T1B

Really?

Letterman's replacement.


I don't think I've ever laffed at a single thing the fucktard has said.
Nothing.
Honestly.

I have looked at him in amazement, wondering how anyone finds him even remotely entertaining.


Whatever...

old fucks

Wrong as usual.

Many comedians are liberal and that doesn't stop me from appreciating their talent.

I happen to think Jon Stewart is very funny a lot of the time.
He's sharp, smart, and has a great sense of humor.

I do wish he had more intellectual integrity with his interviews -- and with who he tends to focus his attacks on... but oh well.
He's still a funny man.

I've never laffed at S. Colbert.
Honestly, NEVER.
Not one time.
He's horrible.


Aside from not being funny or talented, isn't his whole thing -- being a fake person?

I find it hard to believe that that will play over the long haul, night-after-night-after night at 11:30 pm on CBS.

But then again, I might overestimate the U.S. citizenry -- which is known to be chock full of useless fuckwits.


Btw, Carson may have been a liberal, but he never brought his political leanings into the show at all.
He purposely steered clear from that.
That man was the master of his craft.

poptart wrote:
Aside from not being funny or talented, isn't his whole thing -- being a fake person?

I find it hard to believe that that will play over the long haul, night-after-night-after night at 11:30 pm on CBS.

Well there's your problem. What makes you think he is bringing the right wing tard persona with him?

What else is he going to bring?

If he had some talent which exceeded his fake conservative guy "talent," wouldn't he have made that his cash cow?

Colbert is hilarious. Who do you want Tart, Bob Hope? Wolfman?

Hell, Colbert and Fallon are heads and shoulders funnier than the assclowns they replaced/are replacing. Fallon's ratings for the seven weeks he's had the show shows him gutterstomping the competition.

Colbert should provide CBS with better ratings than most anyone else available. Kimmel's best days was when he co-hosted "The Man Show." Conan sucked ass long before Leno stoled back "Tonight."

poptart wrote:What else is he going to bring?

If he had some talent which exceeded his fake conservative guy "talent," wouldn't he have made that his cash cow?

You are as stupid as the people who think the bible should be taken literally and that the earth is 6,000 years old if you think he can only do one character.

Moving Sale wrote:You are as stupid as the people who think the bible should be taken literally and that the earth is 6,000 years old if you think he can only do one character.

Colbert came up doing improv at Second City and was considered one of the best. He has a long history in comedy, but people see a guy featured on one show and think that's all he's done or all he can do. From what I've read, he's just going to be "himself" on the Late Show, not a character. I don't consider myself a fan, but I don't have an issue with him either, because I don't really watch late night talk shows.

Tart, you didn't watch Letterman and you won't watch this, so why do you care? This is just another example of old-man-waving-fist-at-clouds, getting outraged over stuff he doesn't care about. I guess that's what I have to look forward to when I get old. :x

FLW Buckeye wrote:Hell, Colbert and Fallon are heads and shoulders funnier than the assclowns they replaced/are replacing. Fallon's ratings for the seven weeks he's had the show shows him gutterstomping the competition.

Colbert should provide CBS with better ratings than most anyone else available. Kimmel's best days was when he co-hosted "The Man Show." Conan sucked ass long before Leno stoled back "Tonight."

Pretty much what he said. Plus, +1 on Conan, the most overrated "comic" in decades.

BSmack wrote:Colbert is hilarious. Who do you want Tart, Bob Hope? Wolfman?

Colbert is to comedy as BHO is to the presidency. Satisfying a bunch of braindead simpletons.

Show Carson reruns. Nobody has come close to replacing him.

You can't even read a simple post about who is in a picture and you have the nerve to call other people braindead? :doh:

Mgo wrote:Tart, you didn't watch Letterman and you won't watch this, so why do you care? This is just another example of old-man-waving-fist-at-clouds, getting outraged over stuff he doesn't care about.

I'm just giving social commentary.

And we need a bunch more threads in here, anyway.
I'm fixin' to spam the board, chief.

7 or 8 threads...

Bam, bam, bam!

:)


It's fascinating to me that people think Colbert is funny, that's all.

Mgo wrote:Letterman

I watch him on occasion and always preferred him to Leno.

But I never liked either as an interviewer.

Both seek to subtly (or not so subtly) belittle their guest.
Weak sauce.

I liked Carson's approach.
Let the guest come on and represent himself.

Interviewers who get the merits of that approach have unfortunately become rare.
Everyone seems to push some sort of agenda.

It's all dumbed down now.

[quote="sirfuckafold]Show Carson reruns. Nobody has come close to replacing him.[/quote]

Sure, we can all stand around the water cooler talking about his interview with Eva Gabor.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Mgo wrote:From what I've read, he's just going to be "himself" on the Late Show, not a character.

I've seen him out of character, being interviewed.
Not impressed in the least.

He's not sharp, quick with his mind, or interesting at all.
But he acts as if everyone is supposed to be laffing at his stupid bullshit.
He's a lame ass.

Contrasted with Jon Leibowitz (Stewart), for example, he's truly pitiful in that regard.
Stewart is much quicker, much smarter, much more cutting, much more interesting, and has much more... presence.
It's not close.


Colbert is a pathetic, unfunny, uninteresting, twat of a man.

poptart wrote:
Colbert is a pathetic, unfunny, uninteresting, twat of a man.

First you didn't like his character now you don't like his real persona. Way to move the goalposts you vapid child raping douche.

poptart wrote:He's not sharp, quick with his mind, or interesting at all.
But he acts as if everyone is supposed to be laffing at his stupid bullshit.
He's a lame ass.

Contrasted with Jon Leibowitz (Stewart), for example, he's truly pitiful in that regard.
Stewart is much quicker, much smarter, much more cutting, much more interesting, and has much more... presence.
It's not close.


Colbert is a pathetic, unfunny, uninteresting, twat of a man.

Switch the names & I'm right with you. Never thought Stewart was funny at all - delivery, timing, & content are all lacking, as is any sense of originality. The Daily Show was much better & funnier when Craig Kilborn was the host. Colbert, on the other hand, has a firm handle on all the elements of comedy including satire & irony. He's the logical replacement for Letterman; Dave's audience will likely embrace him warmly.

I watch [Letterman] on occasion and always preferred him to Leno.

We agree there. Letterman is heads & shoulders funnier & a better host than Leno.

But I never liked either as an interviewer.

Both seek to subtly (or not so subtly) belittle their guest.

Never saw much of that the few times I watched Leno. I always thought he was too nice as an interviewer, basically kissing up to his guests. Maybe he did get mean & belittle his guests during interviews I missed, but that seems antithetical to his persona. Letterman, on the other hand, does belittle his guests if he feels they need belittling (and most do). Exhibits A & B: Joaquin Phoenix when he announced his plans to leave acting & become a rapper, and Paris Hilton after her time in the slammer. But there are also times when Dave shows respect & admiration for his guests w/o belittling them. Much better interviewer than Leno. Comparing either to Carson is useless; Carson was and still is the standard for late night hosts. Conan doesn't even belong in the conversation. He may have been a decent writer for The Simpsons, but his late night schtick has never been anything better than marginal, and usually worse.

schmick wrote:Doug Stanhope is more funny and would make a better talk show host than Colbert, Fallon, Conan, Leno, Stewart and Letterman put together.

Disagree for network TV. Stanhope is a genius when it comes to stand-up (saw him perform live recently), but that doesn't necessarily translate to the ability to be a good talk show host. He'd have to tone down his act too much for network TV & I'm not sure how good of an interviewer he'd be. He's doing exactly what he should be doing - live stand-up in front of small to medium sized audiences.

I've never seen Colbert outside of his Comedy Central show but have an appreciation for his satirical humor and am anxious to see him in his new role. He won't be everyone's cup of tea and I am not surprised that those on the religious right have no appreciation for his humor.

Moving Bowel wrote:First you didn't like his character now you don't like his real persona. Way to move the goalposts you vapid child raping douche.

You're making things up again.

poptart wrote:

Moving Bowel wrote:First you didn't like his character now you don't like his real persona. Way to move the goalposts you vapid child raping douche.

You're making things up again.

So you can't read. Good to know. Carry on asshat.

It's all about ratings. I suspect that Colbert seems to be a one trick pony, i.e. "aren't those bible/gun toting folks rubes---hah hah", just thigh slappers for the elitists in NY and LA. To be honest, I think late night shows like these are passe. CBS is great at picking winners these days---just ask Katie Couric. We'll see.

Colbert is funny, but, I question whether he can make it work for that gig. Guess we'll find out. I would like to see something along the lines of what Letterman used to be. You remember that, right, when he used to be funny on NBC.

Never cared much for his program, and that's scripted. It's a whole different ballgame when it comes to conducting entertaining interviews. The only way I can see this ending the slightest bit decently is if all the interviews are scripted as well (which I'm sure would make a lot of publicists happy).

The days of Carson are long gone.

Diego in Seattle wrote:The days of Carson are long gone.

:(

There is a clear trend in this thread and among TV viewers overall: It's the olds who are most distraught about Colbert taking over Late Show.

I'm old, yes.

Distraught?

Not in the least.

It's a basic concept to just... not watch if it isn't appealing.

*click*


So...
What's to like about Colbert?
Go ahead and articulate what you like about him -- and why you think he'll make Late Show interesting to watch.

So far a number of folks have said he's "great," but aside from Smackie and Mgo (very briefly), nobody has really said what is great about him.


Comedy is surely subjective.
If a person thinks something is funnay, who am I to tell them that it's not?

But to me, Colbert sucks donkey.

Screw_Michigan wrote:There is a clear trend in this thread and among TV viewers overall: It's the olds who are most distraught about Colbert taking over Late Show.

Glad I'm considered to be among the young.

Smackie wrote:Glad I'm considered to be among the young.

Yeah, but your arm is still fat as hell.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:There is a clear trend in this thread and among TV viewers overall: It's the olds who are most distraught about Colbert taking over Late Show.

Glad I'm considered to be among the young.

2nd.

I suppose he's funnier than Letterman. That isn't saying much, though. Letterman hasn't been funny since Leno beat him out for the Tonight Show 20 years ago.

poptart wrote:Aside from not being funny or talented, isn't his whole thing -- being a fake person?

I find it hard to believe that that will play over the long haul, night-after-night-after night at 11:30 pm on CBS.

But then again, I might overestimate the U.S. citizenry -- which is known to be chock full of useless fuckwits.

Opinions and assholes, everybody has one, everyone can be one.

The only thing I'm in partial agreement here with poptart is that I don't believe Colbert is a great replacement for Letterman, but I held that view about Fallon and I was wrong. He's been more than suitable, his ratings have stomped the competition and he is far funnier and more creative than Leno ever was. Solid choice in retrospect. As to the conservative bias toward Colbert...utter nonsense. Cobert was and is a very funny stand up comic and his improvisational skills are impressive. Poptart, you and the other critics here are only seeing one side to his act and are basing your bias on his Comedy Central show. He was always good on the Daily Show. Personally, I don't watch his current show, at least not often, but I appreciate his talent. He's damn smart and has a great dry delivery, but this is a persona and not a true representation of his craft.

Sorry poptart and Foldo and the rest, you guys letting your conservative leanings get the better of you. You're wrong. If you don't find him funny for personal reasons, that's okay, but saying he is untalented is plain stupid.

Btw, Carson may have been a liberal, but he never brought his political leanings into the show at all.
He purposely steered clear from that.
That man was the master of his craft.

As to Carson, he did set the bar for talk show hosts and since then no one has touched him. With the exception of Letterman. Letterman not only met the bar, he shattered it, but in a much different way than Carson did. They each have a unique approach, but Letterman took the genre in a direction that had never been done before and he is idolized by everyone in the business, in the same way he idolized Johnny Carson. He cannot be replaced, just as Carson couldn't. However, it doesn't mean that there isn't room for someone new and that whoever does take over Late Night may just surprise.

Also, what is the problem with expressing your political opinion if you are a talk show host? If said host happened to agree with you, I doubt that you would say one negative word about it. This problem you have with the new breed isn't that they express their opinions, it is that they don't see things your way. If you had a shred of honesty, you would admit that. Politics and comedy go hand in hand and have since comedy began.

Lighten up and learn to laugh a little.

Not convinced that Jay is the best person to judge what is or isn't funny, but his take is spot on. Rack it. (A first time for everything).

Smackie Chan wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:There is a clear trend in this thread and among TV viewers overall: It's the olds who are most distraught about Colbert taking over Late Show.

Glad I'm considered to be among the young.

That was by design.

Colbert is one of the funniest, sharpest wits on TV right now. I've found myself laughing until it hurts at some of the stuff he does.

That being said, he won't be keeping the "Steven Colbert" conservative blowhard personality on The Late Show. He also will not, which should be obvious to anybody who has at least half a brain, attempt to be a direct replacement for Letterman. That would be ridiculous. It will be interesting to see what he brings to the show (which I'll be watching via DVR), and that's his challenge. If anybody doubts his ability and depth of intellect, you haven't seen too many of his interviews.

Jay wrote:Sorry poptart and Foldo and the rest, you guys letting your conservative leanings get the better of you.

LOL
Nope.

I guess you'll make up whatever you want to.

How is it that I find lefty Stewart to be funny and talented??

A comic is there to entertain me, not write laws.
I don't care who he votes for.

Jay wrote:Also, what is the problem with expressing your political opinion if you are a talk show host?

Problem is, when you step that way you can very well begin to irritate 50% of your audience.

Mikey wrote:If anybody doubts his ability and depth of intellect, you haven't seen too many of his interviews.

I've seen his interviews.
I find him to be a boring twat.
Not interesting, not funny, tortured, pressing too hard, lame as hell.

poptart wrote:LOL
Nope.

I guess you'll make up whatever you want to.

How is it that I find lefty Stewart to be funny and talented??

A comic is there to entertain me, not write laws.
I don't care who he votes for.

A comic is also there to give his opinion, just like you do. Disagree with them or not, it is their right. As I have already said, if you don't find his brand of humor funny, that's okay. You laugh or you don't. But you are dead fucking wrong when you suggest he is untalented. Yeah, I get you like Stewart and you see the two being different, one you like the other you pretty much vilify. But poptart, you are in the minority and there is a reason he's getting the CBS gig.

Problem is, when you step that way you can very well begin to irritate 50% of your audience.

Sometimes, but not in this case. Again, politics and humor are synonymous. Comics have been using this as a platform for decades. Deal with it.

Jay in Phoenix wrote: As to Carson, he did set the bar for talk show hosts and since then no one has touched him. With the exception of Letterman. Letterman not only met the bar, he shattered it, but in a much different way than Carson did.

Yep. opinions and assholes.

Yeah, I don't see that Letterman shattered the bar at all.
He came along and was young and fresh.
He had appeal with a younger crowd - but he never had the overall appeal that Carson had.

Hell, Leno regularly beat Letterman's ass.

poptart wrote:Yeah, I don't see that Letterman shattered the bar at all.
He came along and was young and fresh.
He had appeal with a younger crowd - but he never had the overall appeal that Carson had.

Hell, Leno regularly beat Letterman's ass.

You really are one tedious motherfucker.
Do you ever notice your wife standing up and silently leaving the room while you're talking?