I was just thinking that The Colbert Report does a lot of segments involving ‘hip’ new things, relating to the internet. They’ve had segments that referenced various aspects of the internets - wikipedia, myspace, whatever - and at no point did they actually make me cringe. In fact, they seemed quite savvy and natural and not just trying to force tech references into a show to seem hip, but actually written by people who use and understand the stuff.
The Colbert Report is the only mainstream show that I can think of that actually displays savviness in integrating this stuff as an actual integral part of the show, and not just some stupid writer trying to inaccurately squeeze the latest fad issues into their show.
In an unrelated note: Does anyone miss the type of interview segments that Colbert did in the first few weeks of his show? When they’d set up a special segment that dealt specifically with the guest? Like the Gravitas-off with Stone Phillips, or the fake call-ins with the dating book guy. That was the best part of the interviews - and a fresh take on the interview talk show genre in general. I wish they’d have kept doing those.
He still does those on occasion (Amy Sedaris comes to mind), plus he also integrates interview guests (from Andrew Sullivan to Ric Ocasek) into other segments of the show, too.
I know some people here complained that the bit would get old after a while, but I think a lot of it still holds up really well (though “The Word”, the only daily feature, is the most hit-&-miss)
The other day he used “The Google,” which is yet another very recently coined Bushism.
He does seem pretty hip but I always watch a bit nervously when he does an Internets thing. I can’t shake the idea actors simply don’t know or have the time to genuinely goof around with computers or the internet enough to stay hip.
I think I’m quoting another Doper when I say the show has a very high Geek Quotient.
No idea why you’re cringing at the “Internets” thing, levdrakon. It’s as much of a Bushism as “The Google,” and when it’s not part of a joke, you’ll sometimes hear him say “Internet” by mistake. He certainly knows how much of his show is/was on YouTube, and he’s figured out how well his character’s worldview dovetails with Wikipedia.
What I meant was when he starts a segment talking about the internets, it’s still reasonably hip. But I get nervous he’ll trip up and say something which reveals his un-hippatude while he’s pretending to be hip. He hasn’t yet though.
Awhile back, my mom emailed me a link to a YouTube video of Colbert interviewing my parents’ congresswoman for Better Know a District. (Lynn Woolsey, California’s 6th district, if you care…he challenged her to an arm-wrestling match and won by cheating.)
Anyway, as a lead in, Colbert did an imitation of the Stars Wars Kid (cause the George Lucas Empire is located in the district.) I practically fell out of my chair, I couldn’t believe anyone on TV would know about a geeky internet meme like that.
Until the Thursday episode, I would have agreed that he’s fun to watch. That was some of the lamest stuff he’s done. I mean, Tim Meadows in a fake interview? That’s just rehashed SNL crap. The guy has never been funny and is still not funny. I guess everyone is allowed to have a lame show once in awhile.
Colbert’s the hippest 40-something guy in glasses and a suit on TV. Carson Daly wishes he was that groovy. He’s even eclipsed Jon Stewart a bit (though it’s still ironic to me that two of the best informed best read most intelligent and cogent talkshow hosts are on Comedy Channel).
My favorite Internet related moment with Arrington- I won’t link due to a slow connection but you can find it on wikipedia under truthiness (and mods, please pardon the language in CAFE SOCIETY since it’s a direct quote and not at another Doper for a change):
Hijack: Did anybody else see the Penn Jillette interview the other night? I think Colbert was seriously pissed off at the guy (who though he swears he’s never done an illegal drug or even had a drink acts like a cokehead), especially after he threw Colbert’s notes. I also think Colbert was totally serious when Jillette patronizingly said “Oooh, you actually memorized some of the questions on those notes” and Colbert responded “I wrote them”.
According to his wiki bio, Colbert is still a Sunday school teacher at the (progressive) Catholic church he attends. I’d love to know if that’s true.
I’ve read a few interviews with Colbert and most cite the fact he is a Sunday School teacher. So I think it is true. If not, the interviewers need to ask him point-blank and use a quote. I can’t recall if any of the interviews had a direct quote from him about the matter, but I know most mention it.
Shake it. This (hobbyist) actor knows, and there are many others at the theater where I perform who also do. They share MySpace addresses and write blogs. Of course actors know how to take advantage of free publicity and face time. I wouldn’t ask one to partition a hard drive, but networking and showing off one’s accomplishments? Come on, what about that is not for an actor to love?
This started a whole thing called “The Colbert Greenscreen Challenge.” George Lucas himself appeared on the final show and introduced a funny clip prepared by ILM featuring Jar Jar talking to Colbert and hoping the district wasn’t run by “the son of the Sith Lord…Darth W. Vader.” Who knew Jar Jar could actually be funny?
OK, now I’m just confused by the sentence. Are you saying he is fun to watch, but was never funny? Or are you saything that he is both now funny, and at the same time never was funny?
OK, let’s put it in more visual terms. Imagine a Venn diagram consisting of two three inch circles on a sheet of paper with a good two inches of space between them. Now, write “Tim Meadows” in one circle, and “Funny” in the other. Now, imagine that sheet of paper floating in outer space, forever, with those two circles never moving by so much as a millimeter. “Tim Meadows” and “funny” do not intersect. They are not congruent. They never have been, they never will be, they are not now.
