It was quite infantile. I love humor directed at Trump and anyone, but this was just an outburst masquerading as humor.
It was quite infantile. I love humor directed at Trump and anyone, but this was just an outburst masquerading as humor.
It is an appropriate response to Trump's infantile attack on Colbert, partly to distract from the Epstein files.It was quite infantile. I love humor directed at Trump and anyone, but this was just an outburst masquerading as humor.
That's pretty much an oxymoron.And the bluntness was quite funny.
Colbert doesn't appear to be in that bit anywhere.I thought this was mindless and self-indulgent humor from Colbert. It's pretty weak as far as genuine laughs. I'm fairly sure we will have some members tell us it's hysterical. Is repeating go fuck yourself really the foundation for a comedy show?
It is not an oxymoron.That's pretty much an oxymoron.
Bluntness can be a lot of things but funny is really not one of them.
That's just your sense of humour being different.That's pretty much an oxymoron.
Bluntness can be a lot of things but funny is really not one of them.
I believe the format is essentially dead. Young people would rather watch YouTube. The podcast is the new format. Funny enough, the long form interview, with clips for shorter attention spans, is now king.There is a competitive business that pays them handsomely.
If I had a friend that was drawing $15 million a year for heading a show that loses $40 million, I would say enjoy it while it lasts Stephen.
The interesting thing is that I believe Colbert's ratings were bad and Trump's election in 2016 gave his show some life.
Val anyone who can see it's a typo.Colbert doesn't appear to be in that bit anywhere.
That's Jon Stewart.
The guy who says PP for the first time is funny. The guy who says PP the six millionth time is not funny.That's just your sense of humour being different.
Bluntness deployed in the right way is very funny to some people.
De gustibus non est disputandum and all that.
I never gave it a lot of thought, but you raise an interesting point. A podcaster can have a two hour segment and several ten minute segments with a guest. Many times I just want to watch a short segment on a specific topic.I believe the format is essentially dead. Young people would rather watch YouTube. The podcast is the new format. Funny enough, the long form interview, with clips for shorter attention spans, is now king.
Graham Norton is great. The many celebrities on a sofa is brilliant. However, I believe GN airs one night a week. So basically it's easier to assemble an interesting panel than a nightly format.The last great talk show is imo the Graham Norton show out of Britain. Witty, informative, great guest mix. He puts a few belts into them to loosen them up. Does research. And no politics. Which is what people really want. And his clips go viral. Increasing online revenue, and driving traffic to live shows.
I love well-done Trump humor. However, many TV hosts are afraid to also do humor aimed at Liberals. Bill Maher is tops in my opinion when dishing it out to both sides. It's fun to read the comments for a Bill Maher clip roasting progressives. Liberals will get so upset and proclaim he isn't relevant anymore.Trump always has ratings, bad news generally does.
What context is that?It is not an oxymoron.
It most definitely is funny in this context.
The context where Trump made an infantile and classless attack on Colbert for which the fuck you was quite literally the perfect funny response.What context is that?
The context of they fired my friend and I'm pissed?
I think the podcast format creates room for candor. Which leads to the viral moments.I never gave it a lot of thought, but you raise an interesting point. A podcaster can have a two hour segment and several ten minute segments with a guest. Many times I just want to watch a short segment on a specific topic.
Interestingly, I heard Colbert doesn't do well in secondary consumption. My guess is Fallon clips do very well on YouTube. Who doesn't want to watch Sydney Sweeney in a tight, low cut dress acting out charades.
Exactly, but I think you will agree the late night format will likely never be what it was in decades past. I guess I shouldn't say never. Perhaps out there is a breakout late night star that we don't know yet who can coalesce a large audience.Colbert had it made with his Original Colbert report. Just as Jon Stewart created lightning in a bottle with his format, and spawned several stars. But political humor does not belong on entertainment talk shows. The purpose of them was to turn off the news, see a celeb, hear about a new movie or show, get a funny anecdote, and wind down the day. They continued the preaching, complaining, and punditry already available 24/7. So imo that's why ratings are tanking.
Colbert will, imo end up back to a political humor base. Comedy Central may give him another Colbert report run, or he may end up trying the now crowded podcast marketplace.
Typing PP is like typing GN.Graham Norton is great. The many celebrities on a sofa is brilliant. However, I believe GN airs one night a week. So basically it's easier to assemble an interesting panel than a nightly format.
The guy who says PP for the first time is funny. The guy who says PP the six millionth time is not funny.
The whole Crew of Breaking Points are steadily increasing their footprint. It's going to be interesting to watch how they breakout at some point. I was amongst the first 20000 subs to their channel when they left the Hill. Both Saagar and Krystal are wealthy so they can afford to invest in it and take some losses even to see how to shake out a new model of news gathering and punditry.Exactly, but I think you will agree the late night format will likely never be what it was in decades past. I guess I shouldn't say never. Perhaps out there is a breakout late night star that we don't know yet who can coalesce a large audience.
Internet Commentator Emily Jashinsky (Breaking Point) said Colbert was trying to work a microculture model on a macroculture format and budget. That's an interesting way to word it. So yeah, Colbert could be great again on Comedy Central within a smaller format and a smaller budget.
I like looking at Krystal, but sometimes she tries too hard to swing the show to the far left. I thought BP was trying to offer different perspectives with an overall goal of balanced coverage.The whole Crew of Breaking Points are steadily increasing their footprint. It's going to be interesting to watch how they breakout at some point. I was amongst the first 20000 subs to their channel when they left the Hill. Both Saagar and Krystal are wealthy so they can afford to invest in it and take some losses even to see how to shake out a new model of news gathering and punditry.
Adding her and Ryan Grim was a great choice. They all mix and match well.
Why are all comedians, humorists, and show hosts left-wing?I never gave it a lot of thought, but you raise an interesting point. A podcaster can have a two hour segment and several ten minute segments with a guest. Many times I just want to watch a short segment on a specific topic.
Interestingly, I heard Colbert doesn't do well in secondary consumption. My guess is Fallon clips do very well on YouTube. Who doesn't want to watch Sydney Sweeney in a tight, low cut dress acting out charades.