Comparing the two episodes of Join or Die from last night I think emphasizes
Tom's second point. Not only was the expert in the second episode more
effective on the topic (medical advice), but the show explained each of the
examples at the beginning of the episode before the panel started. If that
wasn't enough, the two non-experts on the panel, Chris Hardwick (Talking
Dead/@midnight) and Jordan Carlos (Nightly Show), have experience either being
on panels or hosting them. It's much more coherent than the first episode on
political blunders.
I am arguably the biggest Craig fan on the list, but the criticism about the
show being unfocused and arbitrary is not as bad as it appeared in print. I
think this has a lot to do with Tom's other point, which Craig has carried over
into Join or Die. He does seem focused on having fun with the guests and
having a conversation over any notions of properly weighing each of the six
candidates in an episode. I think the show should drop the notion of dumping
two choices each after the first and second act and just make sure to discuss
all of them in the 22 minutes.
I think it's worth noting that the monologues that open the show are strongly
reminiscent of his Late Late Show monologues. They are a bit more focused, but
the delivery and sense of whimsy are there in full.
History is apparently premiering a slate of programs in a similar vein to Join
or Die, that is slightly askew examinations of historical topics. What little
I've seen of the shows suggests they are more expensive than Join or Die
(unless Craig is getting a lot of $).
David
From: Tom Wolper <[email protected]>
To: TV or not TV <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] The Late Show with that Scottish Conan Guy
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:06 PM, 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hmm. Well, if the general problem described here isn't managed better by
episode 6, the remainder of the 22 episodes may be burned off early Saturday
mornings. Variety seems to be of a similar opinion as THR:
http://variety.com/2016/tv/reviews/join-or-die-with-craig-ferguson-review-history-channel-1201706475/
Wilmore and his staff eventually tightened up The Nightly Show panels, but they
had the benefit of early feedback on shows. I also think they didn't suffer
from the same kind of topic problem that Join or Die seems to have.
When I first saw Celebrity Name Game I was disappointed and figured it would
quietly go away. I don't watch whole episodes now, only snippets when other
shows are in commercial break, but it seems like Craig is bringing more energy
and focusing the show on having fun with guests rather than managing a serious
competition. As long as the show is cheap enough to make, I think the History
Channel will keep it going and let it develop.
Also it seems a weakness in the early shows submitted to reviewers that the
expert on the panel isn't necessarily qualified. It may be the case in the
future that they can recruit better experts when they have a track record.
--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
