"The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" thread.

Perhaps I didn't express myself very well - I just thought that Colbert has a unique opportunity here to carve out a different niche than what Fallon & Kimmel have going. His choice of guests so far indicate a desire to do so, as within a couple of weeks he's had on CEOs of Apple, Uber, & Tesla, plus politicians from both sides of the aisle (Sanders, Warren, Cruz, Jeb!, Trump) and other unusual "late-night" guests (a Supreme Court Justice, the UN Secretary General, the US Energy Secretary). Few of those seem like Fallon/Kimmel-type guest choices to me.

He's shown a willingness to ask some tougher-than-expected questions of most of those guests (note: I haven't seen every show) and I was enjoying this: a different kind of late-night entertainment show with a bit of an intellectual edge. But then I thought he just played silly with Trump and avoided the kind of clever questioning he'd used with the others. YMMV, of course...

 

I agree. IMO Colbert completely ruined an otherwise excellent Pearl Jam performance.

 

As a long-time fan of Colbert (perhaps too long?), I think the show is really shaky and watered down so far.

I was first introduced to Stephen Colbert with Amy Sedaris and Paul Dinello, on the Comedy Central series Strangers With Candy (1999-2000). That series led me backwards in time to their earlier work on Exit 57 (1995-96).

Both of those series were very offbeat and unlikely to ever appeal to a mainstream audience. So that's how I was introduced to Colbert.

Then he was on The Daily Show, doing more brilliant comedy, but perhaps not quite as odd, so his appeal broadened to more people. The usual premise was him playing some subversive variation of a reporter/journalist, so he had a limited sandbox in which to work.

Then he got his own show, in which he really expanded on and refined his comedic style, but within a fairly narrow character/premise, which I'm guessing kept his audience limited to not much more than "Daily Show +", but did give him a set of fairly dedicated fans.

So then that takes us to The Late Show, which I think has done the following:

• Colbert no longer has a "role" to play, other than "talk show host." But if that's his role, so far he's playing it straight, and is making virtually no effort to subvert or evolve the role.
• Expectations of the audience he is expected to appeal to have grown significantly, now that he's in the 11:35 time slot on a major network. He can no longer "narrow-cast" his comedy to a smaller but intensely-dedicated group of fans.
• Expectations of advertisers have grown significantly as well. He may be less able or willing to alienate advertisers because the stakes are higher.

I'm not saying that all is lost for long-time Colbert fans like me. But I am having trouble imagining how this show might get significantly better (i.e., more interesting to fans of Colbert's earlier work) *and* grow the audience, which at this level is mandatory.

What I see so far is not encouraging, though:

• the music is bland (the theme song in particular, while catchy, is nothing special and very safe ... it's blandness is an appropriate mirror of the show itself, so far, sadly)
  
• the interactions between Colbert and Batiste are awkward and seem forced, like it's a talk show "rule" they must follow
  
• the overtures to keep things happy and nice with everyone ("happy dance" with the bandleader every night, not asking the guests challenging questions, no more "late night wars" with the competition, etc.) threatens to put me in a saccharine coma every episode
• Colbert's joining musical guests to sing along is always awkward and not very entertaining
• Colbert's ego - if he's being genuine now, and it's not a leftover from The Colbert Report - is surprising and disappointing (stuff like his "I'm rich so tell me how your ideas benefit me" vibe with Elizabeth Warren, for example, as well as his need to sit in with bands - almost like he thinks that his show won't last so he's going to make personal memories this way while he can ... )
• the political comedy segments (the ones that are basically ports from The Colbert Report) sure seem watered down compared to how they were on The Report ... seems like there are more frequently "obvious" jokes that would have more mainstream appeal ... makes me wonder if that early segment with the multi-layered use of the Oreos prop was reviewed and criticized by CBS as "too brainy," "too weird," or something.

What I had been hoping for was an underdog who would take us on an intentional journey to re-shape the late night talk show medium. A good-looking, articulate weirdo that the rest of us weirdos could root for to subtly subvert the system. A "real person" who had humility and compassion and intelligence and an open-mind and a willingness to explore diversity of opinions (even if he had strong opinions of his own and wasn't afraid to speak them) and an ability to challenge his guests without alienating them (rather, making them feel comfortable and at home).

Hmmm, in re-reading that description, it sounds a lot like David Letterman during his peak years (other than the "good-looking" part, perhaps; sorry Dave!). I swear I didn't set that paragraph up that way with Letterman in mind, but when I re-read that I asked myself "what talk show host(s) have ever fit that description?" and Letterman was the first one I thought of. Jon Stewart doesn't even get there (too alienating of guests with diverse opinions). Conan sort of comes close but his interviews have never tried to be particularly intelligent or insightful.

Craig.

 

Good post, and I agree. I think he is making an attempt to be fair to everyone and to not appear biased. It is pretty well known where his political leanings are, so he obviously is trying to appeal to a broader demographic, which might be coming across as a little bland. Yeah, the Trump questions were mostly softballs, but he did give him plenty of rope to hang himself on the "birther" issue.

I think his musical "sit-ins" are unnecessary, but they don't really bother me that much. With Pearl Jam, I considered "Rockin' In The Free World" a bonus song anyway, since most of the music segments are only one song.

I like Colbert a lot, but I'm not sure the Batiste dynamic is going to work out as a #2 man. I think Colbert needs a real sidekick - like an Andy Richter type with some comedy chops to play off of.

 

Someone else in this thread really nailed it earlier when they said Colbert comes across as way too scripted. That's the feeling I get but couldn't quite put into words until now. It's like every single thing that comes out of his mouth is pre-scripted and there's zero spontaneity or "off the cuff" feel to the show, like, ever.

 

Yeah, I'm starting to imagine that Colbert could slowly bring in a cast of recurring characters to play off of. Not that it would be anything new: Letterman had Biff Henderson, Chris Elliott, and several others. But I'm starting to wonder whether Colbert has enough talent - especially if he's constrained by the network/advertisers to keep it bland - to carry a full hour show on his own, and I worry that if he doesn't, his ego (and/or budget constraints) will keep him from being willing to open up his stage to recurring collaborators.

Craig.

 

While I can't cite "book and verse" of examples from the first few weeks of episodes, I've noticed several times in the last week where there was a pause during an interview after the guest said something interesting or provocative, and where a seasoned host (Conan, Carson, Letterman) would wait a beat and then inject a ferociously witty comment, Colbert just waits an extra beat ... and then either changes the subject to ask the next question on his script, or he ends the interview with "well, thank you for coming" or something.

What's weird is that on The Colbert Report it seemed like those spontaneous injections of killer wit were Colbert's strength (though obviously heavily edited, I'm thinking in particular of his ongoing "better know a district" interviews, in which Colbert displayed the perfect ad libbed response to whatever the politician said). In my imagination, Colbert's mind is still offering him those same brilliant retorts, but now he's suppressing them because he's afraid it will be too "dangerous" to say now that he's on a bigger stage. Of course I have no idea if that's true; I just find it hard to believe that the same Colbert who delivered so many amazing off-the-cuff comments on his previous show is now unable to deliver anything most of the time.

Craig.

 

The man's been on a matter of weeks. Give him and the show time to settle in and develop. Geez.

 

I haven't caught up with the show and I haven't seen the Trump interview. I have been loving his guest list so far though.

 

When do you suggest that criticism of a new TV show be allowed? 8 weeks? 3 months? 1 year?

Let me know so I can mark the date on my calendar when I can return to this thread.



Craig.

 

I agree that Colbert is forging his own path, and a good one at that. And, although in a joking way, he did ask the Donald to apologize to everyone he's insulted during his campaign. That's a ballsy ask, but Colbert got away with it because it was couched in humor.

I've watched every episode so far (through the magic of DVR) and I think any every night talk/variety show is inevitably going to have lulls with the highs, but I think Colbert and his people are doing an excellent job. Personally, I find J. Kimmel and J. Fallon hard to digest. I'm only interested in Colbert for late night, and, to a slightly lesser extent, Conan.

 

Beats me. I just know the first season/run/year of any program is going to need to settle in and find the groove.

 

For a show like this, a year, at least. Maybe three, at most. They all develop after a while.

 

I honestly don't think talent is the issue - he is one of the best satirists of our time. If there's a problem with this format (and I'm not sure there is one, maybe like others have said he just needs some time to settle in) - it may be that he doesn't quite know yet how to deliver that satirical wit without being "in character". Ever since I've watched him - on the Daily Show and Colbert Report - he's always been playing a part. Even when he did the brilliant roast of Dubya at the White House Correspondence Dinner he was in character. He obviously can think on his feet and is a good interviewer - plenty of history to support that on his last show. He just needs to figure out how to do it while being himself.

 

What's weird though is that when he's the one being interviewed, rather than the host, he seems to be totally himself. I guess he just needs to figure out how to be that guy while also being the host.

 

The show's good, I like the props and I liked that skit with the music guy and Colbert and the book.

The guest list seems a bit "off." I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Jimmy Fallon's people has made it difficult to book guests...

 

I, for one, love the band. That jazzy/New Orleans vibe is funky and refreshing. The opening music is great, IMO. It's a nice break from the brassy, brash, theme music of the other shows.

Just one man's opinion...

 

What do you mean by "would've"? David had Donald on his show many, many times.

 

The bit where he high fives the hand that comes up from behind the desk never fails to make me laugh.

 

I think the guest list is a lot more refreshing than the guests we see on the other late night shows...and probably reflects Colbert's own interests in having a wider variety of guests. I get bored with seeing actors/actresses all the time. It's nice to see a talk show willing to book a Supreme Court judge, for example.

 

The way he runs out and dances at the beginning of the show is annoying, the look on his face. What medications does he take?

 

True. He is like a male Ellen DeGeneres. Could you imagine if he ever had her as a guest on his show? They would be dancing for a good 10-15 minutes.

 

in my opinion, the Colbert report was not a hit out of the gate. I think that show took a good year, maybe even 2, to really take shape.

 

gotta be something from Prescott pharmaceuticals. side effects include dancing, skeletal zylophoning, and REO speedlung.

 

The Pope/Catholic-fest last night was great. Very original and extremely entertaining. Just a well rounded episode. Stephen performed much better during the interviews. Makes me wonder if he simply doesn't care for Hollywood types and the chit-chat that goes along with it which is why he talks over them while people he actually respects--he gives plenty of space to speak?