HC
Or - if he bombs badly, it's easier to put the new hosts name in the independent section of the logo, rather than a total reworking if it was part of the overall show name logo. Maybe?
Isn't it weird how they're using "The Late Show With" as a logo independent of "Stephen Colbert"? Just seems odd.
Or - if he bombs badly, it's easier to put the new hosts name in the independent section of the logo, rather than a total reworking if it was part of the overall show name logo. Maybe?
MS
It seems to be the thing with these late night shows. 'The Late Show', 'The Tonight Show' etc are supposedly brands or institutions and the presenter is temporary.
Isn't it weird how they're using "The Late Show With" as a logo independent of "Stephen Colbert"? Just seems odd.
It seems to be the thing with these late night shows. 'The Late Show', 'The Tonight Show' etc are supposedly brands or institutions and the presenter is temporary.
MO
Supposedly? LOL
'The Late Show', 'The Tonight Show' etc are supposedly brands or institutions and the presenter is temporary.
Supposedly? LOL
SC
No, I think Whataday is referring to is specifically the word "WITH" in the inside of the O on the desk sign, and other sign high up in the studio. The word "with" is there but Stephen's name can't be seen anywhere.
I think we all agree "The Late Show" is the well known brand, but to put up a logo reading "The Late Show With" by itself does look weird. It would make more sense to me to take the "with" off these signs, but someone clearly must've wanted it that way.
scottishtv
Founding member
It seems to be the thing with these late night shows. 'The Late Show', 'The Tonight Show' etc are supposedly brands or institutions and the presenter is temporary.
No, I think Whataday is referring to is specifically the word "WITH" in the inside of the O on the desk sign, and other sign high up in the studio. The word "with" is there but Stephen's name can't be seen anywhere.
I think we all agree "The Late Show" is the well known brand, but to put up a logo reading "The Late Show With" by itself does look weird. It would make more sense to me to take the "with" off these signs, but someone clearly must've wanted it that way.
DJ
A few distinct differences with this new incarnation of The Late Show compared with the Letterman era . . .
The monologue is shorter and takes place before the opening title sequence.
No actual announcer. Colbert himself announces the guests during the titles.
No more cue cards held up near the camera. Colbert reads from autocue.
No fake microphone prop, no telephone or any other props on the desk.
Pretty much no Letterman specific stuff inherited from the old show. Yet.
As for that last point, time will tell whether any old stuff comes back like the skits with Rupert Jee from the Hello Deli, or whether they
have "Jungle" Jack Hanna bringing zoo animals on stage. It's very unlikely any of that will return, unless viewers want any of it back.
One thing's for certain, the Top Ten lists are history. They're a Letterman exclusive thing right back to the days when he was on NBC.
The monologue is shorter and takes place before the opening title sequence.
No actual announcer. Colbert himself announces the guests during the titles.
No more cue cards held up near the camera. Colbert reads from autocue.
No fake microphone prop, no telephone or any other props on the desk.
Pretty much no Letterman specific stuff inherited from the old show. Yet.
As for that last point, time will tell whether any old stuff comes back like the skits with Rupert Jee from the Hello Deli, or whether they
have "Jungle" Jack Hanna bringing zoo animals on stage. It's very unlikely any of that will return, unless viewers want any of it back.
One thing's for certain, the Top Ten lists are history. They're a Letterman exclusive thing right back to the days when he was on NBC.
Last edited by DJGM on 10 September 2015 5:16am - 3 times in total
MS
Supposedly? LOL
I say that because I just find the whole idea odd. Not so much with 'The Late Show' but with 'The Tonight Show' everyone seems to go on about it being an institution. But really, when the presenter changes it surely just becomes an entirely different show. Different production team, different set, different style, different everything. The only thing that's left is the name, and what does that mean at the end of the day? To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld when Johnny left "What everybody didn't realise was that there was no 'Tonight Show' when Johnny left, it became an entirely different show. He packed it up and took it with him". Admittedly though the people who have followed Johnny Carson have kept the format a lot closer to Johnny's original format and mention Johnny's name at every opportunity. But to say that Steve Allen's Tonight show and Conan O'Brien's Tonight Show were the same show is ridiculous.
'The Late Show', 'The Tonight Show' etc are supposedly brands or institutions and the presenter is temporary.
Supposedly? LOL
I say that because I just find the whole idea odd. Not so much with 'The Late Show' but with 'The Tonight Show' everyone seems to go on about it being an institution. But really, when the presenter changes it surely just becomes an entirely different show. Different production team, different set, different style, different everything. The only thing that's left is the name, and what does that mean at the end of the day? To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld when Johnny left "What everybody didn't realise was that there was no 'Tonight Show' when Johnny left, it became an entirely different show. He packed it up and took it with him". Admittedly though the people who have followed Johnny Carson have kept the format a lot closer to Johnny's original format and mention Johnny's name at every opportunity. But to say that Steve Allen's Tonight show and Conan O'Brien's Tonight Show were the same show is ridiculous.
HO
Himself, which is very similar in humour and style but without the absurd/parody right wing views. For example he told Jeb Bush 'there's no way I'd vote for you'
This may have been asked but is Colbert doing this "in character" or just as himself?
Himself, which is very similar in humour and style but without the absurd/parody right wing views. For example he told Jeb Bush 'there's no way I'd vote for you'
HO
My bad - the article I read misquoted it as 'zero chance' not 'non-zero chance'. In reality and in context, though, Stephen was saying it was possible he could vote for Bush as 'you seem like a very reasonable guy who believes that governing is something that the government should do' - that's a much more honest and serious/non-parody thing for him to say compared to his Report-alter ego.
A lot has been made in the media in the last few days about Colbert's ratings dropping below Fallon's after the first show, but I can think of a couple of important points many commentators have missed:
* Fallon's 'Tonight' is a re-branded version of his 'Late Night' - a programme with a good audience but also, crucially, a well rehearsed format and production. The vast majority of the 'Late Show' production staff moved with Colbert from Comedy Central, so they too are new to this format and it will take the writing staff a lot longer than it did Fallon's team to find consistently funny, recurring skits. I'd also suggest Colbert's writers could be hit-and-miss on the Report, and some of the funniest moments tended to be ad-libbed.
* Fallon's debut was watched by many millions more viewers than Colbert's, yet the difference between them typically is in the thousands. So it's plausible more people will find Colbert over time and stick with him.
* Stephen's 'Report' was much more of a niche show, and it is from that his profile has been built. It may take a long time for people who were turned off by such an overtly-political show to try him out in this more populist venue.
* Colbert's Late Show audience is already considerably up on his Report days.
And for those who find Colbert unfunny, try his CC replacement Larry Willmore. Willmore could occasionally be seen in relatively funny (but forgettable) skits on the Daily Show, but in hosting his own show it's become clear the comedy was from the interaction with Jon Stewart rather than Willmore himself. Whereas I have high hopes for Trevor Noah, whose Stand-up can be hilarious.
As for CBS - do you really need a geofence on your YouTube page? What on earth is the business argument for blocking most of the world from seeing clips of a show in a country where it isn't broadcast?!
He said there was a non-zero chance he'd vote for him, which means the exact opposite.
My bad - the article I read misquoted it as 'zero chance' not 'non-zero chance'. In reality and in context, though, Stephen was saying it was possible he could vote for Bush as 'you seem like a very reasonable guy who believes that governing is something that the government should do' - that's a much more honest and serious/non-parody thing for him to say compared to his Report-alter ego.
A lot has been made in the media in the last few days about Colbert's ratings dropping below Fallon's after the first show, but I can think of a couple of important points many commentators have missed:
* Fallon's 'Tonight' is a re-branded version of his 'Late Night' - a programme with a good audience but also, crucially, a well rehearsed format and production. The vast majority of the 'Late Show' production staff moved with Colbert from Comedy Central, so they too are new to this format and it will take the writing staff a lot longer than it did Fallon's team to find consistently funny, recurring skits. I'd also suggest Colbert's writers could be hit-and-miss on the Report, and some of the funniest moments tended to be ad-libbed.
* Fallon's debut was watched by many millions more viewers than Colbert's, yet the difference between them typically is in the thousands. So it's plausible more people will find Colbert over time and stick with him.
* Stephen's 'Report' was much more of a niche show, and it is from that his profile has been built. It may take a long time for people who were turned off by such an overtly-political show to try him out in this more populist venue.
* Colbert's Late Show audience is already considerably up on his Report days.
And for those who find Colbert unfunny, try his CC replacement Larry Willmore. Willmore could occasionally be seen in relatively funny (but forgettable) skits on the Daily Show, but in hosting his own show it's become clear the comedy was from the interaction with Jon Stewart rather than Willmore himself. Whereas I have high hopes for Trevor Noah, whose Stand-up can be hilarious.
As for CBS - do you really need a geofence on your YouTube page? What on earth is the business argument for blocking most of the world from seeing clips of a show in a country where it isn't broadcast?!