THE BORE

General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: benjipwns on June 21, 2015, 05:08:24 AM

Title: Chris Rock considered hosting The Daily Show for the 2016 Election only
Post by: benjipwns on June 21, 2015, 05:08:24 AM
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/18/8806755/chris-rock-daily-show
Snipped from a larger NYT profile on Comedy Central: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/magazine/comedy-central-in-the-post-tv-era.html
Quote
Comedy Central contemplated hiring several bigger stars. The network made a call to Amy Poehler, for instance, to gauge her interest. (As someone outside the company with knowledge of the exchange put it, "They were pretty much expecting her to say no, and it was the quickest no in history.") Chris Rock considered signing on, but not past Nov. 8, 2016: He wanted to cede the desk to a more permanent replacement after the next election. [Head of original programming Kent Alterman] acknowledged that Comedy Central had a lot of conversations with different people," but Noah, who had appeared several times on The Daily Show, was a favorite of Stewart's, and he won the network over. "Trevor's the only person we made an offer to," Alterman said.
Title: Re: Chris Rock considered hosting The Daily Show for the 2016 Election only
Post by: Phoenix Dark on June 21, 2015, 12:54:51 PM
I really get the sense that a lot of people won't give Noah any time to grow into the role. And to be perfectly honest...Stewart has never really been funny and isn't a particularly good host outside of being super likable.
Title: Re: Chris Rock considered hosting The Daily Show for the 2016 Election only
Post by: HyperZoneWasAwesome on June 21, 2015, 01:03:26 PM
Jon Stewart benefited from super-low expectations at the time as well. He was the host of a failed talk show (or was it two of them) and replacing Craig Kilborn only meant he had to beat that smarmy standard bearer.

Now The Daily Show wins awards and crap, Noah has big shoes to fill. He's lucky that Colbert is offline as well (for satire at least) or else he'd look even worse no matter where he begins.
Title: Re: Chris Rock considered hosting The Daily Show for the 2016 Election only
Post by: Himu on June 21, 2015, 01:29:09 PM
Jon Stewart benefited from super-low expectations at the time as well. He was the host of a failed talk show (or was it two of them) and replacing Craig Kilborn only meant he had to beat that smarmy standard bearer.

Now The Daily Show wins awards and crap, Noah has big shoes to fill. He's lucky that Colbert is offline as well (for satire at least) or else he'd look even worse no matter where he begins.

Larry is starting to bring it though. He also has John Oliver and soon, Samantha Bee to compete with.
Title: Re: Chris Rock considered hosting The Daily Show for the 2016 Election only
Post by: Phoenix Dark on June 21, 2015, 01:47:38 PM
I've only seen a couple of Larry's segments, most recently the Charleston stuff. And really wasn't impressed. Seemed like he was wavering between some type of character gimmick while also being himself, and it came off weird.
Title: Re: Chris Rock considered hosting The Daily Show for the 2016 Election only
Post by: Olivia Wilde Homo on June 21, 2015, 02:14:19 PM
Once the 2016 elections are over, Comedy Central will cancel the contracts and just re-air old episodes of South Park.
Title: Re: Chris Rock considered hosting The Daily Show for the 2016 Election only
Post by: Rman on June 21, 2015, 02:38:10 PM
Jon Stewart benefited from super-low expectations at the time as well. He was the host of a failed talk show (or was it two of them) and replacing Craig Kilborn only meant he had to beat that smarmy standard bearer.

Now The Daily Show wins awards and crap, Noah has big shoes to fill. He's lucky that Colbert is offline as well (for satire at least) or else he'd look even worse no matter where he begins.

Yeah. Jon Stewart was a failed comedian when he replaced Kilborn.
Title: Re: Chris Rock considered hosting The Daily Show for the 2016 Election only
Post by: PlayDat on June 21, 2015, 11:58:32 PM
I'm not sure what to make of these "Let's run with one sentence out of a 2000 word story" articles you see a lot on the internet.  It brought my attention to a Times piece I never would have read otherwise, but the attention-grabby headline in the Vox article makes me uncomfortable calling the relationship between the two symbiotic.

Regardless, it's really interesting to see how the networks adapt in the age of streaming.  If I had to guess my own viewing habits (watching one show at a time often years after they've ended, totaling well under a 100 hours of TV a year, almost exclusively online) probably make me worthless to advertisers.