I think it would be nice if Colbert can bring his “The Wørd” bit with him, but he probably won’t or can’t. It worked with his character, but he’ll be leaving that “Stephen Colbert” behind.
Nobody knew what Fallon would do in a talk show setting, and many people have been pleasantly surprised.
Colbert, on the other hand, is a known quantity. He’s already established who he is and what he thinks. While PLAYING a conservative blowhard for many years, he’s made his disdain for Middle America very clear. He’s a man of the far left who looks down his nose at the kind of people a mass market talk show needs to appeal to.
That very thing is what makes him so popular among most SDMB regulars and to the demographic they represent. The kind of people who watch ***The Colbert Report *** religiously will follow him to CBS… but they’ll be disappointed when he inevitably tries to soften up and broaden his appeal. And softening up WON’T help him to appeal to people who aren’t already committed fans.
No matter how much you may TRY to put your political persona behind you, viewers can’t and don’t forget what you’ve said in the past. Liberal sports fans COULDN’T separate football commentator Rush Limbaugh from political commentator Rush Limbaugh. And people who are not left-wingers won’t accept smug liberal comedian Stephen Colbert as a mainstream, apolitical entertainer.
His analogy sorta/kinda worked right up until he started saying that “when [lefties] do encounter conservatism, they’re firmly convinced they’re looking at “Colbert-ism” in disguise.” Anyone with half a brain understands that it’s comedy. If the satire strikes a chord, then there is some truth in what is being said, but I seriously doubt that anybody takes it as an accurate portrayal.
Didn’t Craig Ferguson have first refusal? Although I’m sure he wouldn’t have accepted nor would the offer if made be anything have been anything .but token. Both Craig and CBS know he would have been a ratings disaster, caviare to the general, he only appeals to the intelligent so there’s the majority of your audience lost right there.
I never found Colbert funny. His humor is far too obvious. And, yes, I know Ferguson can be obvious too but he can always surprise. Colbert rarely if ever does, one can see his jokes coming from a mile away. Still I guess he’s he ideal host to provide the pabulum that the great American public need at that hour, nothing too challenging, nothing too stimulating, Another Letterman in fact.
Most people talk as if Carson were the gold standard for the Tonight Show. He wasn’t, at least not in my opinion. Jack Paar was the gold standard. But there are few Jack Paars around today and they wouldn’t be offered the job anyway.
Colbert’s job, as Letterman’s, is to mildly amuse their audience, to reassure them that they’re smart, or at least smarter than Red State Americans (not a high standard of course, if you’re not smarter than them you’ve been dead for quite a while). Thus, with a warm glow of smug superiority, off they trot to bed. God forbid they should watch a show where their values were challenged and their sacred cows made fun of alongside everybody else’s. That wouldn’t be funny. It would involve laughing at themselves and most Americans, whatever their political persuasion, find that inappropriate.
Exactly.
If you say so. Lots of people in this thread are saying they don’t know what to expect from a Colbert show where he’s being himself and not playing a character. Part of what makes this interesting is that they’re both kind of right.
Hi Rush! As much as conservatives like to pretend they have a monopoly on concepts like middle America, they don’t. We’ve seen this proved over and over again. Colbert’s show mocks asshole conservatives, but not conservatism itself and not middle America. He’s a liberal, a proud Southerner and one of the most devoutly religious people on television.
Neither could Rush! He lost his job after he called Donovan McNabb the equivalent of an affirmative-action hire.
I would be cautiously optimistic if, over the next year, we hear that Colbert’s going to change up the format of late night. My trepidation of him taking on the Late Show is mostly due to the formulaic idiocy on most of the late night shows. I don’t think Stephen Colber the character, or Stephen Colbert the person is a good fit for the typical monologue, sketch/bit, 2 interviews, band format. I really do hope he changes it up.
For one thing, I hope he loses the house band and the musical guest. Colbert’s enthusiasm for musical guests are usually palpable, but for most of the show, he doesn’t need a bandleader or music to riff with or close his show. I personally hate the focus on bands on all these types of shows, and SNL. I just want to get to the part I care about, not listen to a band I don’t care about play a song I’ve never heard.
And I really don’t need over 30 mins of interviews with a vapid celebrity pushing his next project. I’d rather have one interview, longer than the typical 7-10 mins they get, on an interesting or intellectual subject. And the less the does with the audience members the better.
I don’t think that’s what he is saying. He is saying that it’s a type of rude parody, that does not respect the parodied party at all.
But yeah, the whole blackface thing has too much baggage that is not relevant to his analogy.
Also it’s a sort of difficult critique to agree with, when you often see actual conservatives saying just as crazy things as Colbert does on his show.
That’s satire. The blackface comparison is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.
His disdain for Middle America? The is excellent satire right there! Good job!
My concern isn’t so much whether he can do a good job. I have some reservations (e.g. see Stewart hosting the Grammies or something), but have seen enough Colbert to give him the benefit of the doubt.
My problem is that we just assigned one of the best surgeons we had to the bloodmobile. Yes, there will be a trace of his current skillset in use, and many more people will have contact with him. But the hospital is down a cardiologist who may not be replaceable. It’s far from a given that someone can successfully (and long-term) fill in the politically astute commentary niche that Stewart/Colbert created. No matter how funny or charming he is in the time slot, if he lays to rest the political satire (whether or not in character), it will be a great loss.
If this is disdain, middle America needs more of it. What REALLY shows disdain is the the supposedly serious budget guy of the GOP puts out a budget that cuts Medicare and food stamps but of course gives more tax cuts for millionaires, a guy who has no problem cutting off unemployment. If middle America thinks these are the values it stands for, then it needs someone like Colbert to make them rethink their priorities. If satire and mocking of conservatives is the way to do it, then so be it.
And I’ll point out here that agenda is being put forth by someone who purports to be a Catholic who cares deeply for the poor. As an outspoken Catholic, Colbert can eviscerate that nonsense on TV in a way that an atheist or non-observant could not get away with.
Come on. It’s not just “baggage”. Mocking a race of people is seriously different than mocking a political stance. You would have to be insanely attached to your political views not to get that immediately.
You’re proving my point in spades!
Of COURSE you love Colbert. He tells you exactly what you wanna hear (that Republicans are evil and/or stupid). People like you, who think he’s a brilliant satirist, will flock to watch him.
Problem is, everyone who WANTS that type of entertainment is already watching Colbert now, and he doesn’t draw NEARLY enough viewers to be a success on CBS.
To succeed, he has to branch out and attract people who don’t share his politics. And I’m telling you that, in my not so humble opinion, he CAN’T do that. He’s already too well established as a disdainful liberal to turn off his persona and pretend, “Hey, I’m just a mainstream comedian, let’s chat with Tom Hanks about his new movie.”
Colbert already has about all the fans he’s ever going to have. Too many minds are already made up, and it’s too late for him to change them.
You have an opinion about Colbert (which you’re welcome to) and it feels true, therefore it’s a fact. This is Truthiness in action!
Oh wait… you mean he WILL be using his new show as a pulpit for preaching his own brand of liberal politics? And here I thought you were saying he’d be a mainstream entertainer! Which is it?
If he’s going to be speaking as a faithful Catholic, will he be outspokenly anti-abortion? Or anti gay marriage?
If Colbert DOES try to use CBS Late Night as a liberal pulpit, there’s not a chance in Hell that the audience you’re HOPING he’ll “eviscerate” will keep watching.
In short, you yourself are HOPING he’ll be the preachy sanctimonious liberal bore you that I’ve already predicted he’ll be. If he does, he’ll fall on his face.
I wasn’t making predictions about his Late Show, and neither was BobLibDem. We were pointing out that the things you’re saying about Colbert himself are inaccurate and rather facile.
I read an interview with Jon Stewart BEFORE Colbert was selected for the Late Night spot. In his opinion, (and I think we can all agree that Jon knows Stephen a lot better than any of us.) Stephen would be great for that gig because he’s got so much talent and range that he doesn’t get to explore on The Colbert Report.
So I’m thinking, he might surprise you.
Tom Hanks has been on the Colbert Report at least a couple of times, by the way. Sometimes he goofs around with Stephen but sometimes he’s just there to promote a movie. Colbert does enough celebrity promotional interviews. Luckily he also makes time to talk to authors and scientists and other people who aren’t always on the late night talk show radar.
This is silliness. Put a talking frog on CBS and it will draw triple the ratings of Comedy Central.