Slate: Is anyone else freaked out by The Daily Show's new studio set? I gotta say, I agree with all of these sentiments. The show looks too newslike. It looks like they're taking themselves seriously, and if so, that's a huge mistake. The writing is still fantastic, and Stewart is still great, but the set change is not impressive. It almost resembles...dare I say it, Crossfire. Bring back the couch!
I don't like the new studio that much either. The point on interviews makes sense, however. It'll be interesting to see what happens the first time he has a "less-serious" (ie. actors, comedians, etc.) guest. So far, the interviews would have had the serious aspect either way. Personally, I don't like the interviews as much. Sometimes, I just turn it off when the interviews come on. The best part of the show is easily the first 15 minutes.
Are they going to produce the Colbert Report out of this studio as well? Then the Crossfire likeness may be appropriate. I haven't seen last nights show yet, but Monday's looked poorly lit. I liked the new look of the graphics. Q
I don't think they are in risk of taking themselves too seriously. I kind of like the crappier look. It would've been too cheesy to go Public Access, but generic news/talk show works. Yup. For most people I know, it's the lead up to local weather and sports on the news. That was good Rove-gloat last night.
I'm tempted to say that the whole new graphic approach was designed just so Stewart can interact with the pictures -- which he can now that they're apparently projected behind him. (He already tickled somebody's package the other day.) He used to always complain about not being able to stick his hand or face in those graphics.
Really??? I thought the clips of hurricane coverage were funny (although Colbert's bit was lame) and the interview with Goldberg was great. Stewart called him out on all of the stupidity that comes with a book like "100 People Screwing Up America". If he had let Goldberg just drone on about Hollywood without challenging him, then I'd understand what you were saying but he didn't.
I like the new set and I still love the show. ...how could that slate writer diss Charlie Rose? I think he's a great interviewer.
It was a weird segment because i think they both had great points, so it was an even debate, although it was a little hampered by Stewarts need for audiance appreciation every 10 seconds.
I don't think it was Stewart's "need" for audience appreciation, it's just that the audience (and most of the viewers) tend to be liberal, so they appreciated his stance.
I haven't watched any of the TDS eps on the TiVo since they moved, so I can't comment on the set. But the old late lamented Spy magazine used to have a running commentary on Charlie Rose, tracking how many minutes of each interview Charlie talked vs. his guests -- the number was close to 50/50 most times, which is way, way too much host and not enough guest.
I think it is more a way for Stewart to diffuse the harshness of his attacks with a little self-depreciating humor. I like the new set a lot.
I'm with you on both counts. I think it's wrong to hold Charlie Rose to the standards of other talk shows, because clearly it is not intended to be your typical blab fest. He talks more than a typical host, because more than anyone else out there, he is trying to stimulate intelligent dialogue.
I think he asks fantastic questions and I guess it takes a while to get them out. I certainly don't think it because he likes to listen to himself talk.
I agree. The background seems to have been toned down a bit. I'm warming up to the look, but I still miss the couch.
The couch has been confirmed dead. You can pay your respects to the couch below. The couch was far too young...
Appropos of nothing, did anyone else notice or remember Jon Stewart botching the word "muggles" in his Harry Potter piece the other day? He had to pause at the word on the prompter and ended up saying "mooglees" or something. It was pretty damn funny. I mean, I've not read a single paragraph from those books, but I've certainly heard the word "muggles" a guh-jillion times. Kind of amazing that Stewart, who sort of has to keep abreast of most popular culture, hadn't hear that word.
In his defense, I often butcher words and names that I've heard before but am reading for the first time. A lot of my presentations at work are put together by other people and contain the names of prescription drugs that I've heard a million times but when I see it on paper, I have no idea what the word is or how to pronounce it.