Yea, as my gf said while we were watching: “if he’s improvising, they have the worlds most awesome graphics guy”.
Both shows used plenty of grapics. I guess mapping out what you’re going to do, and improvising the specific words, doesn’t violate WGA rules. (Or so the hosts would claim.)
I enjoyed the return of the NAMLBA joke. 
Re Stephen and having all those graphics “ready”: he is allowed to think of whatever he wants and plan in his head what’s he’s going to talk about, so I’d guess he’s allowed to map out the shoot in some fashion. He just can’t write down a script or extensive notes that would constitute a script. It’s not that he has to enter the set and start thinking up whatever he’s going to say right at that moment.
I wonder if the writers who are also producers are there doing their producing duties but not writing scripts. I’d think not, but they have to have someone producing; unless the segment and/or field producers are taking over for now.
Judging from the book I read on Second City, even improvisers have structure. Even pre-strike his interviews, in character, owe a lot to improv. I’d guess they set up the props, have an idea of what he is going to do, and take it from there. He seemed a lot smoother and more confident than Stewart did, and I usually prefer TDS.
As for picket lines, in a sense as a star and a producer he is management, and management always can cross picket lines. Stewart seemed to be appealing to the WGA to settle with them, so maybe this will exert pressure on them.
I didn’t see the entire episode, but where did he do that? He called the producers “NAMBLA” and seemed to totally support the writers as far as I could tell.
This is what went on last night in the unaired parts of the show:
Will be interesting to see if he mentions the fact that Deadline Hollywood got the story so quickly. (They were given the information by someone at the taping, only minutes after it ended.)
Edit: or if he says he was misquoted or misinterpreted.
I thought it was aired. When he was talking to the professor from Cornelll he said something along the lines of “What if a side deal were made with one show and not another, do you think that would be unfair?” And the professor replied that they were probably working with smaller companies to pressure the big fish (Like Comedy Central’s owners, I guess.) And, Stewart kept the gag going by asking if he would consider the WGA anti-semitic had they not made a deal with a short non practiciing Jew. I thought it was funny, and I think that’s what that article alludes to, not something off screen.
Oh. I guess they aren’t talking about that, I just read your link more closely. But, he did allude to it during the show atleast, just didn’t get as specific as he did off camera before the show.
I agree with the majority. I thought the Daily Show was interesting, but missing something that most episodes have. Colbert, on the other hand was hilarious. Able to mock the strike and bring up pieces from previous shows and stil be hilarious. It also seemed different than a standard Colbert episode, which I thought was great, too. Fun stuff.
pat
Yes, I meant that the part that was aired had a background to it, so to speak. That is why the audience cheered loudly right then, because they knew he was talking about what had been said to them off-camera.
He said that Viacom had given them clearance to negotiate separately. Perhaps the anti-Semitic joke was around them agreeing to sign with a Scientologist?
I’ve read, and can look up, that there is some question whether the WGA can sign with some shows and not others under the same deal under current labor laws, and that a grievance has been filed. (Not by Comedy Central.) Anyone know the law?
He said that Viacom had given them clearance to negotiate separately? Was that to the audience in unaired portion, or during that segment of the show where the joke was?
I know the source for the Deadline Hollywood story and she didn’t mention Jon’s saying that. Or was it in the show? I have to watch again because I think I was on the phone at that particular moment and probably didn’t catch everything.
Edit: there may well be multiple sources to DHD. What she printed is nearly identical to what was told to her by my contact, though.
I found A Daily Show to be brilliant, if a bit uneven, and ColberT Report to be tiresome, although the entry and the Word were hilarious. I couldn’t stand the 3 minute ovation–but I can’t stand when he does the rock star thing prior to EVERY interview. IMO, that gag is old.
I loved the “space reserved for clever pun” and the interview that Stewart did with the Cornell guy (safety school!). In contrast, I turned off CR after “the Word” and didn’t bother with the interview. I don’t care for Colbert’s interviews in general.
I wish I could watch tonight, but am scheduled to work.
Hey someone that agrees with me. Yay!
A shame you did not stick it out for the interview. It was actually pretty good last night though. One of the few times his interview was better than Jon’s.
Jim
IIRC in his hypothetical in the interview he mentioned that Viacom approved. There have been several articles in the last week mentioning that they were negotiating - or trying to - and I can’t imagine that it would get even that far without Viacom approving. I’m also not sure of the ownership of the production company. Viacom owns Comedy Central, but I don’t know that Comedy Central owns the Daily Show, not like NBC owns the Tonight Show.
From what I understand (from NPR news today), Viacom does indeed own TDS.
I was canceled tonight for work, so I’ll be watching again.
Although Jon Stewart is executive producer for both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report through his company, Busboy Productions, Comedy Central owns both shows. The copyright notice at the end of both shows reads, “This has been a presentation of Comedy Central, ©2008 Comedy Partners.” (Comedy Partners is the Comedy Central subdivision of MTV Networks, which itself is a subdivision of Viacom.)
This is an old running gag- he states an organization’s full name, and then claims the acronym is NAMBLA. He even made a joke afterward that there’s a grandfather clause allowing him to continue to make that joke during the strike.
What movie did the clip of the Roman-type hero gaining strength come from?
Before we answer – is this what the kids call a “whoosh”?
Colbert is a terrific performer – but his audience annoys the hell out of me. A three-minute ovation? And what’s with all the whooping? Why do morons like something I also like? That’s always annoying. Sometimes I think that there’s a certain percentage of his in-studio audience that really, honestly, doesn’t get the joke of the show.
I know, that’s why I said I was glad to see the joke return. I couldn’t help thinking he took it out of cold storage for a reason.
I think you’re probably just being a little snooty. They’re in on the joke, and going nuts for Stephen is part of the joke. A three-minute ovation is a little much, but then again, when you have a 22-minute show without writers (and the show really went dark at the perfect moment in November, right after his Presidential bid got canned) a long round of applause can only help!
No, I’m seriously curious. Was it Spartacus?? 'Cause that was my first thought.
Do you mean the clip they were showing while Jon talked about the “sickly” writers gaining strength from walking in circles?
That was Arnold Schwarzenegger from the early part of Conan the Barbarian.
Snooty? A little much? I don’t think so. If I hadn’t been able to fast forward through that nonsense I probably would have turned the show off. It’s a “joke” only in the sense that you get the “joke” of an SNL sketch in the few sentence and then watch them repeat the “joke” for five minutes. Only the worst case fanboys are part of the “joke”.
I also always fast forward past his running to the guest. Did they even do that last night? If not, it’s about time.