# The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore premieres tonight January 19 at 11:30 PM Eastern on Comedy Central

I'll bet it'll be a hit.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...es-as-he-takes-over-from-colbert-tonight.html


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Did he/they get sued over the original name?

I thought it was going to be called The Minority Report.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

aindik said:


> Did he/they get sued over the original name?
> 
> I thought it was going to be called The Minority Report.


Fox did not like the idea because they are making a pilot based on the movie: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/a...show-with-larry-wilmore-premieres-jan-19.html

I'm glad they changed it whatever the reason.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I'm not optimistic. I don't know how it can come even close to living up to its predecessor, The Colbert Report.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

ElJay said:


> Fox did not like the idea because they are making a pilot based on the movie: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/a...show-with-larry-wilmore-premieres-jan-19.html
> 
> I'm glad they changed it whatever the reason.


Yeah, I think the new title works better. The original title was clever but I think it also had the possibility of pigeonholing the show.

I was so used to watching The Daily Show and Colbert together that it felt weird to only have one show available to watch for a couple of weeks.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

I wonder if the original title was an attempt to keep "The Colbert Report" alive, simply removing his name from the title and inserting another term? ("This is the same show, we'll keep the same atmosphere.")


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

logic88 said:


> Yeah, I think the new title works better. The original title was clever but I think it also had the possibility of pigeonholing the show.


Agreed. I thought the original name was genius, but once they changed it and I thought about it, I realized that it had the potential to turn away viewers who weren't familiar with Wilmore or what the show was about.



gastrof said:


> I wonder if the original title was an attempt to keep "The Colbert Report" alive, simply removing his name from the title and inserting another term? ("This is the same show, we'll keep the same atmosphere.")


No, I don't think there was ever any intention of the show continuing the Colbert format. That character, and therefore the whole show built around that character, were so unique that the only choice Comedy Central had was to do something completely different. Any attempt to replicate the feel of Colbert would just come across like amateur hour.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

So it's going to take some time for the writing staff to gel with regards to comedy. I get that. But the talking heads lineup is a horrific idea and but they seem to have completely anchored the show around it. (See Larry's ridiculously long desk.) 

I am not optimistic. Then again I also thought Colbert would never be able to keep his schtick going for years.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

ElJay said:


> So it's going to take some time for the writing staff to gel with regards to comedy. I get that. But the talking heads lineup is a horrific idea and but they seem to have completely anchored the show around it. (See Larry's ridiculously long desk.)


Yes it is. They've said that this show is sort of a comedic version of a "Meet the Press" panel-type show. The most recent analogy they gave was "if 'The Daily Show' and 'Politically Incorrect' had a baby."


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Yes it is. They've said that this show is sort of a comedic version of a "Meet the Press" panel-type show. The most recent analogy they gave was "if 'The Daily Show' and 'Politically Incorrect' had a baby."


Did I read correctly that the panel on this show is scripted? That's awful.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I agree that the first episode was really rough. I liked the first segment with Larry just doing his jokes about the news, but once they went to the panel it lost all momentum. They were talking about these subjects as if a few minutes of discussion would allow them to solve all the world's problems. It was as if they were saying that the last 50 years of race relations could have been improved if people had simply listened to the opinions of these five nobodies.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I guess I'm a lone voice, but I liked the panel format aside from its resemblance to Real Time. I think it will hit its pace.

I'm pretty certain that the panel wasn't scripted. Read further down the NYT article and in November they were considering having a "real" panel discussion rather than a scripted one.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> They've said that this show is sort of a comedic version of a "Meet the Press" panel-type show.


Yuck. I can't believe Jon Stewart is producing something like this. The only thing (very rarely) good about "Meet the Press" is when newsmakers are on. The panel stuff is a total waste of time.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> I'm pretty certain that the panel wasn't scripted. Read further down the NYT article and in November they were considering having a "real" panel discussion rather than a scripted one.


Was anyone saying that the panel was scripted? I can't imagine anyone would think that if they watched the show. It was very rough and poorly produced. I do think the questions that Larry asked the panel were pre-planned, but I don't know if the panelists had seen them and I'm certain that their answers weren't scripted. It was too much of a mess for that to be true.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

I was lukewarm on the premiere. It didn't feel overwhelmingly good/insightful/cutting or bad/stupid. Though maybe slightly leaning toward the "weak" side. Maybe slightly non-committal, like he hadn't decided the level of snark and whether to be a character.

Though I'll note I instantly disliked The Colbert Report when it started. A friend or two said they really liked it, so i think I gave it another chance, and warmed up to it. Then after the series on PACs and super PACs, I was completely won over.

I'll give him a little while to find his groove.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

It was rough, but no more so than most other shows with first-time hosts. I'll definitely keep watching: I'd really like to see an alternative take on stories, if they can do that.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

aindik said:


> Did I read correctly that the panel on this show is scripted? That's awful.





DevdogAZ said:


> Was anyone saying that the panel was scripted? I can't imagine anyone would think that if they watched the show.


The NY Times article from November indiciated that at that time the show was going to include a scripted panel discussion (The Daily Show sometimes has similar sketches) but that they were considering having an actual panel discussion.

aindik's post was from before the premiere aired so I assume he was basing his comment from that article or a similar one.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I watched the premiere. I liked it but it'll take a while to get used to. I'm used to a format of two comedy segments followed by a "serious" interview that I 50% blow off. This show looks like it wants to do a one comedy bit followed by an expanded panel discussion format.

There's no way that panel discussion was scripted. The questions probably were but not the responses.

It'll have some growing pains but I like Larry Wilmore and his work a lot.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> The NY Times article from November indiciated that at that time the show was going to include a scripted panel discussion (The Daily Show sometimes has similar sketches) but that they were considering having an actual panel discussion.
> 
> aindik's post was from before the premiere aired so I assume he was basing his comment from that article or a similar one.


Yes, by "read correctly" I was talking about the article, a link to which was posted earlier in the thread. I didn't watch the show.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

larry wilmore needs to stop explaining his show, and deliver his show, discover what's working, and fix what isn't. 

i'm giving him tons of leeway to get this vehicle up and running, but his viewers have seen tv (and comedy) before, and let's face it, there's nothing groundbreaking here - when each segment of his show needs a descriptor, it's not working.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

aindik said:


> Did he/they get sued over the original name?
> 
> I thought it was going to be called The Minority Report.


Being sued isn't possible because titles cannot be copyrighted.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Being sued isn't possible because titles cannot be copyrighted.


Titles can be trademarked.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Jon said in an interview that they would've been forced to always refer to it as "The Minority Report With Larry Wilmore", so they decided changing it was easier.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

aindik said:


> Titles can be trademarked.


http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/titles.html


> *b. Not All Titles Can Are Protected by Trademark Law.*
> 
> Unlike series titles, titles of a single work, whether a book, periodical, song, movie, or television program, normally, will not be protected under either trademark or unfair competition law. This is one of the quirks of trademark law. To quote the USPTO, Regardless of the actual relation of the title to the book, courts treat all single title works as "inherently descriptive" at best and "inherently generic" at worst  unless the single title has had wide promotion and great success.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/titles.html


"Wide promotion and great success."


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

I didn't read this thread until after I watched the show. I knew nothing about the show beforehand (other than the name was changed).

I skipped the panel discussion without even giving it a chance. I did happen to land on the last segment (100 or Weak Tea?) when I stopped fast-forwarding. When I heard the lady *instantly* answer "depends on which one is hotter" I immediately thought that was too perfect (and too quick) of an answer to a very strange question. And I wondered whether it was set up (either the answer itself or just "here's the question we will ask you in the last segment") in advance.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

Are we going to have to listen to him explain what "Keep It 100" is on every show? 

I mean I am accustomed to comedians explaining their recurring bits, but usually they have more than one of them that they rotate around.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I'm reminded of Drew Carey telling us that the the points are made up and the score doesn't matter. Perhaps it will go away with time.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

I wasn't crazy about the first show but I liked the second show better. Perhaps it's because of the subject matter. Cosby is a much smaller discussion, much easier to argue for or against. I'm going to keep watching, just to see how the show evolves. John Oliver's show didn't hit it's stride until a few shows in.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

A channel like Comedy Central can afford to give it time to develop.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I thought the second episode was great.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Well, if the lack of caps available online mean anything, the show isn't off to a great start.

Only the 1st episode is available. The 2nd and 3rd episodes are missing.

I guess it's off to the CC website to watch instead.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I liked it OK, the panel will have to grow on me. But I am willing to give it a chance, for a while. I am sure they will tweak it and improve it. Even Colbert was pretty rough at times, at the beginning.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

The concept of the panel is OK with me, but the segment is so short and they have four panelists, plus Larry. If someone starts to say something interesting, they can't finish. If someone rambles on a bit too long, other people don't get a chance. I just don't see how you can do much more than have a bunch of one-liners... and if that's what they want to do they need to put more comedians on the panel 

I like the idea of taking a single topic and working it for an entire show, especially controversial topics and/or things others are not really taking on. But I agree the format needs a bit of tweaking.

I don't know what "lack of caps" means? But, since I don't get Comedy Central anymore after our household's Great Cable Purge of 2014, and the Plex support for Comedy Central has been broken for a week, I'm chromecasting from the Comedy Central website. It works OK but is kind of glitchy. It'd be nice if they improved their online presence. TDS has an entire Plex channel, as did Colbert, and those are smooth as silk. I'm not sure what the difference is.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The panel segment keeps me interested for the entire show unlike TDS and Colbert where it is/was only 50-50 that I'll watch the interview segment third of the show. Plus, Larry Wilmore is a funny dude. I like it now and it will only get better with time.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

madscientist said:


> I don't know what "lack of caps" means?


I presume it is referring to the "unofficial" distribution of episodes. "Caps" is the term that is used for the uploads (short for "captures.") "Cappers" are the ones who record the program, edit out the commercials (if any) and upload the video.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I presume it is referring to the "unofficial" distribution of episodes. "Caps" is the term that is used for the uploads (short for "captures.") "Cappers" are the ones who record the program, edit out the commercials (if any) and upload the video.


 Oh. Curse these kids and their newfangled language. And get them off my lawn!!

I think the panel _could_ work. I _want_ it to work.

Maybe if they dropped one of the panelists and only had three instead of four it would help. I think having just two would be too few; it would seem to be a one-on-one debate with Larry as moderator. Which would be OK, I guess, but not what they're going for. But three could work. They might have to redesign the table


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> The NY Times article from November indiciated that at that time the show was going to include a scripted panel discussion (The Daily Show sometimes has similar sketches) but that they were considering having an actual panel discussion.
> 
> aindik's post was from before the premiere aired so I assume he was basing his comment from that article or a similar one.


I'm sure the panel is unscripted, as far as the guests aren't following script, but they have to plan what topics come up and get tossed to which panel guest. Keep it 100 is NOT scripted.

What goes to lame is doing the segments with the "correspondents," which like on The Daily Show is totally by script on the prompters. It's only lame because the correspondents aren't seasoned and don't do a job job selling the jokes as semi-spontaneity. Was awful on the Cosby segment. He blew the emphasis on the punchlines.

The panel on that show was very good.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/z5tqon/the-nightly-show-bill-cosby-s-tone-deaf-comedy-jam---mike-yard
Throwing the whole bunch of "weak tea" bags is already old in the second episode. Baratunde did a great job.

My take on the panel on the first ep was "This is on Comedy Central?" but if you imagine that that they did have mind to do "The Minority Report," then it makes sense. I was going to give a pass that it was another take on Bill Maher's Real Time, but that leans towards serious discussion, and doesn't go as directly for jokes.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I'm not really liking it so far. I'll give it another week or so, but if it doesn't pick up I'm going to dump it. 

While I understand they're trying to focus on minorities it seems to be in detriment to actual "news". What I liked about The Colbert Report is that even though he was in character he was still talking about current news that had happened that day or the day before. This seems to rehashing stuff from weeks ago just because it pertains to minorities. 

Also I realize they're trying to use the Meet The Press and/or Bill Maher format, but it doesn't seem to be working very well for them. I think the big difference is that both of those shows are an hour so they mix the panel format with individual interviews. This is like the middle 30 minutes of Realtime after the first guest and before the 2nd guest, but with less interesting topics and a less polarizing host. Bill Maher purposely brings on guests who disagree with him so he can argue with them, so far these panels seem to be a bunch of people who all have the same viewpoint and/or don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about the subject.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> While I understand they're trying to focus on minorities


I think that's short lived due to Wilmore's new status as a black anchor. It's not a necessary component of the show. The stories lately have had a focus (Cosby, Obama) due to the news but for example I read that he's planning on a segment about lying being the way of life in sports.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> I presume it is referring to the "unofficial" distribution of episodes. "Caps" is the term that is used for the uploads (short for "captures.") "Cappers" are the ones who record the program, edit out the commercials (if any) and upload the video.


Yeah, that's what I was referring to. Of course, after I complained, the caps started appearing in the usual spots. 



madscientist said:


> Maybe if they dropped one of the panelists and only had three instead of four it would help. I think having just two would be too few; it would seem to be a one-on-one debate with Larry as moderator. Which would be OK, I guess, but not what they're going for. But three could work. They might have to redesign the table


I agree. It's too many panelists for the amount of time they have. They either need to drop a panelist or remove the lead-in.

I also think the topics needs to be more focused. It's too wide ranging so the questions/answers are all over the place.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The two episodes from this week are a bit better. But they need to get rid of the stupid keeping it 100 thing. It's lame. The one at the end where he answers a question is funny, but it's stupid with the guests.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I'm going to give it a break for a few months and see if they can eventually figure out the show. What they've got right now isn't at all entertaining for me.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

It's very uneven. The quality seems to depend so much on the guests. More so than TDS, which has some pretty funny scripted segments. Unfortunately, the scripted segments on TNS so far have been cringe-worthy.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

he's losing me quickly, i'm barely hanging on to the sp, but i'm still willing to give the show more time to settle. cc realizes there are other quality shows on at the same time, right?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

You know, what they probably should have done is either extend The Daily Show to 1 hour, and with the extra time, bring back more of the classic long-form "news magazine" style Daily Show reports... or create a new show that is exclusively a parody of a news magazine show like 20/20.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think what they need to do is get rid of the "Keeping it 100" segment and extend the panel segment to include multiple topics. Focusing on a single topic each night makes the whole show boring if the topic is not interesting. One thing about RealTime is that if Bill brings up a topic and it bombs then he moves on to something else. In this show if the topic bombs then they're stuck with it for the whole episode.

But if they can work out the kinks I think the show will evolve into something better. Provided CC gives it enough time to evolve and doesn't pull the plug after a few weeks of poor ratings.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

The single topic is a killer. If we are not interested in that topic, we just skip the whole show. 

With something like the Daily Show, we will watch the whole thing, even if a particular segment is not interesting.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I guess I'm in the minority but I like the format of the show. The only weak part is when they have the in-house correspondents on for an extended segment but I expect them improve as they get used to being on camera. A lot of TDS's correspondents sucked early in their run too. 

I like the single topic format. It ensures that I watch the whole show as opposed to having an interview segment that I will more than likely skip. The subjects of American Sniper, vaccines and the Koch brothers were well done. The four panelists format is good since it pretty much guarantees that there will be at least one person with an opposing view. I don't need to have my views reflected back at me. I like hearing dissenting opinions as they help me to form my own views. The Keep It 100 segment is fun. I have no problem with it. 

Larry Wilmore is one funny mf'er. Steven Colbert is a funny mf'er. I don't find Jon Stewart to be funny. To me, he's a very intelligent man on a funny, well written show. Wilmore and Colbert would be the life of any party. Stewart would be interesting to talk to but he wouldn't have me rolling on the floor.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Larry Wilmore is one funny mf'er. Steven Colbert is a funny mf'er. I don't find Jon Stewart to be funny. To me, he's a very intelligent man on a funny, well written show. Wilmore and Colbert would be the life of any party. Stewart would be interesting to talk to but he wouldn't have me rolling on the floor.


I take it you've not seen him outside TDS? I've been a fan of Stewart since "Short Attention Span Theater" back in the early Comedy Central days. He's very funny.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> I guess I'm in the minority but I like the format of the show. The only weak part is when they have the in-house correspondents on for an extended segment but I expect them improve as they get used to being on camera. A lot of TDS's correspondents sucked early in their run too.


That's the weakest part for me too. There's only been one of the correspondents' segments that I've liked so far (the Cosby one about heckling). The way they've instructed all of them to stare directly into the camera, even when they're ostensibly talking to and addressing Larry, is unnerving and distracting.


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

David Platt said:


> The way they've instructed all of them to stare directly into the camera, even when they're ostensibly talking to and addressing Larry, is unnerving and distracting.


It makes them look like they're reading off a teleprompter.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

CraigK said:


> It makes them look like they're reading off a teleprompter.


I saw Kristin Schall do the same thing on last night's TDS segment about Jon Stewart's testicles.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

David Platt said:


> The way they've instructed all of them to stare directly into the camera, even when they're ostensibly talking to and addressing Larry, is unnerving and distracting.


if it prevents them turning their backs to the camera to look at the cheering audience at the exact moment of their introduction close ups, i'm all for it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> if it prevents them turning their backs to the camera to look at the cheering audience at the exact moment of their introduction close ups, i'm all for it.


Totally agree. Either the panelists need to be coached to not turn to the audience when they're introduced or they need to position a camera at the front of the set to get them as they turn toward the audience.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> ...or create a new show that is exclusively a parody of a news magazine show like 20/20.


This already exists in the form of "Newsreaders" on Adult Swim.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

'Nightly Show' host Larry Wilmore has disliked Bill Cosby for a long, long time


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

And we remember some interesting things about a fellow played by John Cho and a mirror in the first season, right?


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Hunter Green said:


> And we remember some interesting things about a fellow played by John Cho and a mirror in the first season, right?


...how about a reminder?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Hunter Green said:


> And we remember some interesting things about a fellow played by John Cho and a mirror in the first season, right?


Meant for the Sleepy Hollow thread?


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

aindik said:


> Meant for the Sleepy Hollow thread?


I am SURE I posted it there... weird.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

And here I was googling "john cho bill cosby" to see if he had a bad experience as a child actor on The Cosby Show!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Saul's helper from Breaking Bad was funny. I died when he said that obese kids shouldn't be allowed in all you can eat buffets because they get in his way.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> Saul's helper from Breaking Bad


Thank you. I knew he looked familiar but my memory is failing.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

The topic makes or breaks the episode. The gay marriage one was boring.

They need to choose topics that foster nuanced arguments for and against.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

"Plus we check in with Alabama and since it's not football season you know it can't be good." 

Larry Wilmore is much more personable and engaging on this show than he was on TDS - I rarely looked forward to his segments on that show. Though he did have some biting commentary at times. I suppose that could just be the persona he used on TDS, but I never saw him anywhere else... so my attitude was formed completely by what I saw of him on those segments.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I so wanted to love this. I like Larry. But I've been bored the last few nights. I suppose I'm simply not the target audience. Best of luck to him, but he'll have to go on without me.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I don't usually make it up past TDS to watch this, but the few episodes I've watched were just "ok". I agree, the topic makes the show, and the keeping it 100 is silly most of the time. I much prefer TDS, and I watch BIll Maher, which this show is much closer to. The guests on RT are much better though.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

no more time for this show, here's to hoping it improves, sp deleted.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Larry starts. Three weeks later, Jon Stewart quits. Larry can't be happy.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aindik said:


> Larry starts. Three weeks later, Jon Stewart quits. Larry can't be happy.


Larry has already said he's not interested in the TDS job.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Larry has already said he's not interested in the TDS job.


That's not what I meant. I meant his very popular lead-in and executive producer quitting.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

aindik said:


> That's not what I meant. I meant his very popular lead-in and executive producer quitting.


it will definitely shorten the time larry now has to develop his own viewer base, those independent of the audience he's handed from tds with jon.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I tink it's getting better. Still don't like the keep it 100 segment though.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Yeah, they need to get ride of the Keep It 100 segment. I usually just skip through because it's not that interesting.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

logic88 said:


> It's too many panelists for the amount of time they have. They either need to drop a panelist or remove the lead-in.


The first two episodes this week only had three panelists so it looks like they are tweaking the formula.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

logic88 said:


> The first two episodes this week only had three panelists so it looks like they are tweaking the formula.


They've also built a new table which seems to help a little as well.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

They've also made the panelist portion a shorter segment of the show with a longer portion up front of just Larry only or Larry and one of the contributors. I think the show is getting a lot better and I'm glad I kept watching it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Tonight Larry will pay off the Dare-O-Mania by hosting the show in spandex.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Tonight Larry will pay off the Dare-O-Mania by hosting the show in spandex.


He was really happy that someone beat Kentucky.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I honestly gave this show a few chances, but found the "contributors" to be largely annoying during the panel discussions. This (from Reddit) is a good example of why. The contributor Ricky Valez, and whoever the woman is (comedian?) shouldn't have the opportunity to talk to Bill Nye.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I think Mike Yard is usually great during the panel discussions.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

robojerk said:


> I honestly gave this show a few chances, but found the "contributors" to be largely annoying during the panel discussions. This (from Reddit) is a good example of why. The contributor Ricky Valez, and whoever the woman is (comedian?) shouldn't have the opportunity to talk to Bill Bye.


Yeah sometimes the comedic panelist try too hard for the laugh and drown out the actual subject.

FYI that's Bill *N*ye, not Bill Bye.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> FYI that's Bill *N*ye, not Bill Bye.


My two year old likes to crawl all over me when I'm on the laptop.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

ITA about that Bill Nye/panel segment. I watched that episode yesterday and I found myself getting agitated. Serious mismatch of 'intellects' and the constant over-talking made me want to stab people. 

(disclaimer: I don't actually stab people. Sometimes I just WANT to do so)


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

robojerk said:


> I honestly gave this show a few chances, but found the "contributors" to be largely annoying during the panel discussions. This (from Reddit) is a good example of why. The contributor Ricky Valez, and whoever the woman is (comedian?) shouldn't have the opportunity to talk to Bill Nye.


I can take or leave the panel discussion. It really depends on the topic and panelist. They usually have too little time and too many folks trying to talk. They should probably drop it to two panelist to give each them each enough airtime.

But I think Wilmore has found his groove and the non-panel bits of the show have usually been pretty good. (Except for Ricky Valez, so far I've hated almost all of his segments.)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

sharkster said:


> ITA about that Bill Nye/panel segment. I watched that episode yesterday and I found myself getting agitated. Serious mismatch of 'intellects' and the constant over-talking made me want to stab people.
> 
> (disclaimer: I don't actually stab people. Sometimes I just WANT to do so)


Yeah I finally watched the episode and that whole segment sucked. Larry should have done a better job moderating. And they should have had some slightly smarter people on the other side of the table. The two they chose were complete idiots who were being contrary even though their positions were completely idiotic.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The panel usually has two comedians and a "serious" guest plus Larry. You're not going to get much serious talk or knowledge from that format. I blew off just about every Stewart or Colbert interview that featured an actor or entertainer. I've watched all of the Nightly Show's panel discussions.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

So, I know that this thread has gone dead because probably nobody is watching the show. For me, it continues to have more bad than good.

But did anybody see the Neil deGrasse Tyson bit from the other night? Best bit I've seen on the show EVER, by a huge margin!

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/rca4i...egrasse-tyson-slams-flat-earth-theorist-b-o-b


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

We still watch it, although not religiously like we watched Jon in TDS. Mostly watch the beginning and skip the panel.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Yeah, I agree that the panel is pretty skip-worthy!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

sharkster said:


> So, I know that this thread has gone dead because probably nobody is watching the show. For me, it continues to have more bad than good.


I'll eventually catch up again.. I'm currently in my "catch up on At Midnight" phase.. Usually I watch 6 at a time (at around 2x) on my iPad at the gym, most days.. Yeah I have a LOT unwatched..


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I still watch every day and love it. My only suggested improvement would be to limit the panel discussions to comedians. Do a proper interview segment with "serious" guests who actually have something important to say.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

It's kinda odd how all of the shows are so pro-Sanders, especially Wilmore and his crew.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

logic88 said:


> It's kinda odd how all of the shows are so pro-Saunders, especially Wilmore and his crew.


That's multiple times in various threads I've seen you refer to him as "Saunders." Is that just a mistake, or is it a joke I'm not in on?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

logic88 said:


> It's kinda odd how all of the shows are so pro-Saunders, especially Wilmore and his crew.


I think it's mainly because Bernie has been on the show like 2-3 times and Hillary has not.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

The hosts in the 11p to midnight block on Comedy Central supporting the furthest left candidate in the race shouldn't surprise anyone.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah given the demo of those shows, and how many young people are pro Sanders, it makes sense that they are also pro Sanders.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's multiple times in various threads I've seen you refer to him as "Saunders." Is that just a mistake, or is it a joke I'm not in on?


Sorry 'bout that. Just a weird typo that I don't get around to fixing. Oops.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah given the demo of those shows, and how many young people are pro Sanders, it makes sense that they are also pro Sanders.


If you assume they come by their Sanders support honestly, and not because they are trying to pander to the audience, it still shouldn't surprise anyone.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Doesn't surprise me they're liberal, but the majority of liberals I've talked to are still mainly pro Hilary. Especially older ones.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> Doesn't surprise me they're liberal, but the majority of liberals I've talked to are still mainly pro Hilary. Especially older ones.


Whereas the vast majority of the ones I have talked to are pro Bernie, even the older ones. (The people who aren't tend to be Conservatives).

I am not sure I know a single person, personally, who is actually FOR Hillary. They may begrudgingly vote for her, but she doesn't inspire them.

I'm not surprised at all at the pro-Bernie support I see on the late night talk shows.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Cancelled.

Last show is Thursday.

http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/08/comedy-central-cancels-the-nightly-show-004714


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm bummed for Wilmore, as I like him and he seems like a good guy. But I had pretty much stopped watching the show because I found the panel segments to be really disjointed and the Keeping it 100 segment was just dumb. If they would have made the majority of the show be Larry reading the news with jokes mixed in, I would have been much more inclined to watch.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I liked the Nightly Show but I must have been one of the very, very few who watched this every night. I still think the panel should have been just the show's comedians most of the time. If they had a serious guest then it should have been a 1-on-1 interview. There were some funny people on this show. I hope I see them somewhere else.

I stll think Larry should have replaced Jon Stewart instead of Trevor Noah.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I watched it from time to time, but it's on a bit late for me. Often I'd just watch Larry's opening and then go to bed. I would have loved for them to make him host of the Daily Show and jettison Trevor Noah. He's much better than Noah in my opinion.


----------



## rcandsc (Feb 5, 2014)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm bummed for Wilmore, as I like him and he seems like a good guy. But I had pretty much stopped watching the show because I found the panel segments to be really disjointed and the Keeping it 100 segment was just dumb. If they would have made the majority of the show be Larry reading the news with jokes mixed in, I would have been much more inclined to watch.


This.

Never thought Holly Walker, Robin Thede, (especially) Ricky Valez, Mike Yard, Grace Parra or Rory Albanese were funny at all. Having two of these (interchange as needed) and one guest every night was not a format that I felt worked at all.

Hope Larry moves on to something better soon.


----------



## flikhem (Sep 6, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I watched it from time to time, but it's on a bit late for me. Often I'd just watch Larry's opening and then go to bed. ...


Umm, you realize you're posting this on a TiVo forum, right?

Like others, I prefer Larry to Noah.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

flikhem said:


> Umm, you realize you're posting this on a TiVo forum, right?
> 
> Like others, I prefer Larry to Noah.


Yeah, so? I never found that I enjoyed the show THAT much that it was worthy of recording. Shows like TDS and TNS for me are better on the same day because the "news" is fresher. A day or so later, much of what they covered is beat to death.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

Count me in among those not liking the panel segments. They're not insightful or entertaining, so why do them? I'm similarly puzzled by them on the Sunday talk shows. They never make news so it's just a filler of time.

I watched this show for a few months and just didn't find it worthwhile. I never came back, and it sounds like nobody else did either.

Comedy Central is putting a positive spin on The Daily Show's similarly terrible ratings, and I wonder how long they'll let that limp by.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

ElJay said:


> Count me in among those not liking the panel segments. They're not insightful or entertaining, so why do them? I'm similarly puzzled by them on the Sunday talk shows. They never make news so it's just a filler of time.
> 
> I watched this show for a few months and just didn't find it worthwhile. I never came back, and it sounds like nobody else did either.
> 
> Comedy Central is putting a positive spin on The Daily Show's similarly terrible ratings, and I wonder how long they'll let that limp by.


And it sounded like TNS was effected by those ratings. I guess they figured they couldn't cut both, so go with the worse ones?

I wonder what they will show in the 11:30 EDT slot?


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I wonder what they will show in the 11:30 EDT slot?


I think I read it will be @midnight, at least temporarily.
I think it's subbed in the 11:30 slot before.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Maybe out of habit, I still feel like i should watch TDS and TNS, but i don't really look forward to it, so they often stack up a couple weeks on the DVR.

With TNS, I liked Larry doing the news, and I was okay with the panel. I thought the 3-person panel actually flowed better than the 4 person. And I couldn't see how they could realistically book 4 guests per night.
The part I didn't like was when they would have a news segment that would cover some topic and establish the show's position on the topic, then have an "interview" with one of the Nightly Show contributors playing a character that was playing the extreme of the other side. Like it felt like it was a straw man, and wasn't usually that funny. Though I don't know if they did it without the news segment first to put it in context, if that would have just confused me.

Overall, I'm disappointed that they're canceling it.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I've gotta imagine that The Daily Show has to be being looked at as well. The reasons CC gave for cancelling TNS ("We just havent seen it on any level from the general conversation to ratings to any sort of traction on social media platforms") are more or less true for TDS as well.

It isn't doing much better in the ratings than TNS. For the last week that TDS had new episodes (7/4 to 7/8), it got a 0.30 Adults 18-49, while TNS got 0.21. Neither show are getting much buzz in the social network scene, nor any impact in political circles.

If anything, TDS has to be being seen as the bigger failure. I think most people had set their expectations of Wilmore replacing Colbert at an appropriately low level. People expected so much more of Noah, though, and he hasn't remotely been able to live up to those lofty expectations.

I'm not sure where CC goes from here. All the good talent from both Stewart's Daily Show and Colbert's show have gone elsewhere, and I don't think the have the ability to recreate the environment that led to the creation of those two shows.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I've stopped watching TNS and TDS all together. If Wilmore had better correspondents/guests the format could've worked IMO.

On TDS, I watched for 6 months, maybe I'll try again later. Just not as good without Jon. Trevor Noah is coming up on his first year anniversary as host btw.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I've gotta imagine that The Daily Show has to be being looked at as well. The reasons CC gave for cancelling TNS ("We just havent seen it on any level from the general conversation to ratings to any sort of traction on social media platforms") are more or less true for TDS as well.
> 
> It isn't doing much better in the ratings than TNS. For the last week that TDS had new episodes (7/4 to 7/8), it got a 0.30 Adults 18-49, while TNS got 0.21. Neither show are getting much buzz in the social network scene, nor any impact in political circles.
> 
> ...


Here's a good article describing why CC chose to cancel TNS and is doubling down on TDS.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/08/nightly-show-larry-wilmore-cancellation-is-no-surprise.html


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Here's a good article describing why CC chose to cancel TNS and is doubling down on TDS.
> 
> http://www.vulture.com/2016/08/nightly-show-larry-wilmore-cancellation-is-no-surprise.html


I don't think they really have a choice at this point. They made their decision to hire Trevor Noah. They gave The Daily Show, which is so much about US politics, to a guy who doesn't know jack ---- about US politics. Then they kept writing like Jon Stewart was still hosting the show, and it was painful to watch.

Beyond that, I don't understand this desire of corporations to get "social media traction." Does that actually drive viewers to the show? I agree with the above poster that TDS is definitely not getting it. I much more regularly see more Seth Meyers political comedy making the rounds than The Daily Show, which is pretty sad given how insane the presidential race is. Fallon and Corden have their own shtick that works for them on YouTube, but we don't need copycats of that silly stuff.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Trevor Noah was such a mistake. If they wanted to be "edgy" they should have given it to Jessica Williams.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I have a ton recorded but not watched.. but will still watch them.. (I previously had saved up at least several *tens* before -- if I watch them sped up, I can usually get through 6 at a time at the gym..)


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

rcandsc said:


> This.
> 
> Never thought Holly Walker, Robin Thede, (especially) Ricky Valez, Mike Yard, Grace Parra or Rory Albanese were funny at all. Having two of these (interchange as needed) and one guest every night was not a format that I felt worked at all.
> 
> Hope Larry moves on to something better soon.


They started with four guests each night but that got tough. Hard to book interesting people if you can't give them more than a couple minutes of air time.

Then they switched to the single guest panel format, which was better but still not ideal since as you mentioned, the rest of the crew didn't have much interesting to say. In fact, it's almost like they seem to revel in their lack of knowledge. Especially the Bernie Bros duo of Valez and Albanese.

It's too bad, I like Wilmore as a host. As he mentioned, I guess the White House isn't the only slot to be unblackened.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Sad

I prefer TNS to TDS. I wish they would have just canceled TDS instead, it sucks now anyway. Noah is terrible and even the great writing can't save him.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I'm the opposite of most in this thread. Wilmore was painful to watch. He'd read something. Tell a joke then go into a pause like he was reliving the joke. Like a bad party guest. Much prefer Noah to him. Wilmore is a train wreck.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I've gotta imagine that The Daily Show has to be being looked at as well. The reasons CC gave for cancelling TNS ("We just havent seen it on any level from the general conversation to ratings to any sort of traction on social media platforms") are more or less true for TDS as well.
> 
> It isn't doing much better in the ratings than TNS. For the last week that TDS had new episodes (7/4 to 7/8), it got a 0.30 Adults 18-49, while TNS got 0.21. Neither show are getting much buzz in the social network scene, nor any impact in political circles.
> 
> ...


What were TDS ratings during Stewarts time? TDS btw has had new episodes for the last two weeks and didn't they have some new episodes during the conventions?


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Sad
> 
> I prefer TNS to TDS. I wish they would have just canceled TDS instead, it sucks now anyway. Noah is terrible and even the great writing can't save him.


It's still apparently getting decent enough ratings whereas TNS was not and not improving. I'm sad that this is result since I thought Larry and TNS were a far better show than the updated TDS.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Here's a good article describing why CC chose to cancel TNS and is doubling down on TDS.
> 
> http://www.vulture.com/2016/08/nightly-show-larry-wilmore-cancellation-is-no-surprise.html


So once again, a network chooses to pigeonhole their success or failure on the flaky millennials, who are less likely to be watching TV old school style to begin with. I get the idea that THAT's where the potential growth is. But with so much competition to win them over (and their extreme lack of interest in watching traditional TV), I STILL think it's a losing strategy.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I think Larry Wilmore is a much stronger host than Trevor Noah and I think his correspondents were much funnier than their TDS counterparts. TNS's topics and skits seemed more directed to an African American audience than TDS's so I'm not surprised that its ratings were lower. If TNS had to be canceled, I wish the suits at Comedy Central had swapped the hosts of the two shows. I don't dislike Noah. He's "eh" to me. I really liked Wilmore, though. I also thought Mike Yard was funny as sh*t.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

I have been a fan of Larry's comedy and his appearances on the old daily show, but TNS never grabbed me nor does the new daily show. When Jon announced he was leaving, my second choice to replace him (first was John Oliver, obviously) was Larry, but TNS was already in the works. I still think Larry would be better than Noah at the helm of TDS. I'd like to say I will miss his show, but though it had an OP, I doubt I watched more than one a month, about the same as the daily show.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I still really like TDS. But TNS has also grown on me. At first I had some problems and more segments that I would FF through. But now I totally look forward to it. 

I'm shocked it did so poorly and that it will be gone after this week.

I'm so sad. I wonder if he would do well on HBO. I guess that won't happen, since they said they only had about 695,000 viewers. Oh well.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> It's still apparently getting decent enough ratings whereas TNS was not and not improving. I'm sad that this is result since I thought Larry and TNS were a far better show than the updated TDS.


This.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

dianebrat said:


> *It's still apparently getting decent enough ratings* whereas TNS was not and not improving.


But it's not, really.

An article from back in May indicated that TDS ratings have dropped 38% from Stewart to Noah - and it's said that ratings continued to drop further after that article came out.

It's regularly being beaten by Adult Swim... and Bravo's "Watch What Happens Live" is even neck and neck with TDS in the ratings.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> I also thought Mike Yard was funny as sh*t.


He's great! I hope we see him on other things.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

ITA about Mike Yard. He was my favorite!  

I have no doubt we will see him elsewhere because he's just too talented to disappear. (fingers crossed)


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I wonder who'll show up for the last episode. Samantha Bee and Colbert have sent booze.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I wonder who'll show up for the last episode. Samantha Bee and Colbert have sent booze.


The answer is Jon Stewart.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/jon...-last-nightly-show-comedy-central-1201840387/


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

John Oliver sent over a case of champagne.


__
http://instagr.am/p/BJQ8YSBBp4-/


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

So what's the plan for filling the time slot? Are they changing @midnight to @eleventhirty?


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> The answer is Jon Stewart.
> 
> http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/jon...-last-nightly-show-comedy-central-1201840387/


Oh, I would love that. FWIW, which probably isn't much, my Tivo Guide lists the guest as Alison Stewart. I have no idea who that is. It says 'radio and tv host'. ok then.

But maybe it was set before the show got the axe so, hopefully, it's changing. I miss Jon Stewart.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I'm sure the whole plan for the show this week got thrown out of whack when they found out they were canceled.


----------



## Lenonn (May 31, 2004)

sharkster said:


> Oh, I would love that. FWIW, which probably isn't much, my Tivo Guide lists the guest as Alison Stewart. I have no idea who that is. It says 'radio and tv host'. ok then. But maybe it was set before the show got the axe so, hopefully, it's changing. I miss Jon Stewart.


She is a news reporter - started with MTV News in the '90s, but as of recent is a correspondent and occasional anchor for PBS Newshour Weekend.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Such a sad ending. Everyone looked so disheartened. To find out you're canceled and then be forced to do four more shows right after is a rough way to go. I feel sorry for Larry and all the contributors.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Such a sad ending. Everyone looked so disheartened. To find out you're canceled and then be forced to do four more shows right after is a rough way to go. I feel sorry for Larry and all the contributors.


Yeah, that was pretty sucky!

I really hope to see Larry, Rory, and Mike Yard again soon. They were my favorites.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> John Oliver sent over a case of champagne.
> 
> 
> __
> http://instagr.am/p/BJQ8YSBBp4-/


Were the pastries from TDS a joke or were they really that tone-deaf?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

The final show typified the show as a whole. The first segment was great, but then when they got to the panel, it just turned into a dumpster fire.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Just watched his appearance on The Late Show. That was a nice segment for both him and Colbert. Great rapport!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

logic88 said:


> Were the pastries from TDS a joke or were they really that tone-deaf?


I don't get it..


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

mattack said:


> I don't get it..


All of the other shows sent booze.

(Sam Bee sent wine, Colbert sent dozens of tiny liquor bottles, and Oliver sent champagne.)


----------

