Great Colbert profile
October 17, 2006 1:52 PM   Subscribe

A great Stephen Colbert profile. "It’s been a very good year for Stephen Colbert because it’s witnessed the birth of the Colbertocracy. We’re just voting in it."
posted by js003 (69 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
Colbert? Isn’t that a kind of French cheese?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:01 PM on October 17, 2006


Close. It's butter creamed with parsley and tarragon and beef extract.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 2:07 PM on October 17, 2006


I love how in the Colbert Green Screen Challenge a fan named George L took second place.
posted by ernie at 2:16 PM on October 17, 2006


Is it just me, or do other folks find Colbert just plain irritating and nowhere near as smart or funny as Jon Stewart?

Feel free to be the first to tell me that "it's just me", I'm used to being out in the cold by myself!
posted by HuronBob at 2:21 PM on October 17, 2006


Colbert is the funniest sh*t on TV. No Barry Manilow but...
posted by los pijamas del gato at 2:22 PM on October 17, 2006



Is it just me, or do other folks find Colbert just plain irritating and nowhere near as smart or funny as Jon Stewart?

He flubs his delivery more than Stewart, but on the whole I find him funnier.
posted by juv3nal at 2:27 PM on October 17, 2006


Everytime I watch the show, I'm like "Don't you rehearse?"

However, it's consistently funnier that the Daily Show.
posted by empath at 2:28 PM on October 17, 2006


Is it just me, or do other folks find Colbert just plain irritating and nowhere near as smart or funny as Jon Stewart?

Some friends and I were debating this the other day since we felt the same way when the show first aired. It seemed like a too-long skit or segment. The writers have gotten their sea legs in the time since and now I regularly catch episodes that nearly eclipse TDS (depending on the guests).

I also remember thinking back to when Jon replaced Kilborn and realized I felt the same way back then - for about a month. Now its Craig who?

posted by ernie at 2:28 PM on October 17, 2006 [1 favorite]


The interviews are often top-notch, agreed.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:31 PM on October 17, 2006


I think The Colbert Report has improved significantly as time went on. My #1 complaint at the beginning was that the interview was too much about him, and not enough of the guest. They were also excessively unkind; No matter what you think about the guest, or the needs of your character, some level of respect should be given. The interviews have gotten much much better, but still I think can border on painful to watch on occasion. The Word segment is very often extremely funny.

Overall, I think it is pretty brilliant comedy and satire.
posted by Bovine Love at 2:35 PM on October 17, 2006


Thanks for the read. Colbert is definitely a top satirist and it's nice to see an American show with so many classic moments and bits inside of a year, in comedy to boot.

I loved his response (YouTube) to the Tom Delay video rip off.
posted by juiceCake at 2:37 PM on October 17, 2006


He flubs his delivery more than Stewart, but on the whole I find him funnier.

Ya think? But with Stephen's straight-faced delivery rather than Jon's casual style, Stephen's flubs stand out a lot more -- kinda like Kevin Nealon vs. Dennis Miller on SNL's Weekend Update. Doesn't matter so much if the casual guy screws up.

I really didn't think that a one-trick pony -- parody of the O'Reilly Factor -- could last more than a couple shows, but it's still one of the most consistently funny shows on TV.

Rock on, Stephen!
posted by LordSludge at 2:37 PM on October 17, 2006


Yeah, Colbert changed what wasn't working and now his show is funnier, and more insightful, than John Stewart's. Which is saying a lot.
posted by bardic at 2:47 PM on October 17, 2006


Colbert profiles/intervies always turn into him just explaing the joke at length and doing his best to explain how he's not his character. It's disappointing.
posted by xmutex at 2:49 PM on October 17, 2006


“What you wish to be true is all that matters, regardless of the facts.”

Amazing the amount of iteration that this core idea can have. It’s as far reaching as the seed that became the internets. And just as reality-changing. There is no better tool to counteract the gross mischaracterizations and lies of politicians than satire and farce.

“the other half will think, Yes! Yes! Of course! Colbert’s a Tolkien nut! because they worship Stephen Tyrone Colbert and know everything about him.”

Or perhaps enjoy a mind both flexible enough for fantasy and coherent enough to produce more than shallow insensate knee jerk aphorisms bolstered only by mid-sentence punctuation such as “Tolkien nut!” But y’know, fantasy and sci-fi! really, um, float my boat.

The most important thing to realize about Colbert, the most crucial thing, the thing that the people commenting (from whatever side) on his speech at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner didn’t get because they are cursed with myopia by their perspectives, the thing is that he very obviously takes comedy very very seriously.
And indeed, comedy is far too important not to take seriously.

What is poignant about the Colbert and differentiates him from the commentators (beyond the live turtle in the mud/stuffed animal in the halls of power comparisons) is that he (and his followers) take the large matters lightly and the details seriously. Which is as it should be. Wikipedia, online polls, and the like, are small in the scheme of things, but they parody the chaotic and corrosive effect O’Reilly and other mediots (media-idiots) have on reality.
The exposition of that is why we laugh.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:58 PM on October 17, 2006


I have warmed to Colbert but at this point only The Daily Show is must-see-tv to me. Stewart yesterday on Harry Reid's land deal controversy: "Obsolete Power Corrupts Obsoletely"
posted by vito90 at 3:01 PM on October 17, 2006


Yay for the internet providing this free.
I came close to buying it a couple of times.
Awesome article.
posted by Busithoth at 3:07 PM on October 17, 2006


I'm not sure whether Colbert has improved or Stewart has gotten worse.

(Keeping in mind that I never watch the interviews on either, unless it's one of a very few people.)
posted by smackfu at 3:08 PM on October 17, 2006


Is it just me, or do other folks find Colbert just plain irritating and nowhere near as smart or funny as Jon Stewart?

I think part of it is also being in the right mode for each of them - Jon has that easy going, regular guy thing going on, like he could be your smart-ass friend. But with Colbert it feels like you really have to sort of buy into the whole premise before it's gonna work; his persona seems more complicated somehow, not just in terms of playing a character, but the range of emotional levels that are intertwined. He seems to be expressive, and he doesn't usually hold back - which I thought at first would be too overwhelming to have a show built around, but they manage to mix it up enough in general that it seems to work. Including references to the past (like the charlene video) or having thematic shows has been a good technique... And their connecting to viewers stuff (like the green screen or jew hotline things) has been very cool, and even more, so well done - to have George L get second place was genius...

basically I find them both utterly brilliant at times, and then disappointing other times, but that's comedy for you (esp since the parts I found disappointing could be what other people like best - so subjective). The good stuff is so good that I am still willing to let the less ideal bits slide off.
posted by mdn at 3:15 PM on October 17, 2006


"I'm not sure whether Colbert has improved or Stewart has gotten worse."

TDS "Seat of Heat" sucks copious amounts of ass, that's for sure.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:20 PM on October 17, 2006


The article mentions the difficulty TDS has with correspondents leaving the show. They've done a pretty good job replacing them-- the guy with the British accent and Mr. Samantha Bee are both funny-- but I want to know whatever became of Vance Degeneres. His deadpan TV guy voice was great, and he left the show before it took off.
posted by ibmcginty at 3:25 PM on October 17, 2006


I think Colbert is a master improviser - watching his interviews is always a treat. And yes: he does take his comedy very seriously. They've really tightened the concept of the show. I mean really: he had a segment called 'Cooking with Feminists' where he baked a pie with Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda wearing aprons! The levels of meta make my head hurt.

There's a certain viciousness I like in Colbert. He seems more edged and angry. More pent up.
posted by ao4047 at 3:34 PM on October 17, 2006


the seat of heat seems as awkward as the "5 questions" that Jon did for the first week of tapings post-Kilborn. I don't know why they added it. maybe they spent a lot of money on that effect (fitted into budget after an emmy's win?)

I like both for different reasons. And they're shared airtime is an amazing piece of collaborative fun-ny.
posted by Busithoth at 3:35 PM on October 17, 2006


Yeah, the Seat of Heat thing is weak. It just smacks of some producer saying "This incredible successful mix we've had for the last few years needs something new... I know, a cheesy graphic and pointless waste of the last minute of the interview. Brilliant!"

That said, I still like TDS more, but I do appreciate Colbert's constant and shameless self aggrandizing and self promotion. At first it really got under my skin, but now it's reached a sort of self-sustaining humor for me.

I think it was the bridge thing that did it.
posted by quin at 3:38 PM on October 17, 2006


TDS "Seat of Heat" sucks copious amounts of ass, that's for sure.

Except for the first one I saw, which had Bill Clinton facing the one question, and Jon says something like: "Your wife is thinking about running for President. What's the surest way to beat her?"
Clinton looked stunned at such an original question, then started busting a gut, then finally came back with: "get more votes, of course."

That rocked.

I'm warming to Colbert too after thinking it was a one joke show.

The magazine's attempt to equate Coulter and Colbert is completely idiotic though. Yes they are both "playing characters" but Colbert is playing a demagogue to lampoon demagogues. Coulter is just kissing up to demagogue-lovers. I mean, hello? Not an insignificant difference.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:52 PM on October 17, 2006


Colbert is funny less often than Stewart, but when he is it is hilarious and the kind of thing you remember. Getting invited to the press corps dinner was a master stroke and he made full use of it. I've rarely laughed as hard as I did watching Cooking with Feminists.
posted by Manjusri at 3:55 PM on October 17, 2006


Thanks for posting this. Colbert is brilliant, he's also gaining some celebrity fans (Youtube)....I admit, I haven't looked that hard but until this interview I never realised Neil Young had a sense of humour.

The 'Colbert Nation' the article refers to is one of the great aspects of the show. Just having a look at the 'Wikipedia in Popular Culture' entry makes for entertaining reading.
posted by DOUBLE A SIDE at 4:05 PM on October 17, 2006


Colbert's interviews are always his greatest weakness, but I think that's mainly because so few of his guests know how to talk to him. Richard Dawkins is on tonight. Being an argumentative chap, and certainly in on the joke, it could prove to be a rare hit (as far as his interviews go).
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:07 PM on October 17, 2006


Colbert started off pretty weak, but I think he's gotten much better as he's gotten more confident. You can see it in his delivery--he's less nervous and it really shows. Give him a year and he'll be absolutely brilliant.
posted by EarBucket at 4:12 PM on October 17, 2006


Colbert's interviews are always his greatest weakness, but I think that's mainly because so few of his guests know how to talk to him.

I don't know. Certainly the formal interviews sometimes suck, but Stephen's lobbing of softballs to his occasional interviews of politicians are revelatory, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, in that the objects often don't know how to field the very obvious talking points he's tossing. That they would reach the level they have and be clueless about the opposition's weapons is remarkable. His puckishness during these interviews is lost on them. (I'm assuming that the editing isn't so extreme as to render these judgments totally false.)
posted by Mental Wimp at 4:16 PM on October 17, 2006


Oh, and just out of curiosity, why does the FPP link to the second page of the article? The first page is pretty interesting as well.
posted by quin at 4:18 PM on October 17, 2006




The thing about Colbert's show is it's a balancing act so difficult to pull off -- keeping up that character alone and responding in character to what the guest says, much less the various bits -- and Colbert, unlike Stewart who has correspondants and can play the straight man, basically has to carry the show himself. He does fuck up his delivery sometimes but honestly, I'm amazed the show has carried that weight so well. In a way it's one of the most brilliant things ever put on television, part Ali G, part Nabokov, in not only its verbal inventiveness but its parallel layers of reality and play. In a world where nothing seems real anymore, the show furthest removed from reality actually presents the clearest picture of it.
posted by bukharin at 4:39 PM on October 17, 2006 [1 favorite]


A Colbert post that's not mine? Good to hear from the nation!

he's probably a better at the improv because that is where his training is from. All in all, I like it better than the daily show, which I think has kind of slid. I think the seat of heat is just a way to squeeze in one more commercial break.
posted by absalom at 4:41 PM on October 17, 2006


Interesting article - good post.

Personally I find Colbert a bit more hit and miss (with the Daily Show being more even, episode to episode) but when the Repórt hits, it really hits.

As other have noted, Colbert's comedy is quite different from Stewart's wisecracking, none-too-serious manner, in that it seems far more biting and angry in tone.

I find the 2 shows actually compliment each other back-to-back quite well.

And that presidential dinner speech is still MIGHTY - even after time has passed - a bit of shock and awe brought home to roost!
posted by stumcg at 4:50 PM on October 17, 2006


Personally, I prefer TDS. I don't like the Colbert persona played--it's just too much sarcasm. Sarcasm's easy, start talking on fixing the problem. But maybe it's me, and the fact that I've seen more of Stewart outside of the show and his obvious concern for The Way Things Are Headed.

I did think the press corps thing was brilliant (how on earth did he get invited, though?). But, Jon isn't playing a character, not much anyway. Colbert is, and I don't like that as much, I think. I know TDS is not necessarily "insightful", but aping people doesn't strike me, personally, as quite as funny.
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 4:52 PM on October 17, 2006


bukharin writes In a world where nothing seems real anymore, the show furthest removed from reality actually presents the clearest picture of it.

Wish I could have phrased it that way. And I wonder if that's the inverse to America's current obssesion with "reality" television. What's presented as the most "real" is always the most removed from reality. The shows are scripted, everything is staged, etc. Mark Crispin Miller would be proud of us.
posted by bardic at 4:52 PM on October 17, 2006


.
posted by bardic at 5:00 PM on October 17, 2006



I saw MCM give a very good lecture in the East Village a couple years ago.

The Daily Show withdrew for a few months, I think, to let Colbert do his thing and take the lead, and I noticed during that time the first half of TDS really lacking in inventiveness, especially Stewart's jokes, and now it seems like they've switched again, that Colbert is pulling back and letting Stewart step up, and TDS is getting really inventive. Both shows are really cutting edge in terms of their use of set design and editing, they've turned that shit into an art.
posted by bukharin at 5:04 PM on October 17, 2006


Colbert and Stewart are tough to compare. They worked so well on the Daily Show together because they were so different.

Stewart is a tank... he's consistently good from segment to segment. Colbert always seems to shoot for the moon, so he often comes up short. But when he hits...

If you've ever seen his first comedy central show, Strangers With Candy, you'll see it's still the same Colbert. SWC was always teetering on the edge of cheesy or bad-taste or just plain dumb ... yet each episode always had a few scenes that absolutely killed.

Love 'em both.
posted by YaoPau at 5:11 PM on October 17, 2006


No doubt about it, Colbert is definintely more liberal than Center Stewie.

And he has all sorts of manic Pee-Wee detail. For example, on his bookshelf he has both a Chocolate portrait of Viggo Mortensen and a copy of Elie Wiesel's Night is duct-taped between the fiction and non-fiction section of his "book" section.
posted by DenOfSizer at 5:15 PM on October 17, 2006 [1 favorite]


Love Colbert. My daughter and I Ti-Faux every episode. We are definitely right of center, but heck, funny is funny.
posted by The Deej at 5:29 PM on October 17, 2006


Comparing Stewart and Colbert is somewhat inappropriate.

Colbert is simultaneously playing a role and delivering jokes as the character he inhabits, while Stewart is delivering jokes as himself. That means Stewart will flub significantly less often, and he will generally recover more gracefully, because he only has the opportunity to flub the delivery of the jokes; Colbert has to handle his joke delivery flubs without breaking character, and breaking character in any form itself counts as an additional flub opportunity.

My intent is not to demean Stewart's talent, as "being yourself" successfully on television requires talent, skill and a certain amount of "it" factor; rather, I mean to point out that Colbert's job is likely harder to pull off for an extended period of time.
posted by davejay at 5:37 PM on October 17, 2006


I TiVo both shows, and like them very much, but to be completely honest I often fast-forward through the both the interview sections. They just aren't Stewart's strong point, as others have said, and I find Colbert's in-character interviews extremely difficult to watch. They make me almost physically uncomfortable, which I suppose is part of the joke, but it's just not for me.

As an aside, does it seem to anyone else like the interview section is taking up a much larger chunk of The Daily Show than it used to? Is this just because of the Seat of Heat (which I agree is lame)?
posted by miskatonic at 5:38 PM on October 17, 2006


the seat of heat seems as awkward as the "5 questions" that Jon did for the first week of tapings post-Kilborn.

*shudder*

Kilborn was offensively untalented. I had no idea that JS was even intended to be a replacement until I was told much later, having missed his start. It was like being given a BMW instead of your rusty bike.

Scratch that. It was like being given a BMW instead of a punch to the head.

Colbert... I like Colbert, but it's hard to relax and enjoy his comedy. He's high energy, like Dennis Miller, but likeable.
posted by dreamsign at 5:41 PM on October 17, 2006


I've loved Colbert ever since this total meltdown (starts at about 3:45. Oh, and YouTube.)

I guess that's why I don't mind his flubs. He recovers well, but I'm looking foward to the next time he really, Really, REALLY doesn't.
posted by Cyrano at 5:44 PM on October 17, 2006


Agreed, some of Colbert's interviews are hard to watch. I think it entirely depends on the guest's ability to play "straight-man" and let Colbert do his thing. That's why Woz's interview was cringe-worthy; he didn't play by the rules.

Our governor was on a few days ago (Schweitzer from Montana) and I thought it was pretty good, although I was expecting it to be terrible. The ability to just laugh at Colbert's outrageous statements and not try to top them or add to them seems to be the key to a "good" interview.
posted by The Deej at 5:49 PM on October 17, 2006


10:00 PM news gives me nightmares. I catch the Daily Show & Colbert. Nightly. Comedy Central Rules, especially when Lewis Black makes an appearance. Black for Pres.
posted by winks007 at 5:55 PM on October 17, 2006


Colbert's show works best as a critique of Right wing pundit journalism, and as such aims (and usually hits) a smaller target within the larger morass of news media.

But his ironic conservatism sometimes gets in the way of dealing directly with poltical subjects. Did anyone see his pie-baking interview with Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem? The awkwardness of the whole thing was kind of remarkable, but substantative discussion was pretty much impossible during the segment. I've noticed this problem with other interviews, and it seems like this limitation is a pretty unavoidable drawback of Colbert's approach. He can pretty easily point out right-wing distortions and rhetorical tricks, but it is more difficult for him to deal as subtantively as Stewart with the issues themselves.

(And I agree with everyone that the "seat of heat" indeed sucks. As if Stewart needs to issue a special apology for asking a single tough question at the end of an interview).
posted by washburn at 5:57 PM on October 17, 2006


Certainly the formal interviews sometimes suck, but Stephen's lobbing of softballs to his occasional interviews of politicians are revelatory, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, in that the objects often don't know how to field the very obvious talking points he's tossing. That they would reach the level they have and be clueless about the opposition's weapons is remarkable. His puckishness during these interviews is lost on them. (I'm assuming that the editing isn't so extreme as to render these judgments totally false.)

Having actually attended a viewing of The Colbert Report (on his birthday, no less!), I can assure you that not only is the editing gentle at MOST, but also that what we saw what what you got that night: the editing is basically pre-done and shown in real-time on monitors inside the studio, and everything, down to the breaks between acts, was timed just like it would be on TV four hours later.
posted by DoctorFedora at 6:13 PM on October 17, 2006


yes, the cooking with feminists bit was hilarious. The whole "tribute to the american lady" was a great set up.

Interviews do seem kind of hit or miss - I love some of the randomness of the congressional interviews, and occasionally that kind of thing comes through in the guest interviews, but too commonly the guests don't know how to play the game, or the best way to play it is to just give straight answers, but in a 6 minute format, they often don't get deep, so it's kinda meh - the only joke ends up being a couple obvious parodies of dumb media/ right wing questions, which isn't enough of a joke to do every night. To my memory the best interviews have either been heavily edited (like the congresspeople ones) or set up (stone philips, the "he's not that into you" guy, al franken). The absolute worst are when the guest tries to be satirical too.

There's a certain viciousness I like in Colbert. He seems more edged and angry. More pent up.

I agree, but I don't think it's all anger - there's just more emotional energy in it altogether, on a lot of different levels, it seems to me. As said above, he takes comedy seriously - that was well put, "he takes the large matters lightly and the details seriously" - which I totally agree is key. he's definitely sometimes just straightforwardly funny / silly but still there is a kind of philosophical residue in a lot of his stuff, which makes it more intense, in a way.

I've always liked jon stewart (ever since the leather jacket & the coffee table) - he always seemed to be from the same kind of world I was from, and good at the banter. Colbert was obviously talented from the get-go, but I think part of what made him particularly appealing was kind of the reverse of stewart's accessible persona - he seems to have a bit of a dark side. I dunno how true it is, but I think my inner angsty teenager thinks he understands alienation in just the right sort of life affirming, light-hearted-but-not-oblivious way.
posted by mdn at 6:31 PM on October 17, 2006


Anyone who missed it really needs to follow Cyrano's link. These guys may be masters of their craft, but when they train-wreck, it is a real thing of beauty.

It's kind of amazing, because I really don't find myself laughing at them, I'm laughing with and because of them. That is their talent. And I also look forward to the day that he derails and isn't able to recover, not that I wish him a bad show, but his laughter is so damn infectious.
posted by quin at 7:00 PM on October 17, 2006


Ti-Faux

Fantastic. Thanks for the awesome addition to my vocab, The Deej.
posted by Kwine at 7:15 PM on October 17, 2006


I <3 Colby.
posted by The God Complex at 7:44 PM on October 17, 2006


Kwine,
You're welcome. :)

I got tired of saying "record on my DVR" and its related phrases, since it's just cable company DVR, not a real Tivo. So Ti-Faux it is. You heard it here first.
posted by The Deej at 7:52 PM on October 17, 2006


Even more than Colbert, you want to know who's a funny motherfucker?

Steve Carrell.
posted by jayder at 7:59 PM on October 17, 2006


Colbert is to Stewart as O'Brien is to Letterman.
posted by MegoSteve at 8:23 PM on October 17, 2006


It's "Carell" actually.

Here is a link to the "Best of Even Stevphen", from The Daily Show's Ten F$#cking Years specials they've been showing. It should satisfy both the Carell and Colbert types ;)

This short clip is one of my favorite clips from Colbert on TDS. It shows his goofier "Crazy Stone Phillips" side.

And this is the funny "Charlene (I'm Right Behind You)" video. I think the weird pathos of the "Stephen Colbert" character on his show is what makes him, ultimately, so satisfying as a character. Sure, all the painfully heartfelt high-status idiocy is funny, but they have all these funny on-going jokes, such as his obsession with his ex, Charlene, that really make the show work.
posted by The God Complex at 9:22 PM on October 17, 2006


Strangely enough, I think in general Colbert is more consistently funny (the Word is alwys amazing) but that Stewart has more flexibility to be simply scathing when he needs to. But then again, that comes from a liberal view that knows that simply stating things as they are can often be more shocking than satirizing the opposition.

I also like what Colbert does with his guests more, if only because, by now, they seem to know that they're playing around, whereas TDS has moved towards more of a late nite show pitch-your-movie format with their couch. But when Stewart gets confrontational with his guests, it's a thing to behold.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:35 PM on October 17, 2006


You know what would be really excellent? A three hour block of TV starting with Stewart moving to Colbert then Letterman then O'Brien. (O'Brien goes last because he is just the weirdest one.) But, only if the execs really let them all go nuts. I mean really nuts. Let them do whatever the thell they want to do. Maybe through in a little Paul Reubens for good measure.

That would be must see TV.
posted by oddman at 9:53 PM on October 17, 2006


"Kilborn was offensively untalented."

Worse - he didn't show Lemmy due respect and awe.

"Even more than Colbert, you want to know who's a funny motherfucker?
Steve Carrell."

Steve Carell...fucks his mother? My God.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:56 PM on October 17, 2006


Esteban es la Raza!
posted by eegphalanges at 2:07 AM on October 18, 2006


On YouTube there's a really funny Iraq/Afghani invasion interview segment. It involved Stephen in a Hunter S Thompson get-up saying something along the lines of "Civilization is over ... get back into your caves." I can't find it. If anyone finds it please post it. That said, Colbert is genius.
posted by geoff. at 8:52 AM on October 18, 2006


No doubt about it, Colbert is definintely more liberal than Center Stewie.

I think there's a lot of doubt about it. I definitely would have pegged Stewart as "more liberal" (for whatever value such an odd comparison would be worth) -- and this article only reinforced that (the White House dinner notwithstanding).
posted by pardonyou? at 11:19 AM on October 18, 2006


Late to the party but here's my take: never bet against America. (I'm Canadian.) As bad as things are in the U.S. right now there will always be an irrespressable core of intelligence and greatness that will triumph.

/did I just say that? Yes I did.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 12:19 PM on October 18, 2006


...and that would be "irrepressible"
posted by Turtles all the way down at 12:21 PM on October 18, 2006


I like "irrespressable" for its "irresponsible" cross-reading. I vote yes for "irrespressable" in all its forms. Thanks, Turtles all the way down.
posted by cgc373 at 1:06 PM on October 18, 2006


I am here to serve, cgc.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 5:15 PM on October 18, 2006


Colbert has recently changed character: He no longer plays a right-wing "O'Reilly-type," but a more libertarian character. His character, for instance, now bashes the Bush/GOP directly and harshly.

Colbert continues to prank polls. It will be interesting to see if He works his way into pranking the political system directly.

The thing with Colbert's interviews is this: they can't work if He (the person) agrees with the guy across the table because He can't imitate him (the character) if there's nothing to disagree about.

Colbert's single best improvement would be to admit that playing the idiot rightwing loon doesn't work at all well when he actually agrees, and instead just play himself as an intelligent, quick-learning guy who's genuinely interested in getting all the knowledge/ideas he can from his guest.

Also, if Colbert would somehow work a fffish into an episode, I'd be most grateful. Watching Stephen swallow five fresh (gold)fish would be one helluva shoutout, a helluva stunt (can he keep a straight face? not gag? stay in character?), and would basically make my life complete. :-)
posted by five fresh fish at 8:10 PM on October 18, 2006


A big difference is that Stewart will mine the dick-fart-poop-I'm a loser trough if he needs a quick laugh. Also, has a "real" host, he spends much of the show laughing at stuff around him.

Especially after viewing that cooking with the feminists piece, you see how much a comic genius Colbert is.
posted by skepticallypleased at 3:02 PM on October 21, 2006


« Older Kira Salak   |   China may back coup against Kim Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments