Sadly, The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore has not taken off the ground and, at this point, appears not to have enough thrust to ever do so. It is plagued by a multitude of problems.
I don't think anyone expected Wilmore to be Colbert, but Wilmore needed to find his own voice, his own delivery style, much the way Colbert and Stewart did. Even John Oliver found his own style, which, although somewhat awkward, works well for him. Wilmore has failed horribly in this department. He may be a good comedy writer, but he simply lacks the personality and charisma to carry a comedy show.
When Colbert left it seems he didn't just sell off everything, including his entire set, and take his wit and personality with him. The writers went as well. The jokes being written for Wilmore are flat and stale most of the time. I found myself spitting my drink on more than one occasion watching Colbert and Stewart. Not so with Larry Wilmore. The satire is just not there, which turns the show into a bland and humorless marathon of complaints and grievances. Complaints and grievances could be comedy gold. George Carlin mined it well, until very late in his career. Alas, Wilmore is no Carlin.
Stewart's show, over the years, has had a remarkable supporting cast of correspondents, many of whom went on to great careers (i.e. Carell, Colbert, Oliver, Riggle, Jones, Gad, Helms). Their humor complemented Stewart's and allowed them to play off of each other, presenting loads of opportunity for improvisation. Wilmore has several contributors, but their contributions don't add a whole lot to the show. The recent report by Ricky Velez from the Puerto Rican Day parade should have never seen the light of day. A high school student could've gotten more out of the festivities and done a better job tying it all together.
It is also unfortunate that Wilmore (or perhaps his producers and writers) focus the show so much on a very narrow scope of social issues. On the opposite end of this spectrum seats John Oliver, who in his short time at HBO has tackled topics from tobacco use in developing nations, to ticketing debt, to FIFA, to capital punishment. This is only a guess, but I would say that 80% of Wilmore's episodes deal with racism,including petty non-stories, like the school principal, who called out some folks from leaving the school's auditorium early and was devoured by Wilmore, and a steady diet of Bill Cosby. The former is an important issue and the latter more of a distraction. More importantly, constantly keeping to these topics shortchanges Wilmore and turns him into the Chief Black Correspondent again and again, rather than take him beyond his legacy, expanding his reach and strengthening his resume.
Admittedly, there are a lot of comparisons being drawn here to Stewart, Colbert, Oliver, and even Carlin. But this is because Wilmore had not been able to find, understand, showcase, and market his own brand of political/social news show comedy. That's another damning criticism. The show is unoriginal. Even the title is lazy and unoriginal. And it should have behooved Wilmore to ask his audience not to chant his name at the start of the show. Colbert did it as a gag, to poke fun at the self-aggrandizing personalities of cable news shows. Why does Wilmore do it? However, the biggest and most egregious failure is the show's sanctimonious, bloodthirsty, and hateful rhetoric supplanting the humorous, witty, and satirical narrative of its predecessors. This is where, in my humble opinion, the show loses its audience. At the very least, it lost me and, as I understand, it lost a good number of friends and acquaintances for the same reason. The latest victim to be lambasted by Wilmore was the hapless dentist, who shot Cecil the Lion. The aforementioned school principal also got skewered and, of course, Wilmore's most favorite victim, Bill Cosby.
This is not to excuse these or any other of Wilmore's targets for their conduct or alleged conduct. It is to help demonstrate how in an attempt to comment on important social issues of our day (i.e. racism, illegal trophy hunting, date rape) Wilmore infected a true liberal narrative with hate for these people, missing the larger opportunity to discuss each issue in general, to dig a little deeper. The conversation is two-dimensional, even for cable TV (i.e. hunting is bad and taking down the confederate flag is good). It ignores due process, in case of Cosby and the MN dentist, dehumanizes, and is remarkably authoritarian. All the thinking is done for the audience and social justice turns into mob justice, humorless and quick to judge. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't identify with that.
I don't think anyone expected Wilmore to be Colbert, but Wilmore needed to find his own voice, his own delivery style, much the way Colbert and Stewart did. Even John Oliver found his own style, which, although somewhat awkward, works well for him. Wilmore has failed horribly in this department. He may be a good comedy writer, but he simply lacks the personality and charisma to carry a comedy show.
When Colbert left it seems he didn't just sell off everything, including his entire set, and take his wit and personality with him. The writers went as well. The jokes being written for Wilmore are flat and stale most of the time. I found myself spitting my drink on more than one occasion watching Colbert and Stewart. Not so with Larry Wilmore. The satire is just not there, which turns the show into a bland and humorless marathon of complaints and grievances. Complaints and grievances could be comedy gold. George Carlin mined it well, until very late in his career. Alas, Wilmore is no Carlin.
Stewart's show, over the years, has had a remarkable supporting cast of correspondents, many of whom went on to great careers (i.e. Carell, Colbert, Oliver, Riggle, Jones, Gad, Helms). Their humor complemented Stewart's and allowed them to play off of each other, presenting loads of opportunity for improvisation. Wilmore has several contributors, but their contributions don't add a whole lot to the show. The recent report by Ricky Velez from the Puerto Rican Day parade should have never seen the light of day. A high school student could've gotten more out of the festivities and done a better job tying it all together.
It is also unfortunate that Wilmore (or perhaps his producers and writers) focus the show so much on a very narrow scope of social issues. On the opposite end of this spectrum seats John Oliver, who in his short time at HBO has tackled topics from tobacco use in developing nations, to ticketing debt, to FIFA, to capital punishment. This is only a guess, but I would say that 80% of Wilmore's episodes deal with racism,including petty non-stories, like the school principal, who called out some folks from leaving the school's auditorium early and was devoured by Wilmore, and a steady diet of Bill Cosby. The former is an important issue and the latter more of a distraction. More importantly, constantly keeping to these topics shortchanges Wilmore and turns him into the Chief Black Correspondent again and again, rather than take him beyond his legacy, expanding his reach and strengthening his resume.
Admittedly, there are a lot of comparisons being drawn here to Stewart, Colbert, Oliver, and even Carlin. But this is because Wilmore had not been able to find, understand, showcase, and market his own brand of political/social news show comedy. That's another damning criticism. The show is unoriginal. Even the title is lazy and unoriginal. And it should have behooved Wilmore to ask his audience not to chant his name at the start of the show. Colbert did it as a gag, to poke fun at the self-aggrandizing personalities of cable news shows. Why does Wilmore do it? However, the biggest and most egregious failure is the show's sanctimonious, bloodthirsty, and hateful rhetoric supplanting the humorous, witty, and satirical narrative of its predecessors. This is where, in my humble opinion, the show loses its audience. At the very least, it lost me and, as I understand, it lost a good number of friends and acquaintances for the same reason. The latest victim to be lambasted by Wilmore was the hapless dentist, who shot Cecil the Lion. The aforementioned school principal also got skewered and, of course, Wilmore's most favorite victim, Bill Cosby.
This is not to excuse these or any other of Wilmore's targets for their conduct or alleged conduct. It is to help demonstrate how in an attempt to comment on important social issues of our day (i.e. racism, illegal trophy hunting, date rape) Wilmore infected a true liberal narrative with hate for these people, missing the larger opportunity to discuss each issue in general, to dig a little deeper. The conversation is two-dimensional, even for cable TV (i.e. hunting is bad and taking down the confederate flag is good). It ignores due process, in case of Cosby and the MN dentist, dehumanizes, and is remarkably authoritarian. All the thinking is done for the audience and social justice turns into mob justice, humorless and quick to judge. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't identify with that.