Skip to main content

The odd relationship between IMDb.com and "The Nightly Show" with Larry Wilmore

I've been a long-time viewer of late-night shows on Comedy Central, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report in particular. When news broke of Stephen Colbert leaving Comedy Central to replace David Letterman on CBS and that The Daily Show contributor Larry Wilmore would be taking over, while I was saddened, I also thought I'd give Wilmore's The Nightly Show a chance. To this point, I've watched each and every episode, and like with The Colbert Report in its early going, The Nightly Show has come across as a show still trying to figure itself out, continually tinkering with its format, hoping to be given enough time to fully adjust and produce a long-term success on Comedy Central, just like its predecessor.

While I was a bit critical of the show's early format, where just one of its three portions focused on Wilmore's comedy and two of the three focused on panel discussions, I've liked the changes the show has made since that point - going to a 2 and 1 format (comedy and discussion) much like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I still think some tweaking needs to be done in the panel discussion portion, however. Too often we see show contributors on the panel, which leads one to believe the show is having difficulty booking three guests each and every night. Also, with such a mix of show contributors, comedians, and more serious individuals, this leads the discussions to often times be hit or miss. This isn't even mentioning the fact it seems as if one of the show's three guests regularly gets shut out by the other two and Wilmore. If the show were on for an hour once a week, it'd probably be much more feasible for Wilmore and company to possess a Politically Incorrect-type of format, but it's extremely difficult for a nightly half-hour program to do this with a great deal of consistent success. Going forward, it'll be interesting to see if the show attempts to maintain this four-person discussion panel (including Wilmore) or if they go a different direction. Outside of that one inconsistent portion of the show, however, I have been pleased with the progression of The Nightly Show and hope Comedy Central sticks with it long enough for more adjustments to be made and to see if it truly has the potential to be a long-term success. 

It seems that the majority over at the IMDb.com community don't agree with me when it comes to the quality of the show's progression, however, as it stands at a 5.9 grade (out of 10) and multiple commenters have lambasted the show, most notably for claiming the show and its host, Larry Wilmore, are "racist."

Here are a few examples of the comments expressed by the IMDb.com community with regard to The Nightly Show and its host Larry Wilmore:

- "Cancel this show and fire that cop and white hater Larry."

- "That was the worst episode so far. It was so racist towards white people."

- "Tonight you have the all black panel (What a diverse perspective) continuing the bullshyt about the protesting and rioting, changing the definition of what it's about, based on ZERO FACTS. Just saying whatever they can to justify it. It's a sickness and the only cure is to pull the plug on these voices and this show. They literally have nothing to offer to society, much like the ones killed in the riots and the ones they are over."

- "And then tonight, defending the rioters. Really? Are you that blinded by color? Just because the cops are wrong, it doesn't make the rioters right. He has displayed nothing but gross ignorance this week. Sad because I really wanted to like his show, but his true colors are coming out way too quickly."

- "That would be a great day. The racist Larry Wilmore originally wanted to call his show 'The Minority Report.'"

- "Not to mention the fact that the only way to stop racism is to stop talking about it. The longer we discuss things on a reptilian color-level, the longer we perpetuate the insanely childish concept of racism.

This is an open and shut case, and anybody who can't see that is a SAVAGE and an IDIOT"

- "Larry play the rest of that tape & see all of them 'White' people get maced...This show is only about 'Black' people now....the EP about SF cops F'n with 'Blacks and Homosexuals' turned to just Blacks..."

- "This idiot thinks the NFL banned the N-word cause of white players using it. LOL

OMG, what a dumb fuq. "He goes why else would they create that rule?"

Why else?

WHY ELSE?!

Holy lord. Breaking sports news - Only white people use the n-word. It's official! No black athlete has ever used it. Nope. Good job, NFL, ending racism in football by stopping WHITE PEOPLE from using it so frequently.

How is this guy a talk show host? You need to be able to not sound so retarded, so often...and Larry Shytmore is incapable of doing that."

I know, most of these comments appear to have come from Harvard graduates... But still, I feel the need to address them (and others of their ilk). First off, I find it highly ironic that one individual said to end racism, we simply have to stop talking about it, and anyone whom thinks differently is an idiot, because that's an idiotic remark if I've ever heard one. Isn't that always the solution to a problem? Ignore it and it will go away?

Doctor Whom: "I'm sorry to have to share this bit of news with you, but it appears as if you have a brain tumor."

Patient It: "So, what you're saying is, if I just live my life like I was before and don't do anything about it, it will go away?"

Dr. Whom: "Exactly!"

Mm hmm... How did we solve the problem of slavery? We ignored it! How about serial killers? We ignored them too! What about gun violence? We ignored it! Well, actually, that last one may be at least partially accurate. Allow me to use the poster's words against him. Anyone who thinks the best way to solve a problem is to ignore the problem is an idiot.

As for the other comments, it appears that they have an issue with a black talk show host providing a different perspective than most of us in this country are used to when dealing with issues such as racism, for it makes many uncomfortable. Talking about racism, however, doesn't make a person racist. Talking about racist occurrences in the country doesn't make a person racist. Talking about police brutality doesn't make a person anti-authority or anti-cop. It simply makes a person aware. It would be easy for white people (the majority), such as myself, to ignore all the instances of racism suffered by different demographics, but having such a mentality wouldn't negate racism; it'd simply make us ignorant and in denial. While I personally have found The Colbert Report to be funnier than The Nightly Show to this point, I also think it's nice to garner a different perspective from a late-night talk show host. There haven't been a great number of black late-night talk show hosts through the years, and while I may not have personally gone through what Larry Wilmore and other African-Americans have with regard to racism, I also feel it's beneficial for me (and others like me) to hear their side of things, to expand our horizons when it comes to the realities of racism and race relations in the 21st century, and through this, to be better able to empathize with people of different backgrounds than us. Regardless of what the only-way-to-stop-racism-is-to-stop-talking-about-it poster wants to believe, the only way to really stop it is for people to stop ignoring the problem, to start talking about it, and to try and better understand one another, so we can stop relying on old prejudices and stereotypes to generalize a particular demographic, and instead actually get to know people, see them as individuals, and treat them as the human beings they are. Yes, racism may always exist to a certain extent, but there are ways we can decrease its prevalence, and I think Larry Wilmore and people like him are only helping the matter by placing the issues out into the open and attempting to have a discussion about it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3722332/?ref_=nv_sr_1

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!"