|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||17 reviews in total|
ABC is committing crime against democracy by shutting down this
show. Politically Incorrect being on was proof of democracy, it
being killed is proof that democracy is in great danger. This was
a great show, one of the best political talk shows in the history of
Like all discussion shows, the quality of each particular episode will depend on the topic, who the guests are, and if everyone really gets involved. In a week I saw one excellent episode, two ok ones, and one I could not watch to the end. The best one involved religion and the guests all knew alot about their viewpoint. Othertimes, the guests was luke perry, a supermodel, a cartoonist, and a musician. The topic was disability and how the disabled should get to do everything everyone else does, but why does it have to be at the same time. Of the four guests, only the cartoonist offered any original and meaningful points other that, ya they should do it or no they should not. So the quality of the episode will depend on the guests. But Bill Maher is always good, well almost always.
The show is called "Politically Incorrect" for a reason-- a simple reason,
really that the opinions expressed on this show are not necessary over all
"acceptable" ones. Nevertheless, Bill Maher and his guests should be
allowed to express them.
Do you have to always agree with Bill to like this show? Well, no. I think if you always disagree, then you probably won't. If you sometimes agree, then you can enjoy it.
In fact, I find myself sometimes acting as the fifth panel member. Yes, I know the panel can't hear me, but it's much like a reaction to sporting events. You realize the players and the refs can't hear you, but you yell out your opinion anyway. And that's what I sometimes do. The show can get me thinking too and afterwards, I like to talk to people about what they think about the issues brought up on the show.
The show has taken a more discussion oriented format since returning to the airwaves after the September 11th attacks. Before, the guests used to comes on stage one at a time to be greeted by Bill before taking their seats. (The pretty ladies would be received with a kiss on the cheek while everyone else just shook Bill's hand.) Now, everyone is already seated and is introduced by Bill and the audience applauds for the panel after all the guests have been introduced.
During the breaks, there used to be a quick joke by Bill that would sometimes lead into the next segment's discussion. So far, those quick jokes have been taken out. Also, Bill used to announce at the end of each show who tomorrow/Monday's guests will be. (Also, they were announced during a break by announcer John Cramer). But now, the final segment is more a parting thought time.
And, the PI poll has disappeared. I noticed it returned to the website once again, but the results have not been shown during the show.
Whether any of these things once done by the show will return, I have no idea. Do I want them too? Well...I kinda miss those quick jokes...and besides, I'd like to see this show back to the way it was.
Now, as for my opinion of Bill himself...
I do like Bill enough to enjoy this show. No, I do not always agree with him. I do find his views at times to be out there. But, I also find some of the things he says to be very much on target. "Why are teachers with their crappy, crummy salaries out-of-pocket buying supplies for the students?!" Good question, Bill.
I have noticed he is rather stubborn though and it does seem like he doesn't consider other opinions. But, he does at times too...though rarely. :)
Overall, I do like this show for getting people to think and allowing them to express their viewpoints. ABC took a chance keeping this show on after major sponsors pulled out, which surprised me! But I'm glad they did. There needs to be a forum for open discussion. Why not this one?
As far as late-night shows go, this is the most interesting and original of
them all. It's the only late-night talk show that doesn't engage their
guests in scripted, self-serving dialogue. Instead, it puts the guests in
heated discussion over current events and social issues, throwing
Aside from concept and originality, in execution it works pretty well. The host is very opinionated and given his control it sometimes curbs the life of the argument. Naturally, it can get frustrating watching a conversation and not being able to shout at some of the guests. Generally, it's great fun to watch.
If for nothing else, people should want to see this because Bill Maher was
fired for exercising freedom of speech.
Each evening for 30 minutes (well, less actually because of commercials) Maher and a panel of 4 guests would discuss a topic or two, sometimes calm and quietly, sometimes erupting in full-out arguments.
I guess my opinion about the show is biased, though, since I seem to agree with Maher on most topics and enjoy seeing him argue with "head-in-the-sand" conservatives. But I genuinely like the free-for-all discussions which aren't scripted or guided by ratings.
I wished this show was an hour instead of just 30 minutes. And now that it's gone, I really miss it. Fortunately, Maher has a new show with pretty much the same format on HBO, where we don't have to hear a silly "*beep*" every time someone says a word that someone's grandmother in Vermont would be offended by.
It's really too bad that this program isn't on anymore. It not only was thought provoking but also quite humorous. I'll miss it very much and wish Bill Maher the best in whatever else he pursues. I think the program directors who took it off the air will surely regret their decision.
The concept of having a round table of people with different backgrounds,
different opinions, and different social classes coming together to discuss
issues is not new. Several programs on PBS do this or have done this. The
diverse backgrounds of the panelists are necessary to initiate debate, to
cause chaos, to formulate new ideas and perspectives, and for the panelists
to, hopefully, learn from each other. If everyone shared the same views,
the discussions would not be interesting to either the panelists, the
moderator, or the TV viewers. It would not be interesting television. On
PBS, the panelists are extremely stimulating on an intellectual level. They
are well-established and well-respected in their fields. Usually, they are
not mainstream celebrities. Usually, one must have a decent intellectual
disposition to enjoy these panel discussions on PBS.
Bill Maher brought this concept to Comedy Central, and he fueled a fire! He brought this concept to the less intellectual of America who would usually have never paid attention. It was funny, of course, a little looser in language and format, lightweight to appeal to younger viewers. It became successful to where it moved to the big time, NETWORK TV.
Though I did not watch it on a regular basis, I became tired of the oversaturation of well-groomed, well-dressed celebrities. A sparkling appearance does not make their opinions more insightful. However, because it was a major network concerned with advertising dollars, ABC had to continue with these celebrities, even if they didn't have much to say.
The show, as of the time I wrote this, has been canceled. This was, most likely, caused by Maher's comments after September 11, 2001 when he referred to the American Armed Forces as "cowards". It was probably taken out of context.
Anyway, the show was fun, while it lasted. However, just because his show is dead, does not mean that this discussion format is dead.
I really can't find anything bad to say about this show! Bill Maher is almost as funny as Dennis Miller is on his show. I think if it weren't for the fact that "PI" is on network TV, Maher would really give Miller a run for his money. The guests are intelligent, and the panels are picked to balance each other well. There's just nothing funnier than seeing some member of the Religious Right go nose-to-nose with Marylin Manson. Or seeing a Christian Coalition member trade verbal jabs with Dee Snider. The greatest thing about this show, is that even when you're radically opposed to the viewpoints being presented, you can usually at least see where the panelist is coming from. You may not agree, but you have to give credit where it's due! All in all, this is one of the most excellent shows on TV, and if only it were on in a prime-time slot, it would easily garner ratings that would make any producer green with envy. 5 stars out of 5! Excellent show!
Politically Incorrect has a terrific concept: put together an eclectic panel of guests to debate politics and current events in an informal, loose manner. I usually watch the show if I'm watching TV when its on, but I still rarely find an episode very satisfying. The length of it is a problem... perhaps an hour would be too long for ABC but the half hour long format and frequent commercial breaks rarely allows the guests enough time to discuss anything in depth and they are constantly making half-points or no points. Of course the mix of entertainers and political figures unfortunately creates some bottle necks. The producers usually try to get at least one conservative on the show... since there are very few conservative entertainers, the episodes usually features entertainers representing the "liberal" side while politicians, consultants or radio talk show hosts represent the conservative. Not that this makes the debates slanted always, but the entertainers are usually more interested in sound bites than making valid points. I think the producers should make a better effort to get liberal guests who are more suited to political debates. There should also be more of an effort to get guests with different views. Bill Maher himself is too into himself to be focused on keeping the discussions focused and lively... there are way too many screaming fits. That all said, the show is pretty entertaining and worth watching... but the show has the potential to be a lot better... too bad Mahler isn't old enough to retire... the show could use a better host.
Politically Incorrect IS entertaining, no question about that. What bothers me is WHY is it entertaining? What is it about this show with the weird, upsetting little host that people like? Maher's image is that of some sort of "bad boy"- he's friends with Larry Flynt and Hugh Heffner and is reportedly a frequent visitor to the Playboy Mansion. Personally, this creeps me out. I don't want to imagine Maher having sex. Maher seems to be fairly intelligent, but also seems to think too much of himself. It's odd, because at the same time, he seems kind of humble. He seems to think that his opinions are so apparent and backed up by empirical evidence that everyone should have them. And he's mean and nasty about it. That's what scares me. Is it any wonder this guy frequents the Playboy Mansion? If you have to be mean and nasty to get your point across, did you have a very worthwhile thing to say to begin with? I usually say "no". Sick of hearing him say the Bible is a bunch of baloney- I happen to agree with him, but it would be a lot more interesting if he would not make such sweeping generalizations. The Bible may be old, but it still provides a lot to a lot of people. And just last night he said that Judaism was the "coolest" of the Western religions. Give me a break. Bill thinks that just because he is tired of feeling guilty for being a little single pervert that he can poo-poo everyone with at least a decorum of purity about them (i.e. Christians). He should be forced to take Bible classes so he can actually say something interesting the next time the topic comes up. And why is he so proud of not watching cartoons?? What a twerp.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|External reviews||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|