The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

[Phil]

Fantastic debut. I haven't watched the entire thing from start-to-finish, but I caught most of it last night, and re-watched a lot of great clips shared on YouTube this morning.

 

 

 

Both of these are from last night's debut.

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

I thought Jeb Bush was awful. A desperate attempt to try and appeal to younger left leaning people since his own are already abandoning him.

 

But about the show, thought it was great. I'll be watching for sure. Seems like a much less exaggerated Colbert Report

[Phil]

I thought the same. Stephen kinda saved him with the joke in the video above. But I agree completely about it being a less exaggerated Colbert Report. It's a slightly more PC version, but in an extended one hour format. The same Stephen, just less the intentional Conservative pundit host character.

 

He even made a joke about it on the show, talking about how he used to play a narcissistic Conservative host, and now he can just be a narcissist. :rofl:

[Morphinity 2.0]

I thought it was okay. The Sabra hummus thing was a little forced and went on a little too long, IMO. The Trump sequence was probably the funniest sequence. The Clooney skit was pretty funny.

 

Jeb Bush was terrible. Really odd choice as an interview for his first show.

[NYRangers92]

The content of the show was pretty solid but it was evident theyre still working out some of the technical kinks. Like the lighting during the Clooney interview kept changing and the editing overall was pretty choppy, but especially during the Jeb! interview. Both things that are easily correctible with time.

 

Also Jon Batiste is great.

[Pete]

"Just when you thought you knew Stephen Colbert, the newly appointed king of late-night comedy is about to offer a surprising look into his very soul. Shortly before he took over the reins for David Letterman on*CBS?s*The Late Show, The Colbeard sat down with Father Thomas Rosica, media attach? to the Holy See Press Office and CEO of*Salt and Light Television*based in Toronto, Canada, and poured his heart out about his job, his devout faith, and Pope Francis."

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/stephen-colbert-opens-up-about-his-devout-christian-faith-islam-pope-francis-and-more.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

[Morphinity 2.0]

They tried a somewhat awkward recreation (or "inspired" segment) of the "Tip of the Hat/Wag of the Finger" segment from The Colbert Report last night:

 

 

Overall though, I like the new show with Colbert. His interviews are great and his segments are pretty funny.

 

Phil, have you been watching? Religion has been mentioned quite a lot (moreso than many other late night shows I've watched). How do you feel about it?

[Phil]

I've been trying to, or trying to keep up with clips on YouTube if I don't catch the show. I haven't seen any episodes in at least a week though.

 

Has this religious talk been more recent? I feel like I haven't really noticd much (though I have noticed how much politics he's had on). Then again, it's Colbert. For that fact alone, I'm A-OK with him talking politics, religion, etc. He has both the history of doing so and the intelligence to handle it.

[Morphinity 2.0]

I've been trying to, or trying to keep up with clips on YouTube if I don't catch the show. I haven't seen any episodes in at least a week though.

 

Has this religious talk been more recent? I feel like I haven't really noticd much (though I have noticed how much politics he's had on). Then again, it's Colbert. For that fact alone, I'm A-OK with him talking politics, religion, etc. He has both the history of doing so and the intelligence to handle it.

 

Well he makes relatively frequent references to his Catholicism, especially when the Pope was in town. He had an entire segment with Joe Biden where they discussed faith. And there were a few instances I can't remember where religion was brought up, probably with one of his political guests.

[Phil]

Ah, right. Yeah, he did that early too. I don't mind it. Colbert is my favorite type of Christian/Catholic — the one who understands it underlines his life but doesn't allow it to dictate it.

[NYRangers92]

Listening to Colbert talk about his faith is really fascinating. He truly, truly loves it and is one of the most knowledgeable public figures on it I've heard.

I like this video he did

[video=youtube;o-zxn-YGUI4]

[Morphinity 2.0]

Bill Maher's interview on The Late Show was fantastic. Late night needs more of stuff like this.

 

 

Reminds me of the interviews Craig Ferguson used to do.

[NYRangers92]

I miss Craig Ferguson

[Dave]

Bill Maher's interview on The Late Show was fantastic. Late night needs more of stuff like this.

 

 

Reminds me of the interviews Craig Ferguson used to do.

 

I'm 3:00 into the second video (I'll finish it) and so far Maher is boorish and kind of a dick. Not sure what of value you're finding in this interview.

 

Edit: Done. Opinion didn't change. Garbage interview.

[Morphinity 2.0]

That's who Maher is. That's the point. Late night TV, lately, has been a place for celebrities and interviewees to put on the facade, play by the rules, tell a not-so-funny story, and get to the pitch.

 

Colbert, so far, has had a much more free-flowing interview structure and has allowed his guests to be themselves.

[Dave]

That's who Maher is. That's the point. Late night TV, lately, has been a place for celebrities and interviewees to put on the facade, play by the rules, tell a not-so-funny story, and get to the pitch.

 

Colbert, so far, has had a much more free-flowing interview structure and has allowed his guests to be themselves.

 

Maybe that's my disconnect. I watched the Daily Show and Colbert. Never really watched network late night. I have been watching Colbert's first two segments but often turn it off when it gets to the interviews. He's been OK, but I liked the Report much better. I've been digging Noah on the Daily Show. I think he's doing a good job so far. We'll see if he can keep it going.

 

Maher is a douche bag, or at least that's the character he plays. He's got some OK ideas, but his method of sharing them is to insult those he disagrees with. He's the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity of the left. Equally as obnoxious.

[Phil]

That's who Maher is. That's the point. Late night TV, lately, has been a place for celebrities and interviewees to put on the facade, play by the rules, tell a not-so-funny story, and get to the pitch.

 

Colbert, so far, has had a much more free-flowing interview structure and has allowed his guests to be themselves.

 

And has had more meaningful guests than the typical parade of actors and reality TV “stars”.

 

I'd much rather tune in to watch an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bill Maher, Jeb Bush, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Elon Musk, John Kasich, etc. than hear Jason Statham tell some crappy story about how he accidentally elbowed an extra on set of his new terrible action movie before plugging said terrible action movie.

 

He also has a really nice mixture as a host/interviewer of using comedy to keep things light enough (never letting it get nervously uncomfortable), but not letting the guests just dodge serious topics. Pot legalization, atheism, ISIS, the economy, etc.

 

It’s great.

[Phil]

Maybe that's my disconnect. I watched the Daily Show and Colbert. Never really watched network late night. I have been watching Colbert's first two segments but often turn it off when it gets to the interviews. He's been OK, but I liked the Report much better. I've been digging Noah on the Daily Show. I think he's doing a good job so far. We'll see if he can keep it going.

 

Maher is a douche bag, or at least that's the character he plays. He's got some OK ideas, but his method of sharing them is to insult those he disagrees with. He's the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity of the left. Equally as obnoxious.

 

No doubt, but he’s also the only guy on the left in as prominent a position as Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly and others are on the right. The rest of the larger left-leaning stars aren’t half as critical as Maher is, and certainly not about religion, which is why he’s been able to carve out such a huge reach in the first place. I mean, Jon Stewart is largely considered to be sort of the voice of generation in terms of left leaning comedy, but even he never broached that topic much.

 

Depending on the beliefs you value most (or least), Maher is one of those guys you either ignore the self aggrandizing and pomposity to praise the fact someone is saying the things he says, or someone who you wish would find a different way because you can’t get past the delivery. It’s arguable which is more effective, because unfortunately there is no one to really compare him to. Not on that scale. The only ones I can think of who might come close (and these are distant second, third place positions) are people like Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin. But they’re all relegated to the podcast/YouTube world.

 

Maybe John Oliver can grow to be that guy, but he’d need to change his format to do so. Because right now, much of an effect his show is having, it’s still in a format that’s only in his voice. Maher forces the issues by bringing on guests and grilling them. Like O’Reilly.

[Dave]

No doubt, but he’s also the only guy on the left in as prominent a position as Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly and others are on the right. The rest of the larger left-leaning stars aren’t half as critical as Maher is, and certainly not about religion, which is why he’s been able to carve out such a huge reach in the first place. I mean, Jon Stewart is largely considered to be sort of the voice of generation in terms of left leaning comedy, but even he never broached that topic much.

 

Depending on the beliefs you value most (or least), Maher is one of those guys you either ignore the self aggrandizing and pomposity to praise the fact someone is saying the things he says, or someone who you wish would find a different way because you can’t get past the delivery. It’s arguable which is more effective, because unfortunately there is no one to really compare him to. Not on that scale. The only ones I can think of who might come close (and these are distant second, third place positions) are people like Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin. But they’re all relegated to the podcast/YouTube world.

 

Maybe John Oliver can grow to be that guy, but he’d need to change his format to do so. Because right now, much of an effect his show is having, it’s still in a format that’s only in his voice. Maher forces the issues by bringing on guests and grilling them. Like O’Reilly.

 

I get that Maher serves a niche. I'm just not that niche most of the time. I agree with some of what he says, disagree with other things he says. Probably in a similar proportion to O'Reilly whenever I've caught him. And like O'Reilly and to borrow a turn of phrase from you, he's preaching to the congregation. These people (Maher, O'Reilly, etc) aren't interested in enlightening the uninformed, they're interested in ratings among their own flocks and being parroted. They're exclusionary.

 

You cannot compare Maher to Stewart because Stewart's words and compassion resonated with the non-extreme from both sides. For the left, he was stating the obvious more eloquently than they could themselves. For the right, he offered a reasonable leftist view that, even if they didn't often agree, they could at least understand and appreciate. I'd venture a guess that non-extremist on the right found themselves agreeing with Stewart from time to time on certain issues.

 

Stewart and his team were a voice that bridged gaps, not widened them. And they did so without compromising their principles. It's a very rare trait. I hope he finds a new way to contribute to the National dialogue. He's much needed in that space.

[Phil]

It's a big niche though. Look at the ratings numbers for Real Time every week/year. He's getting more than four million viewers every week, for a show that airs at 10pm on a Friday night. Oliver, by comparison, runs on Sunday night, HBO's go to position, and only just edges out Maher at like 4.1 million last I read.

 

I completely get it when people say he's insufferable. I've actually talked about his pomposity in the past. Especially his body language and facial expressions. Depending on who he is talking to, there's are a number of things he does that if he did it to me, I'd want to reach back and clean his clock for. He does that condescending head tilt, slows his speech as if saying things at a snails pace will make his point more relevant, scrunches his nose a lot in that "really?" way, etc.

 

But I can't deny his critical importance to left-leaning thinkers. Because while you may feel he's exclusionary, people clearly tune in to hear what he has to say, which gives him a lot of clout, like O'Reilly, who is equally important, even if he tends to make up his own facts to cater to his base.

 

Maher himself is pretentious, but what he represents IMO is a "necessary evil" of sorts, because how else are you going to hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali unfiltered? How else are you going to be able to sit down on your couch and flip on a program that gives Jeremy Scahill, Barney Frank, Andrew Sullivan, David Frum, Ron Reagan, S.E. Cupp, etc. often an hour to just sit down and talk about anything, unfiltered?

 

As an atheist who views religion as something that needs to be criticized as often as possible, having Maher on the air is almost invaluable. I can't think of a single person outside maybe Oliver, who might fill that void if Maher left the air tomorrow.

[Dave]

It's a big niche though. Look at the ratings numbers for Real Time every week/year. He's getting more than four million viewers every week, for a show that airs at 10pm on a Friday night. Oliver, by comparison, runs on Sunday night, HBO's go to position, and only just edges out Maher at like 4.1 million last I read.

 

I completely get it when people say he's insufferable. I've actually talked about his pomposity in the past. Especially his body language and facial expressions. Depending on who he is talking to, there's are a number of things he does that if he did it to me, I'd want to reach back and clean his clock for. He does that condescending head tilt, slows his speech as if saying things at a snails pace will make his point more relevant, scrunches his nose a lot in that "really?" way, etc.

 

But I can't deny his critical importance to left-leaning thinkers. Because while you may feel he's exclusionary, people clearly tune in to hear what he has to say, which gives him a lot of clout, like O'Reilly, who is equally important, even if he tends to make up his own facts to cater to his base.

 

Maher himself is pretentious, but what he represents IMO is a "necessary evil" of sorts, because how else are you going to hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali unfiltered? How else are you going to be able to sit down on your couch and flip on a program that gives Jeremy Scahill, Barney Frank, Andrew Sullivan, David Frum, Ron Reagan, S.E. Cupp, etc. often an hour to just sit down and talk about anything, unfiltered?

 

As an atheist who views religion as something that needs to be criticized as often as possible, having Maher on the air is almost invaluable. I can't think of a single person outside maybe Oliver, who might fill that void if Maher left the air tomorrow.

 

It's a circle jerk though. I get that you like the concept that your views have a big voice on cable, but I don't see how someone like Maher benefits the movement(s) he speaks about. If anything, to me, he turns off people who might be sympathetic but less militant about these views. And he certainly won't aid in reaching common ground across the spectrum.

 

He's a Malcolm X, when what the Atheist movement needs is a Martin Luther King Jr. Militant Blacks in the 60s loved Malcolm, but he hurt Black assimilation into the US and drove the wedge deeper between Blacks and Whites. He helped maintain separation even as he increased a segment of the Black population's self esteem.

[Phil]

That's not what I'm saying. I think he does hurt it (relatively speaking) becuase of his pomposity and delivery. But until something better comes along, I'd rather have that than no voice at all.

 

I mean, for my money, I'd love it if Sam Harris were given his own program, or even Dave Rubin. They're more "tolerant", less smug, and far more reasonable and soft-spoken about their beliefs. But they're not being given these opportunities. So until they are, I have to be thankful that someone is critical of religion on cable television, even if it's premium. I'm glad that someone is outspoken to an average of four million viewers every week, who can use his celebrity status to advance criticism of religion, even if he turns off some folks along the way.

 

I have to look at it that way. It's him or nothing. I think nothing is clearly not the answer, even if Maher isn't the best possible answer either.

 

But we do have to remember here, too, this is only from the television perspective. The real voice of "new atheism" is coming from Harris, Dennet and to a lesser degree Dawkins (though years ago he was leading the charge).

[Dave]

Maybe you're mislabeling, but I don't really get why atheism needs a voice. Anti-theists? Sure. But from an atheist view point, there's no sense in it. Atheists don't have a collective agenda because they come from all sorts of different world views. From a truly atheist viewpoint, religious folks are delusional. So there's no real reason to engage someone you think is delusional in a debate about your lack of belief.

 

I get that atheists find their morality outside of theism and some want to share their thoughts on that, but the atheist label is irrelevant to that.

[Phil]

Non-believers are the fastest growing minority in the country, so while atheism itself may not need a voice, that group of non-believers themselves do. Or maybe they don't really "need" one as much as it's just nice to have one speaking on behalf of the principles they probably agree with. That's more so what I'm getting at. Becuase yes, like you said, being an atheist only tells someone exactly one thing about you as a person — that you don't believe in god(s).

 

What I'm praising someone like Maher for doing is giving non-belief a platform it lacks anywhere else in that medium (prime time television). What his specific beliefs are doesn't really matter. I don't agree with him on a lot of topics. But I love that he's willing to talk about them in a meaningful, critical manner, in somewhat of a longform format.

 

Like I said above, I'd rather listen to Dave Rubin talk one-on-one with Sam Harris for two hours, or Joe Rogan, than have to suffer through the handful of smug, backhanded remarks Maher will make, but right now, Maher is the only one with the HBO contract getting four millon people to tune in every week. So I'll take it until something better comes along.

 

I'm a First Amendment fundamentalist, so anyone who fights for those first amendment rights (especially those willing to throw their own "peers" under the bus when they violate the principles of the First Amendment [Regressive Left]) is invaluable to me as a platform for getting others exposed to this conversation.

 

At the end of the day, who else is willing to have a critical conversation about religion, Islam, ISIS, etc. who can reach four million eyes on a weekly basis, in a prime time television spot, who is willing to bring on across-the-isle opposition (even if they're swimming in shark infested waters) and is willing to give everyone an equal voice? When's the last time you saw a television host like O'Reilly, for example, tell his own audience to shut the fuck up for an applause line?

 

Maher is pomopous and grating, but he wants to have big idea conversations on a grand stage. Even if I disagree with him on a number of topics, I have to applaud him for that.

[Morphinity 2.0]

Fuckin' Jimmy Fallon wouldn't lead to a discussion like this!