I agree with your concluding sentences and the reasons for it. My viewing really fell off after the novelty of the first week. The Trump interview was especially disappointing – it was both sycophantic and almost content-free. Hell, even the sycophants at CNN have hit Trump much, much harder than anything Colbert even came close to, and there’s so much to hit him about – and for that matter, Letterman would sometimes really challenge his guests.
I didn’t see the Cruz interview but it sounds like it was much the same. It’s not a matter of being rude to them or letting the audience boo them, but unless your mission is specifically to provide bland and mindless entertainment there’s a certain obligation to conduct an interview of substance, which sometimes involves hard questions. If I wanted to see politicians handled with the delicacy one would extend in an interview with someone’s preschool toddler, I’d have watched the old lame talk shows like Leno, but I didn’t.
I did say earlier that I thought Colbert was trying to shape the show into something different and uniquely his own. I’m not sure if he’s succeeding.
The non-interview content is iffy (terrible bit about John Baptiste’s book) but boy am I sure loving the mix of guests he’s having. The guests are on par with TCR guest lineups for me. Not just stars pitching their latest projects but the head of the UN, the Secretary of Energy, Elizabeth Warren, a young guy promoting global responsibility. And the celeb guests have been great too - Clooney, Spacey, Shumer, Carol Burnett. BAM.
His musical guests have been great for the most part, too! TCR was one of the few places I’ve learned about new music so I am glad he’s still having a mix of old and new and cool stuff on.
Kinda pissed…I don’t have time for an extra hour-long show every day! But right now I am digging it.
Maybe when it turned in to boring celebs pushing projects again, I’ll be over it.
I agree, not all the bits have been great, but there have been some good guests, and some great musical performances. I loved Elizabeth Warren’s interview.
I’ve been very disappointed in the show so far. I realize Colbert is a political junkie, and also quite liberal, but his partisanship makes Letterman look even-handed. He is obsequious and friendly with liberal guests, and just short of rude with conservative ones. The audience’s outright hostility to guests such as Jeb and Cruz is distasteful. Frankly, politicians of any stripe make generally lousy guests on talk shows, and I think he is way overdoing it.
Beyond the politics, I’m finding Colbert to be too manic and hyperactive for my tastes. And the non-interview bits haven’t been funny at all to me. I’ve watched about five episodes, but am finding I have little desire to watch any more on my DVR. I may give the show another shot in a few months to see how it evolves.
Batiste has been great as bandleader, but the chemistry between him and Colbert is terrible.
It kinda makes me uncomfortable, Batiste comes off as Colbert’s “boy” in a minstrelly kind of way. It was similar with Leno- first with Branford Marsalis then with Kevin Eubanks- but I think it’s even worse with Colbert and Batiste (although, I may just be noticing it more because I actually watch Colbert’s show whereas I only occasionally caught enough of Leno to notice his interplay with the bandleaders).
To be clear, I only think that it comes across this way as a side effect of their horrible chemistry together. I am in no way inclined to believe that Colbert is racially objectifying Batiste nor do I believe Batiste is demeaning himself into caricature. Still, the vibe that comes out of their interplay always makes me feel uncomfortable.
Watching the Monday episode featuing Michelle Obama. Hey, he finally has someone else doing the announcing when the open credits roll! He didn’t do it himself.
In case you missed it, I enjoyed this piece, which sort of gets to the heart of the new Colbert:
Quote: “Donald Trump […] the GOP front-runner. Who knows, one day I might be able to tell my kids I interviewed the last President of the United States.” End quote
He was excellent at letting Trump shine while also giving him enough rope to reveal how shallow he is.
Colbert has dropped his acerbic faux conservative persona, but his comments and questions still drip with wit and double meaning. He’s very smart and funny … almost as fast as the late, great Robin Williams.
I gave up, it is off my DVR list as of last night. I’ll catch it from time to time but so far this show is not worth recording. Maybe in a few months it will be better, but I think in the end the late night talk show format just isn’t my thing. Last time I really liked one Letterman was still on after Carson.
Seconded. I don’t like their interactions at all, from the dancing to the chatter to whatever skit they’ve ill-advisedly come up with.
On another matter: I was watching one of the episodes this past weekend–I think it was the one with Morgan Freeman, but I may be misremembering–and towards the end some guy from a video game company came out and they apparently did a whole presentation about this new game. I say apparently because I fast forwarded through it to the end; I don’t really give a damn about video games and I’ll be damned if I’ll sit there and watch an obvious infomercial within a show like that. But it occurred to me that that whole presentation seemed to be–to me, at least–something new and not particularly welcome “innovation” in today’s late night talk shows: an obvious pay-for-play segment in which somebody apparently bought time within a show to advertise their product.
Now, I know people will say, duh, that’s what these shows are for: people in the entertainment industry coming on and pimping their latest project. But my understanding has always been that, for the most part, the “stars” who appear on these shows do so for little or no compensation because they’re promoting the film/show/book whatever. Maybe the biggest names get something, but only the top flight A-listers. Consider the number of major stars who appeared on The Daily Show over Jon Stewart’s years; certainly TDS did not have the budget to pay guests a ton of money to show up for an appearance. Folks did it for the exposure (and some because they personally liked Stewart). I’ve always figured that it worked pretty much the same way with the network shows, although of course they do have deeper pockets than any basic cable franchise. (I know it’s Viacom all around, but corporate budgets different properties differently.)
But that video game guy’s appearance, even in fast forward, smelled deeply of pay-for-play. I work at a newspaper that does a lot of that sort of thing; “news” stories focused on certain businesses appear in the same edition as an ad for same business, and the pay-for-play stories always stick out like a sore thumb. That video game thing on Colbert’s show the other day had exactly the same feel to it.
Maybe this has been going on for a while on these shows and I just didn’t know it, because I never watched them (it may be a reason why I never watched). Certainly, I know Colbert has been a willing participant in any number of product placements over the years, usually with some gag wrapped around the PP. But that orchestrated presentation seemed to me to go far beyond what has always been the standard for these sorts of shows (and, for that matter, Colbert’s prior participation).
So, does anybody know the straight dope on this? Do actors and such get paid for their appearances on these shows, or is it just like part of a promotional tour appearance (expenses paid, but not actual compensation)? Or have guests always been paid something, at least an appearance fee, depending upon status? And, if you have really deep knowledge, are companies like that video game maker buying their way onto shows to do “hidden in plain sight” infomercials like the one on Colbert’s show last week?
Obviously, I’m now assuming its the latter, and it’s one of the reasons I’m finding the new show just isn’t living up to the promise of the Report.
I watched the Morgan Freeman episode last night and didn’t get an “infomercial” vibe at all! Maybe because I don’t hate video games?
This dude didn’t just make some video game. He and his team did something new with video games and “stole the show” at the huge international gaming/electronics convention (E3) in 2014. They won an award at the show for innovation.
People who are in to gaming are talking about this game, which is why this guy was on. Just like people who are in to television are talking about the return of “Madam Secretary” which is why Morgan Freeman was on.
Having the inventor of the game on was no different than having the Snapchat guy on, or if he had someone else on that did something new or different in the realm of science.
Sorry you were offended by the segment because you dislike video games, but being offended because it was “pay-for-play” is pretty misguided.
I think Colbert aims to provide a show for the more mature late night viewers. While Fallon is featuring games cracking eggs on celebrities heads, Colbert gives us Misty Copeland and Yo-Yo Ma. Whether this is something the market wants remains to be seen.
Conan has a regular segment in which he plays video games with the people who designed them. At least I think that’s who he plays with because I fast-forward past them.
If you are a member of any of the actors unions, you get paid union scale, i.e. the minimum. I believe that’s around $800. Since the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists merged a few years ago, the definition of “actor” has expanded enormously. I assume most talking heads are now part of the union.
The major shows have arrangements with a local hotel to put up guests. If you made the news and were invited on Colbert you’d likely stay free at some nice hotel in midtown near the Ed Sullivan Theater. You could always make your own arrangements, though. They’d probably pick up your travel expenses, too. Studios, publishers, and companies putting people on media junkets would pay for their own.
The shows’ producers will get pitches from everybody who wants to get on television. And the producers go out and actively look for stuff they want to put on the program. I’m pretty sure almost everybody who gets on is rewarded only by the value of an appearance. Paying wouldn’t help. If they paid enough to get on over a producer’s veto it would be headline news in the industry.
I don’t think so. I’m a bit “older” myself, and really turned off by the, shall we say energy Colbert tries to bring to late night. It’s late night, for god’s sake, why is he dancing around like he’s going to a party? And the band. Why is there even a band? Do people really tune in to see a live band do intro music after commercials? I guess I’m just a fan of the format, and although I like Colbert as a person and comedian, I doubt I’ll watch his show very often.
I’m not sure “offended” is exactly the right word for it; but I’m definitely not particularly well-disposed towards TV shows that look to manipulate the audience like that.
The comparison with Morgan Freeman doesn’t strike me as valid. Freeman is not merely showing up to pimp a new product; he’s on that show because he’s an already known and appreciated quantity. People will tune in specifically to see Freeman because of past performance (literally). To put it in the parlance of Colbert’s former alter ego, the market has spoken on Freeman–that’s why he gets paid (per Exapno’s info) to show up, albeit paid a pittance given his value in the entertainment marketplace.
Not so with that video game guy, whom most people in the audience have probably never heard of, nor his game. The fact that there’s a segment of the population which has heard of his game–a segment which does not necessarily overlap with the set of Colbert’s audience–does not have standing, particularly if my suspicions are correct and he paid his way onto that show. That’s trying to gin up a market that doesn’t exist, especially among those people who don’t already know or care about that (or another) video game. And that means me. I prefer not to have my time wasted like that. Yes, I can and did fast forward through it, but such segments make me less inclined to Colbert’s show in the future–which, if others feel the same way, will be self-defeating for him no matter how much he likes the games.
Thanks for that lowdown. It sounds pretty close to the picture I had for how it works. However, I’m still much more skeptical about the possibility of people and/or companies paying to get a segment on the show (or any other talk show). Like I said, I know something similar happens in newspapers (including the one where I work), I think I’ve seen reports on paid packaged pieces in TV news programs (mostly local affiliates, but I wouldn’t put it past network shows)–and entertainment shows? We already know there’s product placements; why would it be such a stretch to believe commercial interests are paying for airtime within a late night talk show?
Anyhow, there it is, and I’m glad we got to have this discussion. Thanks for the responses.
[QUOTE=Me …but from an alternate Universe where I am a person who is totally ridiculous and entirely unreasonable]
I don’t like Country Music. Having Toby Keith as a guest struck me as trying to gin up a market that doesn’t exist, especially among those people who don’t already know or care about Country Music. And that means me. I prefer not to have my time wasted like that.
[/QUOTE]
Look, I’m not particularly interested in video games either but I can fully recognize that video games are a HUGE part of modern pop culture. Video games are significant to more individuals than most subgenres of music from which plenty of talk shows draw their guests. It has been decades since video games were just for pimply kids drinking super size sodas at the corner arcade pouring an allowance’s worth of quarters into the Donkey Kong machine. Video games are played by adults with discretionary income all across the most important demographics for advertisers.
And this guy is basically the Joss Whedon of video games right now.
It makes perfect sense to have him on a show that revolves around modern pop culture.
Sure, covering video games on a mainstream program seems kind of new, but, if anything, mainstream programming has been late to adapt to recognizing this market. And, again, I say this as someone who doesn’t care at all about video games.
…and this “pay for play” accusation comes only from your own imagination. It’s exactly the same as me saying “I’m not interested in Country Music, so I can only imagine that Toby Keith paid his way onto the show”!
Yeah, video games are bigger than Hollywood or the music industry. It’s not that the video game developers are trying to cash in on talk shows, it’s that talks shows are trying to cash in on video games.
He’s not just a guy pimping a new video game. He is an inventor with a new revolutionary invention that Colbert is interested in talking about.
On TCR he had other inventors. The guy who invented Snapchat (who he had on this new show, too). A guy who invented a new water purifying system. The guy who invented Seqway. The guy who invented Soylent. A teenager who invented a test for pancreatic cancer.
If you look at the Colbert Report episode list for 2014, you will probably not recognize half the names on there or more (at least, I didn’t).
Colbert’s not interested in just bringing on celebs and chatting, like every other late night show out there. That is something I was not looking forward to when he made the switch to CBS, as I do not enjoy that sort of show. But he actually has kept that part of the format from his old show - featuring not just celebs but politicians, artists, scientists/inventors, writers and community leaders. And ballet dancers.
Right now it’s politician-heavy because of the looming elections (er, can something a year away be looming?) but he’s still managing to have non-candidate politicians. I hope he keeps it up!
If seeing unfamiliar faces on late night TV is something that wastes your time, Not A Tame Lion, I guess you’re just going to continue to be disappointed by Colbert’s new show. But still, don’t start throwing out “payola” as a reason to have interesting guests.