Nah. That’s just because Seinfeld is actually trained in comedy and knew how to shut him down. I was starting to wonder what the bad blood was between them that he wouldn’t let Stewart get off a joke without making fun of him for it.
I think that’s just the real Jerry. I thought he came across as kind of a dick by the end. Not too bad, but not meeting Jon halfway. I also think Jon might have been a bit intimidated by Seinfeld. It was still a good show, and I’m truly enjoying The Marriage Ref.
It’s also possible Seinfeld and Stewart go back a ways and that was just how they’ve come to interact with each other. Jon seems to personally know all the comics who come on his show.
Course, I’m on board with the ‘Seinfeld’s a dick’ theory. Never liked him much.
Two middle aged Jewish male comics from metro NYC who are former stand-up comics turned TV legends turned family men, one semi-retired and super rich but probably missing the limelight sometimes and the other a major stockholder in current limelight: can’t think why there’d be a rivalry.
To be fair (as if that even matters), Jerry did give Jon a huge compliment at some point. He said something along the lines of “what you do here, you do very well.” I get the feeling (not being a veteran stand up comic myself) that these folks don’t do praise much.
Sampiro–you may be on to something, there.
It’s just the OP.
The Seinfeld interview was very funny; I thought it was clearly just banter, not any kind of animosity or competition. The Daily Show has a lot of very interesting guests on, but I’d be perfectly happy if they just interviewed a different Jewish comedian every night, as the interviews are hilarious when Stewart is in “just fucking around with my fellow comic” mode.
I thought the Seinfeld interview was great. Their timing was much better than when other actors or comedians come on. IMHO Stewart (and Colbert, and everyone) has a habit of talking over their guests sometimes and derailing their train of thought to where the interview-ee can’t recover. Seinfeld recovered after every de-railment and the whole interview seemed solid.
Stewart’s show is still usually good. Some of the segments they produce are sort of painfully unfunny (especially the ones with Samantha Bee) but Stewart himself is pretty consistent. I think he could carry the show without the goofy middle segments; and his interviews are particularly good. He’s got a lot of skill in tackling real issues with the “serious” guests and at being funny with the showbiz types promoting their movies and shows.
Contrast with Colbert, who has pretty much lost me. The novelty wore off his schtick after a couple seasons and at this point I rarely watch. I did happen to tune in for his “Sarah Palin is a f***ing retard” bit though, and was glad I caught that. When he’s on, he’s on, but too often the show just runs in the ruts it created the first couple seasons. And his interviews are terrible most of the time.
Well, Jon Stewart’s acting per se is not the greatest, although, his recent impression of Glen Beck was spot on as well as very funny. I think he does well delivering the Daily Show segments, and is a remarkable interviewer. His interviews with politicians and pundits cover a lot of ground I don’t see being covered anywhere else. I very much like that he doesn’t give the liberals a pass either as seen recently with his chiding of Maddow and Olberman.
I like Colbert. I don’t find his character stale. I really like that he is still pushing it further and further. I also really appreciate the great guests. He brings on people that I would not otherwise have heard of. That astronomer dude is awesome, so are the other scientists he brings on. Also, his interview with cookie monster was brilliant.
I also like that he is representing as a Catholic, willing to be critical of the church without that being the only aspect we see. “I am a Sunday school teacher, m****r F----r” and his recitation of the creed etc. during interviews that touch on the subject come to mind.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is awesome, and he’s on both shows pretty often. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more charismatic person representing the sciences. I realized after seeing his most recent appearance on The Daily Show that he’s one of a very few number of people who are not only smarter than Stewart and Colbert but can also match their stride.
Probably the first worthy heir to Carl Sagan to come along. He’s smart, personable, an excellent communicator, and even more telegenic than Sagan was. Love the man.
I feel like Stewart’s show-the-hypocracy schtick is honest frustration/anger on his part, especially since (as someone mentioned above) most of the press just will not call politicians on their bullshit. When Dick Cheney goes on about how reading the crotch-bomber his Miranda rights is making us less safe, someone other than Jon Stewart (and Rachel Maddow) should be asking him, “what’s different about this case from all the others that were criminally prosecuted under the Bush administration.” The same should be done to Democratic politicians. And press them for an answer. Instead, we get one side, then the other, as if all points of view are at all times and in all circumstances equally valid.
If the mainstream news organizations did more of this, Jon Stewart would find something else to talk about, but he’s the only prominent person with a pulpit willing to point these things out.
Sure, ram it down our throats why don’t you.
The first segment is usually good and the main reason I watch. It would be even better without those forced voices and mugging for the camera.
I think he’s still as good, or better, than always. Consistently funny and worth watching.
Only one thing I wish he’d do differently - stop the “in joke” with the studio audience at the opening of the show. The audience already has the perk of being there in person, they really don’t need a joke that the rest of us aren’t in on wasting our time.
It could just be a way of counting coup, given Stewart’s status.
There are deserving targets other than Fox, and I think his audience already knows what Fox is up to. So it’s repetitive after a fashion, but he does it very well. I wish he would mug a little less, but that’s who he is. I think he’s still excellent at what he does.
I like to think he’s trying to troll FOX into talking about him. The most entertaining shows are when a “real” commentator or newscaster tries to snipe back at him, and he goes on the attack.
Alas, I’m quite positive that FOX has a standing “do not mention the Daily Show on air” order.
For people who love seeing the media skewered I must recommend Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe.
Some or all these may have swearing.
Here is How to report the news
Here he discusses the US media.
Here from another show he discusses The Wire
Lots more bits on youtube.
He’s a funny guy and his weekly column is often a hoot.
This latest string of bits is about Fox’s defense of themselves - that the crazies like Beck are only on during opinion time, and the rest of the time they are a real news network, without bias. Stewart is calling them out on this lie. It is important, but it is also great comedy.
I realize I am in the extreme minority, but, well, I just don’t think Stewart is a particularly good showman. His routines tend to be on the repetitive side, he mugs for the camera constantly, I find the exasperated yelling thing tiresome, and he laughs at his own jokes more than Jimmy Fallon. A lot of the gags are good and clever, but it’s usually in spite of Stewart. Colbert, on the other hand, I think is very talented. He’s a much better actor, his jokes tend to be a bit subtler, and despite his character he comes off as having less of an axe to grind and more interested in being funny. John Oliver is also very entertaining and The Bugle is pretty great. I haven’t really had much chance to watch any of those programs in the last year or so, though. Anyways, I’ll just go slink off to the corner with my unpopular opinion.