RIP The Daily Show

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, I'm in the group that puts this in the RIP category. I mean, look at John Oliver. He was a bit rocky at first when he was temporarily filling in for Jon, but he eventually found his voice. That being said, I don't think he could have taken over the show long term but he's going gangbusters with his own series on HBO. Noah might be able to do something in Jon's seat but it won't be The Daily Show that we've all been watching for the last ~16 years. Would have been better to kill the brand and launch something completely new, IMHO than expect someone to pick up where Jon left off - it ain't happening.

[Jeff V]

Let's give Noah a shot. Stewart wasn't all that in the mid 90s, either.

BTW, Larry Wilmore has improved quite a bit from his tepid start.

[Zaxxon]

Yes. Helped when he cut the panel from 5 to 4.

[Odin]

Let's give Noah a shot. Stewart wasn't all that in the mid 90s, either.

BTW, Larry Wilmore has improved quite a bit from his tepid start.

That's good to hear. The difference is that I like Larry Wilmore, but Trevor Noah irritates me for some unspecified reason that certain entertainers just aren't appealing. I'll probably give the new Daily Show a shot, but I'm pessimistic about its chances, mostly due to Noah.

[Jeff V]

Yes. Helped when he cut the panel from 5 to 4.

And dumped the whole "keep it real" schtick.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, I'm in the group that puts this in the RIP category. I mean, look at John Oliver. He was a bit rocky at first when he was temporarily filling in for Jon, but he eventually found his voice. That being said, I don't think he could have taken over the show long term but he's going gangbusters with his own series on HBO. Noah might be able to do something in Jon's seat but it won't be The Daily Show that we've all been watching for the last ~16 years. Would have been better to kill the brand and launch something completely new, IMHO than expect someone to pick up where Jon left off - it ain't happening.

Noah is going to have to find a new path, to be sure - if he tries to just replicate what Jon Stewart did on the Daily Show, then he's inevitably going to come off as a poor imitation no matter what he does. So the Daily Show as we know it has to be RIP. Noah might well come up with some new clever innovation on the format (similar to how The Colbert Report was a clever innovation on the Daily Show's format) and so keep the Daily Show running for years to come, but that remains to be seen.

Following The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has to be one of the more daunting jobs in modern comedic history, though.

[El Guapo]

Finally watched the last episode of the Daily Show last night. Pretty solid all around - did a great job revisiting all the people who made the show great.

Oddly enough though one of my main emotional takeaways was from seeing Colbert on the show, and being reminded how much I miss the Colbert Report, which was so f'ing good.

[rshetts2]

Im in the camp of its not The Daily Show without Jon Stewart. They should retire the show with honors and start an entirely new show where someone else can find their niche. Call it the Nooner Show or something but retire The Daily Show. Otherwise youre always going to be in the shadow of Jon and face the inevitable comparisons. Its very hard for someone to live up to those expectation when they are under that kind of a microscope.

[El Guapo]

Im in the camp of its not The Daily Show without Jon Stewart. They should retire the show with honors and start an entirely new show where someone else can find their niche. Call it the Nooner Show or something but retire The Daily Show. Otherwise youre always going to be in the shadow of Jon and face the inevitable comparisons. Its very hard for someone to live up to those expectation when they are under that kind of a microscope.

eh, that would be silly. The Daily Show With Trevor Noah is going to get a ton of attention and eyeballs and press coverage because of the Daily Show name. If it was New Show With Trevor Noah it would be a LOT harder to get attention and traction. Yes, with that comes expectations, and it's hard to imagine the transition being anything other than rough, but you're still better off not throwing away the brand that Stewart developed over 16 years.

And if the Tonight Show can survive the transition from Johnny Carson, the Daily Show can survive the transition from Jon Stewart.

[Smoove_B]

And if the Tonight Show can survive the transition from Johnny Carson, the Daily Show can survive the transition from Jon Stewart.

I'll give you a mulligan if you're game:

"The Daily Show was based on an emerging 24 hour news cycle, that’s everything it was. That’s what inspired The Daily Show. Now you look at news and it’s changed. It’s no longer predicated around 24 hour news. There are so many different choices. Half of it is online now. Now you’ve got the Gawkers, the BuzzFeeds. The way people are drawing their news is soundbites and headlines and click-bait links has changed everything. The biggest challenge is going to be an exciting one I’m sure is how are we going to bring all of that together looking at it from a bigger lens as opposed to just going after one source—which was historically Fox News.”

In summary:

So Noah will take The Daily Show in a more millennials-focused direction. The approach is geared towards people who consume their news the way Noah does.

In closing:

Stephen Colbert's average viewer is 37.7 years of age; Jon Stewart's is 41;

[El Guapo]

Makes sense. Noah has to change the focus and orientation of the show in a significant way, while at the same time keeping enough of the structure that it's recognizable as The Daily Show. Sounds like one of those changes is going to be updating the media criticism that the Daily Show has done in recognition of how the media has changed over the past decade and a half.

[rshetts2]

Im in the camp of its not The Daily Show without Jon Stewart. They should retire the show with honors and start an entirely new show where someone else can find their niche. Call it the Nooner Show or something but retire The Daily Show. Otherwise youre always going to be in the shadow of Jon and face the inevitable comparisons. Its very hard for someone to live up to those expectation when they are under that kind of a microscope.

eh, that would be silly. The Daily Show With Trevor Noah is going to get a ton of attention and eyeballs and press coverage because of the Daily Show name. If it was New Show With Trevor Noah it would be a LOT harder to get attention and traction. Yes, with that comes expectations, and it's hard to imagine the transition being anything other than rough, but you're still better off not throwing away the brand that Stewart developed over 16 years.

And if the Tonight Show can survive the transition from Johnny Carson, the Daily Show can survive the transition from Jon Stewart.

Well, its just my opinion and yes my opinions are often silly but it seems to me that no matter what they are calling it, its no longer going to be The Daily Show. They are clearly taking it in a different direction. I guess brand recognition has its merits even if you no longer recognize the show.

[El Guapo]

Im in the camp of its not The Daily Show without Jon Stewart. They should retire the show with honors and start an entirely new show where someone else can find their niche. Call it the Nooner Show or something but retire The Daily Show. Otherwise youre always going to be in the shadow of Jon and face the inevitable comparisons. Its very hard for someone to live up to those expectation when they are under that kind of a microscope.

eh, that would be silly. The Daily Show With Trevor Noah is going to get a ton of attention and eyeballs and press coverage because of the Daily Show name. If it was New Show With Trevor Noah it would be a LOT harder to get attention and traction. Yes, with that comes expectations, and it's hard to imagine the transition being anything other than rough, but you're still better off not throwing away the brand that Stewart developed over 16 years.

And if the Tonight Show can survive the transition from Johnny Carson, the Daily Show can survive the transition from Jon Stewart.

Well, its just my opinion and yes my opinions are often silly but it seems to me that no matter what they are calling it, its no longer going to be The Daily Show. They are clearly taking it in a different direction. I guess brand recognition has its merits even if you no longer recognize the show.

It's going to be The Daily Show With Trevor Noah, and not The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. They are I'm sure going to keep large chunks of the format (I assume the show will still center around the host going over the news of the day with a focus on politics and then making fun of the politicians and others involved, and that there will still be an interview every show), while jettisoning and revamping others (media criticism will be less Fox News-centric, I suspect there will be more of an international focus, and the "bits" they do will probably be very different).

We'll see, though.

[Zarathud]

It makes sense for Trevor to pursue news commentary through the lens of a millennial. It's going to make the Gen X 40+ crowd unhappy, but that's a path Stewart really couldn't travel. It's also similar to the Daily Show's shift to 24 hour news satire after Craig Kilborn. Hopefully it doesn't turn into Tosh.0. Ugh.

[Carpet_pissr]

I think it's amazing that they would turn such a profitable and influential property over to such an untested newbie.

The very VERY few times he was on the show, it was a tiny little spot, and I really did not think he was very funny at all (but to be fair, it was also more like a preachy bit every time, so not a lot of room for him to flex any comedic chops he might possess).

I'm wondering if it's a case of "no other big name was crazy enough to follow Stewart" and so they got relative dregs, if you will.

I guess I should at least find some of his stand up to watch before I speak further. He could be hilarious in that format.

[El Guapo]

I think it's amazing that they would turn such a profitable and influential property over to such an untested newbie.

The very VERY few times he was on the show, it was a tiny little spot, and I really did not think he was very funny at all (but to be fair, it was also more like a preachy bit every time, so not a lot of room for him to flex any comedic chops he might possess).

I'm wondering if it's a case of "no other big name was crazy enough to follow Stewart" and so they got relative dregs, if you will.

I guess I should at least find some of his stand up to watch before I speak further. He could be hilarious in that format.

They evidently asked three big names first, and got turned down. I know Amy Schumer was one of the people they asked, and I think maybe Amy Poehler as well. Forget who the third person was.

At that point I believe the thinking was, if they can't get one of their favored "big names", to go with an up-and-comer with upside potential. Which, it should be noted, would also describe Jon Stewart 16.5 years ago.

[Jeff V]

I don't think they wanted another big name, but figured they would create one. Lewis Black said he was a little bummed that they didn't ask, but while I love him, I don't think he's the right temperament for that kind of show.

As the final episode bore out, Stewart did a great job creating successful proteges. Trevor may have been tagged as the next project before Stewart even realized he was leaving, and just because he hasn't gotten a lot of screen time since, doesn't mean he hasn't been developing. Perhaps we'll find out why they opted for a secretive transition -- I suspect it's because Trevor is going to hit the ground with something completely different (ala Colbert) and that would have been difficult or impossible to develop while appearing in the context of Jon Stewart's show.

[ImLawBoy]

At that point I believe the thinking was, if they can't get one of their favored "big names", to go with an up-and-comer with upside potential. Which, it should be noted, would also describe Jon Stewart 16.5 years ago.

I'd say Stewart was at least as big of a name as Amy Schumer was when he started the Daily Show.

[Zaxxon]

Yeah, it wasn't even his first show.

[Isgrimnur]

And if the Tonight Show can survive the transition from Johnny Carson Steve Allen, the Daily Show can survive the transition from Jon Stewart.

FTFY

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, it wasn't even his first show.

I feel the need to dig through Youtube to see if they have a clip from the original show when my buddy (wearing a giant Charlie Brown mask) is making Jon crack up to the point where he cannot function. He managed to sneak the mask in under his coat and then slapped it on as the show was starting.

[El Guapo]

At that point I believe the thinking was, if they can't get one of their favored "big names", to go with an up-and-comer with upside potential. Which, it should be noted, would also describe Jon Stewart 16.5 years ago.

I'd say Stewart was at least as big of a name as Amy Schumer was when he started the Daily Show.

No way. Amy Schumer at this point is one of the premier comics in the country, approaching Louis CK-like status. Stewart was a moderately well known comic, notwithstanding the rapidly cancelled Jon Stewart show. Amy Schumer would've been a huge get for the Daily Show, while Stewart (notwithstanding panning out spectacularly) was not at the time.

To be sure, Stewart was better known at that point in the U.S. than Noah was when he was picked (Noah being known here really only for his Daily Show appearances at that point), but he wasn't an established star.

[Carpet_pissr]

Yeah, it wasn't even his first show.

I feel the need to dig through Youtube to see if they have a clip from the original show when my buddy (wearing a giant Charlie Brown mask) is making Jon crack up to the point where he cannot function. He managed to sneak the mask in under his coat and then slapped it on as the show was starting.

Please do. I would love to see that, unless it's his fake laugh, push away from the desk routine, which has been commented on earlier in the thread I think.

[Isgrimnur]

The Nightly Show is done:

“The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore” will call it a day after Thursday’s episode.

Comedy Central has canceled the half-hour series that replaced “The Colbert Report” on Jan. 19, 2015, making “Nightly” the first of the recent wave of late-night newcomers to shutter.
...
Comedy Central president Kent Alterman said the decision was made because “Nightly” had failed to gain ratings traction with the cabler’s core demo of young adults, nor were there positive signs for the show in key social media metrics. Alterman made a point of praising Wilmore and the distinctive approach he brought to commenting on the day’s news.

“We hold Larry in the highest esteem, personally and professionally. He brought a strong voice and point of view to the late-night landscape,” Alterman told Variety. “Unfortunately it hasn’t resonated with our audience.”

Alterman called it a “business decision” to pull the plug.
...
Comedy Central is developing a project with “Daily Show” contributor Jordan Klepper that could be a potential successor to “Nightly” in the post-“Daily Show” slot. But Alterman said it was unlikely that any new program would be set before the start of the year.

[Jeff V]

Shame, I liked Larry. Also a shame that, with this content-overflowing political season, they won't have something ready until after the election. I'd love to see Louis Black rage for a few months then spontaneously explode on election day.

[LordMortis]

So it basically being a year after the fact, is anyone watching The Daily Show? It never grabbed me. I wonder how hard it will be to bring TV like this to the millennials (and younger) where they can wait simply wait for a youtube version of the important stuff if something if broadcast as being important.

I have to say, OO used to post a Daily Show link, it seemed like weekly on average, at least. Now, we get once or twice a month link to last week tonight. I can't criticize, though. I've seen zero episodes in the new year... That and I seem to be the only one on the planet who liked Killborne better than Stewart and thought that Stewart finding his legs was better than what he ultimately settled in to. Now get off my lawn... Or mow it please...

[Jeff V]

I've been without Comedy Central for the entire year, so I haven't seen the Daily Show, except for the rare times I click on a link in FB.

[El Guapo]

The Nightly Show was never that good from the parts / bits that I saw. A shame, as I do like Larry Wilmore, but even the bits whose concepts I liked never really hit it out of the park. Also I have a strong dislike to the panel discussion format - there's a limit to how funny that can be.

I had hoped that the show would grow into something good, though.

[El Guapo]

I've been without Comedy Central for the entire year, so I haven't seen the Daily Show, except for the rare times I click on a link in FB.

You can see it on Hulu.

I watch it from time to time, and I like it when I do, although the "funny late night news / comedy show" market is oversaturated so I don't watch it a ton at this point (though I wasn't watching it much during the late Stewart era either).

[Jeff V]

I don't have Hulu either, and my streaming experience so far has been so abysmal on Amazon Fire and Google Chromecast, I'm not inclined to spend any more money on this form of delivery.

[Jeff V]

The Nightly Show was never that good from the parts / bits that I saw. A shame, as I do like Larry Wilmore, but even the bits whose concepts I liked never really hit it out of the park. Also I have a strong dislike to the panel discussion format - there's a limit to how funny that can be.

I had hoped that the show would grow into something good, though.

It did seem better suited for, say Sunday mornings, reminiscent of something NPR might have on. Many times the panels had interesting combinations of people on them, but it was too short. It was more intellectual in nature, however -- many topics were not treated in comedic fashion, and I respected him for this. Unfortunately, it's not the sort of material that keeps you engaged while your body is telling you it's time to sleep.

[LordMortis]

I don't have Hulu either, and my streaming experience so far has been so abysmal on Amazon Fire and Google Chromecast, I'm not inclined to spend any more money on this form of delivery.

That's where I sit with streaming. I don't get how people get good streaming on their phones when my basic cable streaming can't buffer 1024 HD streams. So then I have to get better cable to properly stream? Kinda defeats most of the purpose of substituting on demand solutions over DVR solutions.

My basic cable and Internet have hit the above $100 mark. That means it's time to get up re-evaluate the whole thing again. TV is beginning to appeal to me less. Of my 88 channels of cable, right now they only thing I reliably do is have adult swim on in the background at night before bed. That's pretty much it. That plus (up to) 2up/5down on a shared line with other subscribers in my area hardly feels worth it any more. Like I should find a way to go back to OTA, break down and get a smart phone and save myself about $70 month (as internet would only be about an extra $30 a month on my phone)

[Jeff V]

Watching movies on the HBO app on Amazon Fire can be infuriating, it sometimes pauses frequently and sometimes just stops. The stuff served directly from Amazon (and not through an app) is a little better.

I'm going nuts trying to watch the Olympics. When I try to stream using the NBC website, I seem to be getting mixed feeds...I'll get a couple of seconds of a commercial, a couple of seconds of a live event, then back to the commercial, then back to the event...completely unwatchable. On top of that, the on-screen controls constantly come back on, so when I am I Chromecasting to my TV, ever few minutes I need to click on the laptop screen somewhere to make those controls go away. And they are right in the middle of the damn screen. The phone app isn't much better. At irregular intervals (usually during a race), the video feed goes out and the TV screen reports there is a problem with the feed, to restart the application on my device. That usually involves hitting the back button my phone and restarting the "watch live" from the app, but at least once a night, a full reboot is needed.

Our cable bill (including internet) was $225 when we terminated it and went with a $15 streaming add-on to just a Comcrap internet account. Making use of that streaming content has been frustrating to no end. I noticed that Amazon had an NBC Olympics app. I installed it. When I registered the app and signed in, it said I had access to content on NBC (not NBC Sports, not MSNBC, etc.). I try the "NBC Live Coverage" icon in the app, and I get "not authorized."

[hitbyambulance]

Like I should find a way to go back to OTA

it's not difficult. try a $10 UHF antenna on your TV ANT IN coax (putting it as high as it can go), scan for channels and see what you get.

[LordMortis]

Like I should find a way to go back to OTA

it's not difficult. try a $10 UHF antenna on your TV ANT IN coax (putting it as high as it can go), scan for channels and see what you get.

You know, for $10, I might just do that. Spend a few weeks breaking for cable.

I lose sports I rarely watch any more on FSN (FSD) and I lose Archer and I lose Adult Swim keeping me company. The rest *shrug*. It's hardly worth the $70 extra in overhead. I just have to figure how to set up and test a Sprint phone a wifi hotspot.

[stessier]

Archer is on Netflix!

[El Guapo]

Archer is on Netflix!

It's also on Hulu, though (at least the last time I checked) you need cable authentication for the most recent season.

What's frustrating me is that there's no good way (as far as I know) to get Full Frontal with Samantha Bee without a cable subscription. All the clips I have seen of her show have been tremendous.

[Jeff V]

Like I should find a way to go back to OTA

it's not difficult. try a $10 UHF antenna on your TV ANT IN coax (putting it as high as it can go), scan for channels and see what you get.

You know, for $10, I might just do that. Spend a few weeks breaking for cable.

I lose sports I rarely watch any more on FSN (FSD) and I lose Archer and I lose Adult Swim keeping me company. The rest *shrug*. It's hardly worth the $70 extra in overhead. I just have to figure how to set up and test a Sprint phone a wifi hotspot.

I'd send you the one that doesn't work for me thanks to blocking terrain, but I still hope to move to flatter terrain sometime next year and hope it may yet work.

[LordMortis]

Archer is on Netflix!

It's also on Hulu, though (at least the last time I checked) you need cable authentication for the most recent season.

What's frustrating me is that there's no good way (as far as I know) to get Full Frontal with Samantha Bee without a cable subscription. All the clips I have seen of her show have been tremendous.

As far as I know Netflix is a year behind anyway. And I'm not looking to cobble together a bunch of different services to make cable a few bucks a month cheaper. It's not worth the headache. If it were I'd have cut the cord a few years ago.

That said, Vue is one way to get TBS without cable but Vue is not cheap. I think the TBS package is like $30 a month.

And apparently you can do it with Sling TV but you'd have to talk to Sling TV viewer to explain that voodoo

http://www.cutcabletoday.com/tbs-live-stream-guide/

Unless you mean on demand, in which case. Google?

http://www.twcondemand.com/tv/tbs/12412 ... mantha-bee

Can you get a subscription to Time Warner without having cable? No idea.

[Jeff V]

In the Olympic thread, Matrix posted about something called proxmate.me that I suspect is on the shadier side of things. It says a subscription is $20 per year, with a 2 week free trial. Upon installing the plug in, I went to BBC to check out their coverage. I was challenged by a pop up box stating that a subscription (say, a cable TV service) is required to access that content and asked if I had such. I said yes, and it let me stream BBC. I've not tried any other channels, nor did I linger long on BBC because they seemed most interested in following UK athletes, many in sports I cared nothing about (pretty much a British version of the pro-American NBC broadcast).