Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by inaka, Jun 3, 2015.
I don't disagree.
so the first band was on, The Dead Weather. My original concern for the set looked true, i.e. there's not enough room for the performers to play. Also, the wal-mart lighting was on for the performance, aka the whole stage was still lit up - lack of mood for a band like this. reminded me of when bands were on The Mike Douglas Show, except they had a bigger stage back then.
It will improve when Bono needs more room....
Alley-oop from Colbert to Batiste at 0:11
I feel like he's settling in nicely, the show feels more natural. Still not sold on the band, but I am thoroughly enjoying my daily dose of Colbert humor.
I HATE batiste dancing around with his stupid little piano thing at the beginning. Just looks so forced and stupid.
Yeah, I'm not digging that part.
Agreed. I don't like anything about the house band. And since there has been very little interaction between Colbert and Batiste other than that stupid dancing at the very beginning, I'm not sure what the point is of having that band. Fallon has made The Roots an integral part of his show, but it's not a requirement that a late show needs to have a prominent band leader.
Agree with ya big time. It sounds like a kazoo with a keyboard attached and just looks dumb.
i was guessing jon batiste was continuing to dance following his warming up the audience, another change from traditional late show behavior, like stephen voicing over the show's intro.
The band entertains the audience and has a huge impact of getting the crowd excited and giving energy to the show (according to my husband who attended a test show). He says it wouldn't have been the same without them as the crowd would be bored silly. Its too bad they haven't been able to convey that to the tv viewing audience.....
I have no problem with there being a band. All late shows have them. My issue is with John Batiste dancing with Colbert and generally acting like he's a co-star on the show, when it's clear from the rest of the show that Colbert doesn't want or need Batiste to participate.
+1 - and Colbert's not used to sharing the stage...hopefully he gets the hang of banter. Theme song is cool, I've already heard it in my head once or twice
Looks like Colbert's plan is working.
He is already getting noticed for his success in interviewing higher profile guests, and it's nice to have a choice. Jimmy Fallon and Kimmel are very funny and entertaining, but in a different way entirely. I can't imagine being engaged in a similar VP Biden interview on Jimmy Kimmel or Fallon. Let alone Tim Cook, etc.
Fallon in particular is a genius in his light-hearted comedic lip synching and skits with Justin Timberlake, etc. But Colbert is already carving out his place as the ender statesmen in late night with a little more gravitas. Smart move.
He just needs to figure out what to do when he is not interviewing!
I certainly agree in terms of my own preferences, though I do enjoy Kimmel and Fallon and what they do as well. But I wonder how sustainable Colbert's approach is, once people get used to him being in the slot and don't tune in just to see what "Stephen Colbert" is like is real life. Success in late night really has shifted to making a show that you almost don't need to watch to watch, which is to say, having bits that can fly around the Internet as video clips the next day. Fallon is a master at this, and Kimmel is effective at it, too. Letterman knew that things had gone this way, and the realization that he was not equipped to do it was among the reasons he decided to retire. Colbert's early shows are not demonstrating an interest in doing this (or ability to?) and certainly people are not going to pass around clips of an interview with Elon Musk.
Obviously Colbert isn't going anywhere no matter what. If he settles the Late Show back into the second or third slot, CBS will probably be a little disappointed but of course will live with it. So on that score, I hope Colbert does continue to book guests like this, because it's great for me. But I'm not sure he's setting himself up to "win".
I'm not sure I agree. I think Colbert clips can just as easily be passed around the internet. He has plenty of short compartmentalized segments that lend themselves to that quite easily.
Still...they don't monetize YouTube, do they? They still need viewers. Viral clips are good marketing, but if people aren't tuning in to the show as a result, that will only take you so far...
Of course they monetize YouTube. Do you think CBS creates a YT channel and posts all their clips there and then just lets Google keep all the associated ad revenue?
But the issue isn't whether Colbert's clips can be easily put on the net. The question is whether the content will be such that people will be talking about it the next day and sharing the link to the videos with friends and posting the videos on FB and such. So far, there really hasn't been much on Colbert's shows that is noteworthy or funny enough to warrant sharing.
What do you mean of course? How would we know? There's no pre-roll or other visible advertising on their page that I saw. There are publishers that make an effort to maximize YouTube revenue...I'm not talking about whatever incidental amount comes from just uploading anything. Plus, is it even significant compared to getting actual viewers? What percentage of the show's revenue depend on YouTube?
As for whether the content of the first 5 or 6 shows is noteworthy or funny, that's purely subjective. I think there has been plenty. But I've never shared content from the other shows either...
I agree that an Elon Musk interview won't become viral, but Colbert's other stuff certainly can. John Oliver generates Monday morning buzz every week with clips from his shows. Colbert's desk pieces have online appeal too.
Speaking of the band, is it me or did they change bass players?