|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 11, 2017 15:36:43 GMT -8
Colbert's ratings have consistently beaten Fallon's over the last few months, although Fallon maintains a narrow lead in the 18-to-49 demographic. And yes, he did get a ratings spike after the "holster" joke. I'd probably be lying if I called that a coincidence.
If he doesn't clean up his act soon, I may just avoid watching the Emmys this year.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 11, 2017 15:43:27 GMT -8
(My apologies for taking this thread was off-track, but...)
When you say "mean-spirited", are you primarily referring to his treatment of Trump, or Republicans/right-wing voters in general? I just read a Hollywood Reporter article about Colbert where he said he tries not to bring anger to the stage, but in the few moments I've caught his show in recent months, his anger is very apparent.
But, to be honest, I'm still angry, and I'm freakin' Canadian.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 11, 2017 16:04:46 GMT -8
When you say "mean-spirited", are you primarily referring to his treatment of Trump, or Republicans/right-wing voters in general? More the latter. Trump is an easy comedic target, and he deserves a lot of the scorn heaped on him, so I don't mind when late-night hosts go after him (so long as they're actually funny in doing so). I do take issue with the way they constantly belittle Republican politicians and conservative voters, since that only swells egos on the left and antagonizes the right. But that was an issue long before Trump came around. Although I didn't vote for Trump, and harshly criticized him during the campaign, I still maintain that he was only marginally worse than Hillary Clinton, and I can't entirely fault people who voted for him in order to keep her out of the White House. (We could probably move this discussion to a different thread, since it's been plenty derailed already. Assuming you folks want to continue it elsewhere.)
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Jun 11, 2017 19:18:57 GMT -8
Colbert's ratings have been beating Fallon's since Trump's inauguration, more or less, because Fallon is incapable of political comedy. (I mean, he's incapable of comedy, period, but that hasn't stopped him.)
And Jer, I take umbrage at you not including Meyers on that list. He's actually quite funny.
(EDIT: Oh, duh, there was a page 2 on this thread. But I got to insult Jimmy Fallon so all is well.)
|
|
|
Doctor Who
Jun 11, 2017 19:37:07 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 11, 2017 19:37:07 GMT -8
I won't continue this line of discussion beyond this comment...
While we can debate and speculate to what to degree this or that politician is given to corruption (and much of it is speculation, on both sides), Clinton is still far more mature, intelligent, and capable of thoughtful reflection and diplomacy than Trump could ever hope to be. The debates alone made that abundantly clear. She is an adult, he is a manchild, and a complete and utter embarassment to the United States.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 11, 2017 20:20:08 GMT -8
Quiara: I like Meyers' "Closer Look" segments, but the rest of his show is fairly pedestrian (and at times less funny than harsh). I think Fallon is good for a few laughs, even if his sense of humor is rather immature. (And even if I want to punch him super hard for his obnoxious performance in Whip It.)
J.C.: I won't draw out this conversation either, since I know how much of a powder keg the topic can be. I'll just say that while I agree that Clinton is more intelligent and diplomatic than Trump, those are not necessarily good qualities if they're used for immoral and illegal purposes. (I also don't think she was all that compelling in the debates, particularly the one which occurred immediately after the Access Hollywood tape was leaked, and she completely failed to take Trump to task over it.) Combine this with the fact that she is a far-left politician who has rarely if ever shown any concern for conservative/religious values and whose campaign mission statement was to double down on Obama's anti-conservative policies, and I really can't blame half the country for hating her.
I've actually been reading a new book called "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign," which tracks her 2016 Presidential bid and explains how she was her own biggest obstacle during the election. (To add insult to injury, the book is written by a couple of her supporters, who followed her along throughout the campaign.) I don't know if it will change your opinion any, but it's a pretty eye-opening read.
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Jun 11, 2017 21:10:12 GMT -8
I'll just say that I believe we're in the predicament we're in now because of Clinton's hubris and power-hunger, and because all the Democrats with any real power let her get away with it. Continuing to defend her dead weight does not do us any favors. Now that her political career is finished, we finally have a chance to be rid of her forever, and I'm not the least bit hesitant to take it.
|
|
|
Doctor Who
Jun 11, 2017 21:43:16 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 11, 2017 21:43:16 GMT -8
Jeremy, you do realize that Clinton recited scripture in her speech to her supporters the morning after the election? I seriously doubt she's quite as far-left as you think she is. She's certainly not anti-religion. LOL. As to not taking Trump to task enough over the Access Hollywood tapes, there's a line of thought there that if she'd gone full-bore on that, no matter how in the right she'd have been to do so, she'd have come across as too much of a bully. Which is sad, but given how many on the Right considered his comments harmless "locker-room talk"...*sigh*.
Regardless, hating someone for being against religion is as ignorant as hating someone for being for it. I don't, personally, see the appeal of any religion. But if someone wants to practice a religion, that's their business, and as long as they're not trying to force it on me, who cares? But, you know, those folks can go ahead and hate me, because I'm certain I'm way more far-left than Clinton could ever hope to be. I don't hate them, though: I'm totally indifferent to their (the haters', not all religious folks') existence, just as I'm utterly indifferent to whatever mystical being they claim to worship.
And don't be fooled into thinking that Trump supports most of the right-wing platforms that he claims to. He's just throwing meat to the base by talking this stuff up. He wants to repeal Obamacare just so he can say he did it. Just so he can brag about it. He doesn't care about anyone but himself and his rich buddies. The only upside to this is that many prominent Republican politicians aren't buying into his BS, and may eventually become so embarassed by his idiotic daily antics that they'll find a way to make him resign. Pence might not be any better for those on the Left, but at least he won't be shooting his mouth off 24/7.
Zarnium - I'm fine with her being out of the picture, though I remain unconvinced that Trump's bigot train wouldn't have steamrolled many other Democratic candidates, including Bernie Sanders.
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Jun 11, 2017 22:12:36 GMT -8
This... would probably be best suited to its own thread, if anyone chooses to continue it. Though I'm rather doubtful anything fruitful would come of it.
|
|
|
Doctor Who
Jun 11, 2017 22:41:06 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 11, 2017 22:41:06 GMT -8
I thought it worth getting up-to-date on where I stand with this stuff. And truth be told, had it been a McCain or Romney in the White House instead of this monstrosity, I doubt I'd be anywhere near as put off by the whole situation.
Though I didn't actually vote for him, I'm generally fine with Canada's Prime Minister. At least his heart seems to be in the right place.
ETA: Just looked up Joss's Twitter account. I expected a much higher proportion of political tweets. It was barely 5% in the past few weeks. Some people in my feed, around 70% of their tweets are Trump-bashing.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 12, 2017 3:42:30 GMT -8
J.C., I don't think Hillary is anti-religion per se, but a lot of her views (including her stances on abortion and sexuality) contrast drastically with those of religious people, and her attempts to reach out to large religious groups (notably Catholics) were minimal at best. I don't know how well another Democrat would have performed in her stead, but I believe most other potential candidates would recognize and respect the demands of religious folks, and would also be more trustworthy. I agree that many of Trump's positions feel fraudulent, and since taking office, his own attempts to connect with religious groups (my fellow Jews included) have been hit-and-miss, but I don't expect that she would have done better in this regard. I think we should move this discussion elsewhere, lest the Whovians feel intimidated. Edit: Ta-da!
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Jun 12, 2017 5:23:06 GMT -8
Okay, let's go back to the Who discussion.
"Empress of Mars" was not a good episode! Like wow, even the campy lizard queen was boring. Also, a frame story that went nowhere and a Nardole B-plot that was forgotten about ten minutes into the episode. And Missy didn't even get to snark! Where was the fun in this goofy premise?
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jun 12, 2017 10:40:39 GMT -8
It's a Mark Gatiss episode. My expectations were low. The only good episode he's written was "Cold War", and maybe "The Unquiet Dead". "Sleep No More", "Robot of Sherwood", "The Crimson Horror", "Night Terrors", "Victory of the Daleks", "The Lazarus Experiment", and "The Idiot's Lantern". Not a great track record.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Jun 12, 2017 11:30:53 GMT -8
I love "The Idiot's Lantern" though. I don't know what that says about me.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jun 12, 2017 12:53:15 GMT -8
I love "The Idiot's Lantern" though. I don't know what that says about me. Quite a lot. Do you like "The Bells of Saint John" as well? It's basically "The Idiot's Lantern" step for step, but with better visuals.
|
|