Sorry Colbert, you just don't have what it takes to host a late night show.
He had what it took to host the Report.
What frustrates me the most about this entire clusterfrack is that if Colbert had just moved the Report, untouched, from CC to CBS, he'd still have all his precious/impossible to attract millenials, along with a certain percentage of CBS's aging viewership- basically those willing to tolerate the politics. He might not have been beating Fallon with 18-49s, but he might have competed with 18-34s, and, more importantly, he'd be trouncing Kimmel by a pretty wide margin- and CBS and his fanbase would be happy as clams. He wouldn't be 'creatively fulfilled,' but it would have been more creatively fulfilling than unemployment.
He had a good thing, nay, a great thing, and mucked it up. He thought the grass would be greener on the other side, but ended up with dirt.
As far as replacements go... I don't know. Early millenials responded pretty well to the anger of the Colbert Report, but, these days, I think they've evolved and have less tolerance for substance, and a greater preference for mindless, cheery material like Fallon.
He turns my stomach sometimes with his pollyanna-ishness, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt is very talented and seems to have a strong generational connection. Out of the new wave of archetypically optimistic and cheery millenials, he seems the most genuine. They probably couldn't get JGL, but, if they're smart, that's the type they should be looking for. I think Les thought he got that in Corden, but Corden is no JGL.
This seems to be the era of fractionation. Political preferences are obviously more fractionated than ever, and I think stylistic preferences are becoming incredibly diversified as well. We're not masses any more. We're not really even groups. Years ago, someone like Johnny Carson could have mass appeal but the potential for someone to be that dominant now is nill. Even someone like Fallon, who right now is doing well, won't stay on top forever. What used to be 15 minutes of fame seems to be transforming into 15 seconds of fame.
If Moonves were really smart, he'd go in another direction entirely. And I'm not talking about something along the lines of Jay's attempt at an earlier time slot. I'm talking about a revolution in Late Night, a la early Letterman. The idea of a single host, doing a monologue, interviewing guests every night- that can all change. How about a different host each night of the week? JGL hosts one night, Justin Timberlake the next, Jane Lynch after that. Instead of the host interviewing the guest celebrities, you have the celebrities interviewing each other. It would be like the SNL host, except, rather than having a different host weekly, you'd do it daily. You have all the musicians that are in NY that night have an hour long jam session. If they want millenials, if they're going to survive, they have to push the envelope.
reply
share
haynese_98
9 years ago
I'm not sure if shaking things up is truly the answer but man, CBS is hurting in Late Night right now.
I think they just need to get somebody that's good. ALL of them right now are pretty bad, even Fallon. Jon Stewart is definitely good. He's handsome, smart, funny, and he's still relatively young. He's a big enough name that just off the bat he'd get a decent audience. They could slide him in late Aug/early Sep and he'd be perfect for the election. I mean it just makes sense, Colbert just looks like a total dork out there right now.
Shall we play a game?
reply
share
ColinInLa
9 years ago
I suggest you read up on Jon Stewart. He could have had this job, doesn't want this job and has already signed a deal with HBO to present what he chooses to do next. And then there's the matter of the three year contract Colbert has with CBS to continue right where he is.
--------------------
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
reply
share
ColinInLa
9 years ago
How about a different host each night of the week?
Wow! After eight months of random whining and pontification,
this is your answer for improved Late Show ratings and audience loyalty? It's beyond naive and would be absolutely impossible to produce.
--------------------
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
reply
share
dvd123
9 years ago
Absolutely impossible, really? LOL. I'm guessing you don't work in television. SNL gets a celebrity guest every week for 90 minutes on a LIVE show- in the middle of the night! You really think a celebrity guest 4 days a week for an hour an episode, pre-taped, would be 'impossible?' The celebrities are already present and accounted for, in the green room, for at least part of the shoot. What's the difference between having the celebrity guest read the monologue off the cue cards rather than a host? The celebrities might have to stick around a bit longer, which many A-Listers probably wouldn't do, but B-Lister hosts would still make for compelling television. One day it's Sarah Silverman, next, it's Aziz Ansari.
And, for the record, it wasn't an answer, it was a question. Have you ever heard of something called 'brainstorming?' It was one of practically countless possible suggestions for shaking up how late night is done. It doesn't matter how late night changes, to survive, it must change. Everyone doing exactly the same thing is killing it. Stephen, specifically, is driving it into the ground.
I wrote my previous reply before Chelsea Handler dismissed Colbert as being cookie cutter, and, while I really hate her as a person, she's 100% right about the fact that late night TV has to evolve if it's going to survive.
Who do you think should replace Colbert? Oh, wait. If you told us that, you'd actually contribute to a discussion, rather than attacking other contributors. Don't ever let that happen! ;)
reply
share
glasshull
9 years ago
pollyanna-ishness! You nailed it. That's what's wrong. Dave was sardonic and cynical. We could judge everything along with him. We (Dave and us) could sit back and wait for something to amuse us. And if it didn't, it was amusing in its failure.
On one of Steve's earliest shows I saw him dancing with a big grin on his face. I saw sarcasm for about one second when it dawned on me,"He's earnest!". Oh my god, I am horrified.
The Late Steven Colbert Show.
reply
share
dvd123
9 years ago
The Late Steven Colbert Show.
LOL. Well said. Trademarked? :)
For me, it wasn't horror, per say, but a pivotal moment in my perception of Stephen occurred while watching a behind the scenes segment on the Colbert Report a couple of years ago. In it, Stephen greets Al Gore with the exact same saccharine demeanor we're seeing now. I didn't know it for certain at the time, but it definitely gave me an inkling that something was rotten in Denmark. Brilliantly funny people, when the camera is off, are never that cheery.
reply
share