Skip to main content

Another look at "The Nightly Show" with Larry Wilmore

After its first week, I gave The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore a B+ grade. While I didn't think the show appeared to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination, I also liked the Daily Show meets Politically Incorrect vibe I got from it, and thought, with the proper adjustments, the show would indeed provide a great fill-in for The Colbert Report. In the show's succeeding weeks, however, I've been less impressed by it and think that if it doesn't make certain adjustments, it could be in jeopardy of losing many long-time viewers of the show's time slot.

One major issue I think the show's had to this point is a lack of direction. It's been unable to decide whether it wants to be a comedy show with serious conversation sprinkled in or a serious show with comedy sprinkled in. It's almost as if the show's writers want to give The Nightly Show a Real Time with Bill Maher feel. The problem with that idea or format is the fact Real Time is an hour long program that gets aired once a week, whereas The Nightly Show is a half-hour program aired four times per week. With only 20 minutes to air the show every day (excluding commercials), it's incredibly difficult to maximize its potential both as a comedy show and a news show, since there would only be approximately ten minutes afforded to both aspects. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report mastered the format. They spent 15 of their 20 minutes inducing laughter with satire and spent the other five interviewing a special guest. It was the shortened version of The Late Show with David Letterman and other such programs. The Nightly Show hasn't caught onto that just yet and can't seem to decide in which direction they want to take the program.

This lack of direction is even more evident in the show's final segment. For the first week, that segment - "Keep It 100" - was probably my favorite part of the show. In it, guests were asked one extremely awkward-difficult-to-answer question a piece and the questions and ensuing responses often times made for some good laughs. However, as the segment has gone on, there have been times where it has appeared Wilmore couldn't think of a decent question to ask, so he wound up asking one so ridiculous, so over-the-top, the guest simply didn't care to answer it, and it left more of an uncomfortable silence than any kind of laughter. Over the past week, the show has appeared to try and mix up the final segment between "Keep It 100" and other games, but it's typically fallen flat. A couple of nights ago, Wilmore placed on some alien antennas and asked the guests to explain certain things to him like he was an actual alien - things like racism and the gay pride parade. In my opinion, it may have been the worst five minutes on the show to this point in its early history. It just feels like the show's writers know adjustments need to be made, especially for that segment, but still aren't sure what those specific adjustments are.

Another possible issue for the show long-term, if it continues the way its been going to this point, is the fact it's seemed to, more times than not, focus squarely on race issues. It's great to have an African-American late-night talk show host, but that still doesn't mean he should only (or mainly) talk about race-related issues. Granted, February was black history month, so perhaps that's the main reason why the show's writers focused a majority of their attention on race matters. However, if that wasn't the case and this is how it's going to be for some time, I think the show risks making certain viewers feel alienated and losing them in the process. Not only have many of the topics focused squarely on race, but it's seemed that the show's writers have felt the need to force unneeded racial jokes in Wilmore's opening monologue on a rather regular basis, and again, it's not needed. I've been one of the first ones to stand up and say we need to have a national discussion on race, especially in light of the news stories regarding Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, etc. However, we'll be less likely to have that great national discussion regarding this important issue through forced jokes.

Lastly, I think one reason The Colbert Report was so successful was because of how wonderfully it complemented The Daily Show. Sure, The Daily Show has almost always been comedy first, serious commentary second, but Jon Stewart knew when to get serious and wasn't afraid of doing just that. The Colbert Report, which aired directly following The Daily Show, was typically the sillier, more light-hearted of the two shows. Even after an extremely serious and powerful episode of The Daily Show, Stephen Colbert could typically get people laughing and smiling again before heading to bed. The Nightly Show, in being more serious than The Daily Show, doesn't complement the show nearly as well as The Colbert Report did, and again, if this trend continues, I have to wonder if long-time viewers will take the jokes and laughter they received courtesy of The Daily Show and call it a night right then and there, without tuning into Larry Wilmore's show.

The Nightly Show is still very much in its early stages, so while I've been disappointed with the show's progress to this point, I think it's much too early to give up on it. Hopefully the show will make some worthwhile adjustments, and through that, be able to hold on to most long-time viewers and attract new ones along the way as well.

Grade (to this point): B-

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"