Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
I've never been a fan of the way the Daily Show and Colbert Report edit interviews, and that seems to have followed to the Late Show. I don't know if it's a personal preference thing with them, or if the big guys (Letterman, Fallon, Kimmel) just have better editors.
But I find the edits to be very noticeable and choppy/awkward. Like places where you can tell 2 - 3 seconds went by (which is fine if done properly, all talk shows do that) except it went from loud audience laughter to dead quiet in that 3 seconds, which creates a really silly edit for such a big show, imo.
Maybe it's just me but even as the biggest Colbert/Stewart fan around, I've just always felt they're so great at interviewing in long form that their editing ends up doing a huge disservice to the interview making it feel way too rushed.
I appreciate the "go wherever for full interview" and I also respect that with the formats they've done you simply can't talk to a guy for 20 minutes and have most of it on the actual show, but as a casual viewer it's slightly annoying.
|
Do the other guys actually do much editing though? From what I've seen from Conan, Kimmel, Fallon, etc, is that they stick to a pretty safe interview formula and know how to fit it for time. Colbert and Stewart can do that too for the regular celebrity interviews, but when someone actually interesting comes on they just go for a natural conversation and ignore the time constraints. They put the best bits on the show and yes it can look a bit weird, but I appreciate them doing that and putting the full clip online rather than treating every interview the same