Post: #1

"CBS has made a five-year deal with Colbert, which was announced Thursday by CBS Corp. CEO Les Moonves and CBS Entertainment chairman Nina Tassler."

http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/04/10/stephe...letterman/


I, for one, will miss the Colbert Report.

Post: #2

I don't think he's funny even though he tooled Bill O'Reilly pretty good, so I won't miss him.

Post: #3

I don't get it. Isn't Stephen Colbert a character?

Post: #4

Yeah- it doesn't make sense. He's great as the character, but seems kind of boring outside of that. They should get the Iron Sheik to replace Letterman.

Post: #5

(04-10-2014 12:08 PM)j r Wrote:  I don't get it. Isn't Stephen Colbert a character?

Yeah, he'll have to change his entire persona from Republican-esque commentator to actually doing general jokes and interviewing boring celebrities. I think he can sing and dance, right?

I wonder if the Late Show will move to L.A.? Obviously these late shows revolve around celebrities, most of whom live in L.A.

I don't think there was anybody better for the job frankly. CBS purportedly distanced itself from Conan after the drama with Leno.

I wonder what will happen to Ferguson though. Pursuant to his contract he is supposedly entitled to become Letter's replacement otherwise will gain a large payout. He has a good gig and I think he's funny, so if he gets his payout and can still stay on, I'd take it if I were him.

Post: #6

The funniest shows out there were actually Kimmel and Conan anyways. Some red pill shit mixed in those shows too. NBC has both "nice guy" SNL alums as hosts, so that's busted.

Hopefully Colbert can be edgy. I have confidence in him.

Post: #7

Should go over well with the 950 yrs - 1,090 yrs age demographic of CBS.

Post: #8

Stephen Colbert has entertainer chops and I think he can probably do well in the roll. I don't think the Colbert Report really shows off Stephen Colberts wide range of talents; he's a very strong improviser and should do well with a wide variety of guests. Strangers w/ Candy is one of my all time favorite shows and he had a large hand in creating/acting in it.

Post: #9

Huh, that #CancelColbert campaign sure was bad for his career.

Post: #10

That's pretty funny. The other day when I read that Letterman was going to call it quits I mentally ran through a list to see who they could replace him with. Colbert was the only guy who made sense to me.

John Stewart? Waaay too political.
Conan O'Brien? Nope.
Chelsea Handler? No way.
Nick Cannon? Lmao.
Craig Ferguson? Naah.
Jimmy Kimmel? The only other possible choice, but not quite ready.

Colbert is the only guy available with the talent, charm, humor, gravitas and name recognition to fill that chair. I think people will be surprised to see him perform without his blowhard Republican schtick. He's actually a very funny and charming guy. He will also help to draw a younger demographic while still appealing to older viewers. I think he will do well for CBS. If he doesn't work out, expect them to sign Jimmy Kimmel.

Post: #11

The only reason Colbert was chosen is so the media establishment could gain control over him. On his own show he can say what he wants. This is "their" show and they can censor him into obsolescence.

Post: #12

(04-10-2014 12:50 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  Huh, that #CancelColbert campaign sure was bad for his career.

Came in to say this. Colbert got canceled into one of the top late night spots on TV.

Post: #13

(04-10-2014 12:50 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  Huh, that #CancelColbert campaign sure was bad for his career.

Indeed. I've seen this before with things that go viral on the internet...people pay attention to it for 15 seconds then promptly forget it. There was a story a while ago where a young lady said something that went viral, and lost her job as a result of it. Her job loss also went viral, but she was then instantly forgotten.

To wit: A month or so later I looked up this person on Twitter, and she had less than two dozen followers.

Most things that go viral on the internet are forgotten the next day. #CancelCobert? Anyone with a brain knew he was being quoted out of context, so I am not surprised it had no lasting impact.

Post: #14

Is it trolling to rub dogshit in the faces of those who throw around the term "libtard"?
Because it's fun at times like this.

Post: #15

Good choice

Post: #16

(04-10-2014 01:03 PM)scorpion Wrote:  That's pretty funny. The other day when I read that Letterman was going to call it quits I mentally ran through a list to see who they could replace him with. Colbert was the only guy who made sense to me.

John Stewart? Waaay too political.
Conan O'Brien? Nope.
Chelsea Handler? No way.
Nick Cannon? Lmao.
Craig Ferguson? Naah.
Jimmy Kimmel? The only other possible choice, but not quite ready.

Colbert is the only guy available with the talent, charm, humor, gravitas and name recognition to fill that chair. I think people will be surprised to see him perform without his blowhard Republican schtick. He's actually a very funny and charming guy. He will also help to draw a younger demographic while still appealing to older viewers. I think he will do well for CBS. If he doesn't work out, expect them to sign Jimmy Kimmel.

I don't think Kimmel would jump ship, he's already in the same time slot but with ABC. Ratings wise he's 400K viewers less than Letterman on average. Not much of an upgrade for both CBS and Kimmel.


The greatest thing with this hiring is watching the #Tumblr SJWs eat their hat and feminists pissed off that Handler didn't get it because "she's a womyn"

Post: #17

Craig Ferguson is funnier.

Post: #18

Colbert vs. Colbert Persona..

Which one is more compelling?

Post: #19

Do any of you guys find any of the chat show hosts funny?

They have never made me laugh once. I don't get it.

Post: #20

(04-11-2014 12:34 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Do any of you guys find any of the chat show hosts funny?

They have never made me laugh once. I don't get it.

I agree. The humor feels "forced". I cant quite explain it and I feel the same way about Jon Stewart, Conan, etc. I do think Jay Leno is genuinely funny, though.

Post: #21

I liked conan when he first started. I like kimmel. Even Letterman was funny 25 years ago before his heart attacks(I think they softened him)

Post: #22

(04-11-2014 10:04 PM)eradicator Wrote:  I liked conan when he first started. I like kimmel. Even Letterman was funny 25 years ago before his heart attacks(I think they softened him)

I never watched Conan's show, but I have to give him credit for being extremely funny as a writer for The Simpsons during its golden years of the 1990s.

Post: #23

(04-11-2014 12:34 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Do any of you guys find any of the chat show hosts funny?

They have never made me laugh once. I don't get it.

I agree. It's just something cultural I don't get. They seem to operate solely from a position of frame control - their demeanor and dominant role tries to persuade you that they are witty or funny, when in fact they aren't at all.

Post: #24

The Late Show (Letterman) and the Tonight Show (Leno, now Fallon) aren't really intended to be laugh out loud funny all the time. They're more about having a host who is likeable enough that people want to invite him into their homes every night and watch him as they fall asleep. A lot of people get very attached to those shows in particular and watch them regularly for years. The host becomes like an old friend in the eyes of the regular viewer. It's just as important to be charming and a good conversationalist with guests as it is to be funny.

This is the major reason that Conan didn't work out as host of the Tonight Show. NBC felt his style was too goofy/funny and lacked charm/gravitas. Fallon is a much better fit in that regard. Although he rarely hits Conan's comedic high notes, he's got a much wider range. And most of all he just comes across as an extremely likeable guy. CBS is hoping Colbert will fill a similar role.

These two shows (the Tonight Show especially) are peculiar American institutions, so I'm not surprised that foreigners really wouldn't "get" them, especially if you're looking at them purely as a comedy show, because they definitely aren't that. They're about just chilling out with a likeable guy on your TV as you fall asleep while he cracks a few jokes about current events, interviews celebrities and otherwise entertains you. As American culture has become increasingly atomized and people more isolated, the late night host has become a sort of pseudo-friend to people. You just turn him on and say hello every night, and he's always smiling and laughing with some interesting company to talk with. And for an hour or so, you feel less alone.

Post: #25

scorpion's post above is interesting for a number of reasons. It breaks into two parts. First,

(04-12-2014 12:06 AM)scorpion Wrote:  The Late Show (Letterman) and the Tonight Show (Leno, now Fallon) aren't really intended to be laugh out loud funny all the time. They're more about having a host who is likeable enough that people want to invite him into their homes every night and watch him as they fall asleep. A lot of people get very attached to those shows in particular and watch them regularly for years. The host becomes like an old friend in the eyes of the regular viewer. It's just as important to be charming and a good conversationalist with guests as it is to be funny.

This is the major reason that Conan didn't work out as host of the Tonight Show. NBC felt his style was too goofy/funny and lacked charm/gravitas. Fallon is a much better fit in that regard. Although he rarely hits Conan's comedic high notes, he's got a much wider range. And most of all he just comes across as an extremely likeable guy. CBS is hoping Colbert will fill a similar role.

These two shows (the Tonight Show especially) are peculiar American institutions, so I'm not surprised that foreigners really wouldn't "get" them, especially if you're looking at them purely as a comedy show, because they definitely aren't that. They're about just chilling out with a likeable guy on your TV as you fall asleep while he cracks a few jokes about current events, interviews celebrities and otherwise entertains you.

This is a very good, concise explanation of the American institution of the late show.

(04-12-2014 12:06 AM)scorpion Wrote:  As American culture has become increasingly atomized and people more isolated, the late night host has become a sort of pseudo-friend to people. You just turn him on and say hello every night, and he's always smiling and laughing with some interesting company to talk with. And for an hour or so, you feel less alone.

These few lines are extremely revealing.

I think most people would not see the connection between what is written here and scorpion's relentless posts about the white race and the perceived dangers to it from all the usual suspects. Yet they are connected in the most direct possible way.

The pervasive feeling that life has become "increasingly atomized" and the fear of being all alone in what they see as an "empty" and "meaningless" world devoid of purpose or direction is what drives intelligent, literary men to fetishize ideas of race and nationality in a desperate attempt to safeguard a "traditional" past that they look to for shelter and relief from the sound and fury, signifying nothing which they feel is the face of the present and even more so of the future.

These fears are shared by virtually all intelligent contemporary men and transcend superficial differences in ideology. The traditionalist right and the progressive left are much closer to each other than they realize; whether they pine for Gaia and the myth of "the environment" or for a restoration of "white patriarchy", these quasi-religious impulses are driven by the same sense of corruption and a state of sin that human beings have fallen into (whether against "traditional morality" or against "Mother Earth") and that has to cleansed and purified by an all-consuming fire so that we can return to a longed-for state of simplicity and purity.

I feel for these guys, both right and left, who are so consumed by fear and despair, and who lose the world as a result. I wish I had the power to show them that they're wrong; there is no need to fear the future and turn away from the present. As the human being makes progress in controlling and manipulating the materials that surround us, the interfaces between us and the physical environment change and evolve. Yet the direction of this change is not what people think it is.

It is not new technology that mechanizes and alienates us -- it is we that, over time, humanize and transform it.

Human sentience, because it is different from and superior to mere materials, is the thing that insinuates itself into everything it touches -- not the other way around. It is not our destiny to be subsumed in a cold world of "impersonal" technology because all of this technology is, after all, our own creation -- and it is our way of imbuing every aspect of the world around us with our own warmth.

Look at a forum such as this one, and understand the swiftness with which human beings have taken an unthinkable new invention -- the internet -- and turned it into another way to find friendship, camaraderie, humor, and connection.

People bemoan the way Amazon, for example, has displaced some mom-and-pop retail stores. Yet they miss the fact that surfing the immense and stupendous spaces of the Amazon website can be an experience of equal or greater warmth, charm, and complexity as walking through any physical stores. It's just that with the pace of our advances accelerating, it can be hard to understand that each and every new interface offers endless possibilities of a densely lived human experience, and requites just a little patience and attention -- and so people give up and turn away, never giving the world as it is the chance that it deserves. What a waste.