At the end of Comedy Central's show @Midnight they show the audience during the end credits. They seem to often show the same audience which includes sleeping people, and a couple furries (a panda and a rabbit I think, as of today, when I decide to finally ask about it, either the site or my 'net access cuts of the episodes). I was wondering if anyone knew why they would repeat this audience sometimes, but not always. Maybe it is always now, but I don't think it always was.

I'd love to provide a screenshot, but didn't find one, nor could I capture one as the CC site's streams are cutting off consistently at 21 minutes for me right now, sometimes in the middle of a sentence.

Anyone know why the repetition or why it's not 100% consistent?

  • Is it a difference between the initial episodes and the current season? Many times they change either intro's or ends depending on the season.
    – JohnP
    Apr 18, 2014 at 1:52
  • @MeatTrademark - True, but there were 4 or 5 episodes that were the teaser "first" season before it got picked up. Was just a random thought since I haven't seen or heard of the series.
    – JohnP
    Apr 18, 2014 at 4:36

2 Answers 2


According to this twitter conversation, it always the same clip every episode.

...why do you use a canned audience shot for the credit role? You have a live audience...

— The Rt. Hon. Cadbury (@Rt_Hon_Cadbury) February 15, 2014
...because it's a joke...

— Chris Hardwick (@hardwick)February 15, 2014

In my hypothesis, they most likely work for the show and the characters in the suits/costumes are Chris Hardwick, Tom Lennon, and someone else who cannot / won't be [seen] in the audience. The show is required to pay any member of the audience a minimum fee for appearing in front of the camera, (viewers of the old Craig Ferguson should have seen him employ this trick too). Rather than pay a new audience I suppose it was decided it would be a nice gift / reoccurring bonus for their staff given the show is aired to often.

I have no proof, just sneaking suspicion, but would love anyone to poke holes in this as well. If as I thought, this would be just another example of how rules can be bent and perhaps broken in this case. By simply interpreting the law / union rules in your favor, Silly lawyer trick to defraud the network using pre-established SAG / equivalent guidelines. [OR] Magnanimous Robin Hood giving back to those that need it the most (the workers rather than the network; proletariat v bourgeoisie). Guess it's a matter of your perspective. The more you know.

  • Thanks for weighing in on this. I suspect a similar situation myself. I do want to point out that as a rule, hypotheses are not technically "answers" and often are frowned upon. Luckily, this post hasn't seen much activity for almost a full year so no worries. Since you're new here, and to encourage you to stick around, I recommend checking out the Tour to get your first badge and some info. We're not a typical discussion forum. Apr 17, 2015 at 13:17
  • Hypotheses are as close to "answers" that humans can attain outside of brute facts. I was merely leaving the door open for a more educated answer from someone with a priori knowledge from the specific show. But I'm glad you decided to voice your opinion, (hypotheses are not technically "answers"), when also begging for explanations. Shows me for putting any educated content online...
    – haha
    Apr 17, 2015 at 22:37
  • Well, I disagree with almost everything you said in that comment. Sorry you felt insulted. Apr 18, 2015 at 21:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .