Here’s an interview from the AV Club with some of the Daily Show folks.
Here’s one part that’s relevant:
I totally believe that the interviews are “real” in that there’s no photographic fakery or they ask different questions later. The only way I think these people will answer the questions straight-faced is if they’re told what the outrageous questions are beforehand and told “hey, it’s a comedy show what more do you want?”
She is getting better. She looks good(very good). They needed some new blood. She has blood.
They’ve done so many interviews with so many people over the years that I’m pretty sure there would be plenty of evidence online if they faked the interviews. Right now TDS is viewed in a lot of circles as having the most integrity of any news show, and there’s a lot of people who’d like to undermine that.
You must be joking. It’s a comedy show.
This is starting to irritate me, so I’ll explain in a way that everybody can easily understand:
The interviewee comes into the room and sits in the chair; their make up gets touched up while the lighting, and camera are adjusted. The interviewer is usually already there. A bit of small talk ensues. During all of this time, the interviewee is being recorded.
Finished product:
Several Qs and A’s, then:
Daily Show interviewer: “I myself, enjoy having 50 pound weights hung from my balls while preparing to go to lunch”
Cut to interviewee: Deadpan stare, or, amused look, or looks like they just sat down, have something in their eye, what ever works for comedic effect. taken out of context, but not a reaction to a different question.
I MEAN, C’MON!
It’s a comedy show whose principals pride themselves on integrity and mock others for making things up out of whole cloth. If there was a shred of evidence that they fabricated their interviews and misrepresented the people they talked to, don’t you think it would have been used to beat on them by now?
I’m not saying the interviews are completely uncut, live, two-camera setups, but I also don’t think the correspondent asks question A, gets reply A, then cuts the footage to show they’re asking question B followed by reply A.
Snap out of it, gameboy, you’re making milleniums look stupid.
One must really have poor vision not to be able to distinguish between stand ins and the real thing. I’m glad I dont sufer from such affliction, and after having seen dozens of Dailyshow ITVs, can safely say that they dont rely on stand ins. Or they are such good stand ins that they can look exactly like the interviewee up front, talk like him exactly, walk like him. In fact it’s amazing how close to the interviewee those stand ins are, to the point of having the very same name and very same life. Uncanny things those stand ins.
It’s possible I’m being optimistic. But you’re treating your cynicism as indisputable fact. If you have evidence other than derisive snorting, please bring it.
ETA: Also, be careful with that derisive snorting. You don’t want to start throwing personal insults.
This is why I don’t give a flying fuck what happens to this country any more.
Complete lack of BS detector.
Kay. Bye.
Also, note how I asked you for evidence? I think my BS detector is working pretty well.
That’s what you think.
I’m not seeing any improvement. The segment of hers that I saw recently was about as comedically tone-deaf as when she started out on the show. That writer who blasted the show for giving her a shot is looking less foolish all the time.
You’re making a lot of confident assertions without any evidence. My default belief is that the interviews are what they say they are. The interviewees are just too self-assured or something to believe they look stupid.
Can you at least link to one Daily Show segment that you contend had the interviewee answering different questions than the interviewer asked?
Says the guy without any evidence for his claims.
You want to try writing “C’MON” in a larger font to see if people will agree with you then?
I’ll give her some time to grow. Wyatt Cenac was painfully unfunny his first several appearances on the show, and he has become one of their best. Its a matter of the writers learning how to write for the performer and the performer becoming more comfortable at the job.
For those who claim that the final product is a result of editing separate takes at separate times, I challenge you to prove that. I know that is possible, but the amount of time it takes to edit is far greater than a real-time show would be.
I can only speak from experience, and mine is not in the high-end professional video world, and I never worked for the Daily Show. But it is in the low-end, semi-professional world, and our local public access station is about to switch from a single camera system to a multi-cam, real-time switched, real-time titled, system. It will save us many hours of editing.
I’m pretty sure many other stations and producers do it this way, too. That’s not to say that laborious editing isn’t done, just that it may not be the way everything is done, especially if time is at a premium and you need to get stuff on the air quickly (or live, even, where you can’t edit even if you wanted to.).
Yeah like that hard to watch obese guy, Gad something. Definitely a worthwhile addition.
Hijack, but does anybody know the scoop on why Mo Rocca either left or was let go? Unlike Colbert and Helms and Carrell it wasn’t for a major career opportunity (he does shows on animals, which is separated from porn only by ‘sitcoms about main characters who are secretly genies and or werewolves’) and unlike Rob Cordry (who does have a career in movies and TV, just not as lucrative as other alumni) he’s never been back, which makes me wonder if there is enmity.
He’s been back.