty terrible.
Originally Posted by JuryDuty
I thought it was surprisingly just as good as a scripted show
|
Originally Posted by dork
Agree with both.
Then why even bother to click on the thread? Stewart wasn't at his best, but he was watchable. Same with Colbert, but he fared a lot better than Stewart. |
Wanted to check this out after Scrubs, but my DVR was wrong. It said the Daily Show was on, but it was Futurama..
|
Stewart had lots of space for improv and whimsy which he's sharp at as usual. Loved that Conan the Barbarian bit especially since i've been planning to rewatch that for days now.
Colbert was good too although he had 2 interviews. |
Originally Posted by JuryDuty
I haven't watched Colbert yet, but I disagree about Stewart. I thought it was surprisingly just as good as a scripted show, though the interview was twice as long as usual.
|
Last night was just continued what I've thought ever since Colbert started: Colbert > Stewart
How long did Colbert actually run? I set the TiVo for 31 minutes and that was only just enough to get the second interview started. |
i actually enjoyed Colbert's show.... does he even need writers
|
Originally Posted by Chew
Last night was just continued what I've thought ever since Colbert started: Colbert > Stewart
How long did Colbert actually run? I set the TiVo for 31 minutes and that was only just enough to get the second interview started. |
That 35 minute runtime must of been due to the really long ovation at the beginning. ;)
|
Neither was great. I was disappointed that they both shrugged off the election to talk about the strike.
|
Stewart confused me. His opening comments seemed to be anti-WGA, but his guests seemed to show his pro-WGA side. If he was being sarcastic, it didn't play well.
Colbert was GREAT. However, he certainly morphed into character, which in my understanding was against WGA rules. That's the problem with these shows, they play it a certain way and it's almost impossible to break the mold. |
Originally Posted by DVD Josh
Colbert was GREAT. However, he certainly morphed into character, which in my understanding was against WGA rules. That's the problem with these shows, they play it a certain way and it's almost impossible to break the mold.
I guess I was most surprised by the fact that Colbert was actually funny, unlike Stewart, which I was bored with after about two minutes. |
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
Well, that's my problem- I haven't found Stewart's preening and mugging funny for at least a year, nor have I found TDS funny for at least that long. In my opinion, last night showed the respective talent levels of Stewart and Colbert to be wildly out of sync at this point.
|
Originally Posted by DVD Josh
Stewart confused me. His opening comments seemed to be anti-WGA, but his guests seemed to show his pro-WGA side. If he was being sarcastic, it didn't play well.
I think the reason he seemed mad at the writers (and this is totally understandable) was that he WENT to bat for them and got Comedy Central (and it's numerous parents all the way to Viaacom) to agree to the union's demands and reach an equitable deal so that he could get his writers back and enjoy the same treatment that World Wide Pants does with the Late Show and Late Late Show. For reasons even he could not understand, it seems, the writers said no. If that's the case, then he is he is justifiably upset with the arbitrary exemptions the WGA seems to be throwing around. Why deal with World Wide Pants and United Artists but not Viaacom? -Doc |
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
How is that possibly against the rules? It's pretty obvious nothing was written for him.
|
Even USAToday agrees with most of us:
The night before the New Hampshire primary, and what does Jon Stewart talk about? Jon Stewart. That can't really be why we missed him. Returning writer- and virtually humor-free to his Comedy Central series, The Daily Show, Stewart devoted most of his 30 minutes Monday night to the writers' strike. Odds are, every time the presidential candidates made some gaffe or goof over the past two months, Stewart fans were wishing he was around to point it out. And then he comes back and he pays virtually no attention to the presidential race at all. The first jokes: the strike. The guest: labor expert Ron Seeber, to talk about the strike. Without any apparent irony, Stewart did make a comment about how hard it was to be the host of a show known for mocking politicians and be off the air when there was so much to mock. The statement was accompanied by a fast clip of Mike Huckabee appearing at a rally with Chuck Norris and a joke linking Iowa to New Hampshire. ("Cold white people have had their say.") And then it was back to the strike. It's not unusual, when a problem or subject consumes us, to assume everyone is as consumed as we are. But when you're being paid to entertain, the least you can do is put some effort into making your obsessions amusing. Stewart's goal, instead, was to educate us on the union's goals, with a side lesson on what he apparently sees as the union's unfair treatment of The Daily Show. Even if viewers were interested — and my guess is most viewers have no great interest in the strike beyond "when will it end?" and "what's going to happen to 24?" — couldn't it wait until after the primary was over? Generally, The Daily Show is the better of the Comedy Central duo, but last night, the prize went to The Colbert Report. Yes, there was strike talk at Colbert, but it took a distant second place to politics. And as is usually the case with Stephen Colbert, it was just an opportunity for the host to parody the right-wing fringe. Like Stewart, Colbert interviewed a labor expert. But he did so at the end of the show, after he had already talked to writer Andrew Sullivan about Barack Obama. And both interviews, like the show itself, were funnier than anything Stewart had to offer. Tonight, if we're lucky, The Daily Show will focus on national politics and leave TV politics behind. As for the strike, here's what we want from both sides: Talk to each other, and for the love of heaven, stop talking to us. |
Originally Posted by DVD Josh
It was reported that it would be a violation for him to play IN CHARACTER (as evidenced by his referring to the show at the COLBERT report, not "colbear" report). The reason being that is a creation of the writers of the show (SC included).
|
Hrm... "The Daily Show/Colbert Report <b>Post</b>-Strike Talk"?
Sorry, nitpicking. Colbert definitely takes the prize, having just watched the two online. |
The word segment was great "________ and that's the word!"
Tonight, if we're lucky, The Daily Show will focus on national politics and leave TV politics behind. |
Colbert faired better than Stewart last night and I think that will continue to be the case as long as the strike lasts. Colbert's improv background will help him weather the lack of a script a little better.
|
It's weird. the EW article praised Stewart but blasted Colbert. I definitely found Colbert funnier, but I didn't think Stewart was bad, by any stretch.
|
Stewart was terrible. As someone who does not support the writers in this strike I felt that all he was doing was trying to make them sound like holocaust victims in how badly they have been fucked by the producers. Boo-Hoo!!!!
The main thing I had a problem with was just how unfunny he was and that most of his arguments for the WGA made absolutely no sense at all. |
I am SHOCKED at everyone saying they enjoyed Colbert over Stewart, I have always been a bigger fan of The Colbert Report than I was of the Daily Show, but the Colbert Report was 30% clips of old shows, 60% interviews, 5% applause, and about 3% fresh misc comedy, and 2% fresh political comedy. Meh
|
Oh...and can I say, Jon Stewarts 9/11 joke went over terrible, but I thought it was HILARIOUS.
|
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver
For reasons even he could not understand, it seems, the writers said no. If that's the case, then he is he is justifiably upset with the arbitrary exemptions the WGA seems to be throwing around. Why deal with World Wide Pants and United Artists but not Viaacom?
|
Originally Posted by John Slider
I am SHOCKED at everyone saying they enjoyed Colbert over Stewart, I have always been a bigger fan of The Colbert Report than I was of the Daily Show, but the Colbert Report was 30% clips of old shows, 60% interviews, 5% applause, and about 3% fresh misc comedy, and 2% fresh political comedy. Meh
|
Stewart sucked even worse Tuesday night than he did on Monday. His message is extremely confusing. At this point, he seems pissed at both the WGA and the studios.
Colbert dropped significantly in quality as well. |
Originally Posted by DVD Josh
Stewart sucked even worse Tuesday night than he did on Monday. His message is extremely confusing. At this point, he seems pissed at both the WGA and the studios.
Colbert dropped significantly in quality as well. |
Originally Posted by JasonF
Because UA and World Wide Pants made deals for the entire companies, while Viacom wanted to make a deal just for the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (or possibly for all of Comedy Central, but definitely not for all of Viacom).
Understandable. Still, if it's only an interim deal, I don't see the problem. -Doc |
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver
Understandable. Still, if it's only an interim deal, I don't see the problem.
-Doc |
Fair enough. I guess I just want The Daily Show to get an exemption for purely selfish reasons.
|
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver
Fair enough. I guess I just want The Daily Show to get an exemption for purely selfish reasons.
|
Originally Posted by JasonF
It's a problem (from WGA's perspective) because WGA doesn't want to let Viacom cherry-pick and take a deal where the strike is really hurting them, but hold the line where they can afford to.
|
Originally Posted by Groucho
But shouldn't the WGA be representing the writers and be taking these side deals wherever they're offered? Sounds like they're doing a disservice to the writers of these particular shows. Plus, it encourages other producers to step forward with side deals of their own.
I would think these kinds of side deals would set up precedents which the WGA could then cite and use in their negotiations with the hold-outs. -Doc |
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver
I would think these kinds of side deals would set up precedents which the WGA could then cite and use in their negotiations with the hold-outs.
|
Originally Posted by Count Dooku
That's what the labor professor who was on TDS (excuse me, ADS) said would happen, but the WGA might also see it to their benefit to let high profile shows like Stewart's and Colbert's go writer-less for a while to emphasize the importance of the writers' contribution.
|
Originally Posted by Count Dooku
That's what the labor professor who was on TDS (excuse me, ADS) said would happen, but the WGA might also see it to their benefit to let high profile shows like Stewart's and Colbert's go writer-less for a while to emphasize the importance of the writers' contribution.
Well that's just being petty. I'm on the writers' side here, as - I think - are most Americans. But shit like that can turn a mob REAL quick. -Doc |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.