Sean Spicer wanted to ‘poke a little fun at myself’ at the Emmys. But what was the joke? http://wapo.st/2x9ZsQU
Sean Spicer says he ‘absolutely’ regrets crowd-size briefing http://wapo.st/2yah5wz Not sent from an iPhone. On Sep 18, 2017, 3:32 PM, at 3:32 PM, Steve Timko <[email protected]> wrote: >I call foul mixing news and entertainment. Spicer was a nice comic >surprise for an entertainment show >I saw the beginning and caught a couple of clips on the app. Kudos to >Alec Baldwin for keeping it short and relatively apolitical. Colbert's >opening bit was good but predictable. I will watch the Thanksgiving >episode of Master of None again. It wasn't in my top three for the >season. >Not sent from an iPhone. > >On Sep 18, 2017, 1:10 PM, at 1:10 PM, "Kevin M." ><[email protected]> wrote: >>On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:00 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I am not sure how much of an olive branch it was - the short but >>mildly >>> made fun of him, and Colbert later followed with a barbed negative >>quip. >>> Also, probably can't really put "Hollywood " or network tv in role >of >>> opposition to the GOP (Though I think all right-minded folks will >>claim >>> opposition to Trumpism). >>> >>> But yeah - normalizing people like Spicer, and giving him a chance >to >>> lamely rehab himself through self-deprecating humor, kind of sucks. >>Just >>> doesn't break the top 20 things about the national scene that sucks >>for me >>> in the apocalypse... >>> >> >>It doesn't affect me since I wasn't gonna watch regardless, but it is >>the >>normalizing (to borrow your word) of the mediocre, normalizing of the >>stupid, normalizing of the insane that led us to this apocalypse. >First >>Amendment says we don't censor free speech; it does not say we give >>airtime >>to people or ideas that we know are injurious to America. Spicer on >the >>Emmys is only a small (but high profile) example. Everyday the media >>reports the volume of huge lies emminating from this administration, >>but >>that same media can't wait to hand anybody from the White House a >>microphone. When somebody lies to me repeatedly and insults me >>repeatedly >>and even threatens me repeatedly, I don't keep welcoming them into my >>house >>with open arms. >> >>Hopping off my soapbox now... for now. >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:32 AM Kevin M. <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:54 AM M-D November <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The "hype man" (not an entirely inaccurate description, based on >>how he >>>>> filled the role) was Jermaine Fowler, of the CBS series "Superior >>Donuts". >>>>> He was there filling the role of "obligatory representative from a >>>>> non-nominated network show mucking about in the backstage area", >as >>well as >>>>> serving as the official VO person for the evening. I feel like >>this has >>>>> been done better in past years (I want to say CBS used NCIS's >>Pauley >>>>> Perrette in this role in a previous Emmycast); personally, I would >>have >>>>> preferred the use of a humorist/stand-up in this role, similar to >>how John >>>>> Hodgman did it for several years. I have no issue with adding >>>>> humor/personality to the off-camera VO, but the person taking the >>gig needs >>>>> to be able to read the room. >>>>> >>>>> The show overall (aside from Fowler's VO) was actually fine - no >>major >>>>> technical gaffes, Colbert's pre-tapes didn't linger so long as to >>be >>>>> annoying, things moved at a brisk pace (and actually finished on >>time!), >>>>> and for once the set design was actually really, really good. >>>>> >>>>> One thing that bothered me - was Rickey Minor not able to get a >>copy of >>>>> the sheet music to ANY version of the SNL theme from the past 40 >>years? I >>>>> know orchestrations can vary (e.g. LWT's theme), but what the >band >>used >>>>> last night was unrecognizable as the SNL theme. >>>>> >>>>> Also, for those of you who watched live - did you catch those Audi >>>>> commercials? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 9:39:49 AM UTC-4, PGage wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The LAT Review: Emmys bear the Colbert stamp: Genial, pointed, >>>>>> exuberant and a little outrageous >>>>>> >>>>>> >>http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-emmy-awards-colbert-20170918-story.html >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought Colbert did a good job - just enough Trump references >>without >>>>>> overdoing it, some gentle poking of the self-congratulatory >nature >>of the >>>>>> event, and then a lot of self-congratulation. My FB feed is full >>of my >>>>>> liberal friends pissed about Spicer (conservative friends are >>saying they >>>>>> stopped watching Hollywood award shows a long time ago, which >>probably for >>>>>> once does put them in the mainstream). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> I am mostly progressive but stopped watching award shows long ago, >>but >>>> the notion of inviting Spicer on the Emmys is morally repugnant to >>me, and >>>> behavior like that is what got Trump elected in the first place. It >>isn't >>>> that the GOP is good at what they do; it is because their >opposition >>is so >>>> incredibly bad. >>>> >>>> I get the show's justification for doing what it did... nobody can >>cry >>>> "liberal media" if they bring on a turd like Spicer. But it is >>incongruous >>>> to bring on someone with no ties to the event. Hell, I could partly >>make >>>> peace with them bringing on Tom Selleck or Scott Baio or Kirk >>Cameron, who >>>> at least have a connection to the industry, but Spicer? No. This >was >>>> extending an olive branch to an individual that at best is only an >>>> accessory to treason. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> In terms of the production, I kept thinking - yes, we get it, >>there are >>>>>> black people at the Emmys. But do we really need a Hype Man as >the >>>>>> Announcer? A couple of times he almost ran into the actual >>acceptance >>>>>> speech. They had the most aggressive play-off music we have ever >>seen - a >>>>>> couple of times ruining emotional and effective moments, which >>always seems >>>>>> so self-defeating for a show like this. I would like to see them >>come up >>>>>> with some kind of elastic filler material that they can use if >>speeches go >>>>>> short and easily cut if speeches go long, and then relax about >the >>time >>>>>> limit a little - or at least give the producer some flexibility >in >>a couple >>>>>> of cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> The awards themselves seemed somewhat more relevant than the >Emmys >>have >>>>>> been over the last few years. I don't agree that we are in the >>Golden Age >>>>>> of television, but there is, finally, so much good television >that >>it is >>>>>> hard to keep up with all of it. There were a couple of shows I >>have heard >>>>>> of but not yet watched that got bumped up on my radar (my >>daughters keep >>>>>> bugging me to watch that Pretty LIttle Liars show, I guess I >>will). >>>>>> >>>>>> There was a thread on this list recently about Masters of None, >>and >>>>>> whether the second season was better or worse than the first. I >>was pleased >>>>>> that they singled out the Thanksgiving episode for writing (and >>that Ansari >>>>>> allowed his co-writer to do the speech - though he may have been >>going in >>>>>> for a final word only to be cut off by the band, it was hard to >>tell). That >>>>>> Thanksgiving episode was one of the best things I have ever seen >>on >>>>>> "television" (broadly defined), and an excellent illustration of >>what real >>>>>> diversity can lead to. >>>>>> >>>>>> If Veep wasn't legitimately so freaking funny I would be salty >>about >>>>>> JLD winning yet again, but it does underline again Aaron >Barhart's >>old idea >>>>>> about having shows and people only eligible for Emmy's until they >>win once >>>>>> (or may a couple of times). I hated it at first (Godfather II won >>an Oscar >>>>>> also), but some years ago I came around to his thinking - it is >>not really >>>>>> fair to keep rewarding someone for the same work over and over - >>all the >>>>>> more so with so much good work available. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Kevin M. (RPCV) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>> -- >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>-- >>Kevin M. (RPCV) >> >>-- >>-- >>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. -- -- 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.
