The Crownless King-to-Be of Late Night TV

WoahDan

New member
Sep 7, 2011
93
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Aramis Night said:
Previous generations would usually hand over the reigns of power/control when they felt the younger generation was ready. In this way the younger generation would receive opportunity from the older generations.
Do you have any actual examples of that? It's human nature to maintain power as long as possible. I very much doubt that previous generations were any different.
It's my understanding that its commonly thought the Silent Generation did exactly that, largely dissapearing from the cultural mealstrom much faster than the boomers have (hence Silent Generation). It didn't actually happen that way though, what happened is that the Boomers were so much bigger than the Silent Generation that the Silent Generation didn't have much choice in the matter.

Which is probably what's going to happen to Generation X, the Millenials are the biggest generation since the Boomers so mainstream culture is going to gravitate to them ASAP, Gen X won't have the luxury of holding on to the reigns for as long as they can like the Boomers did.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Baresark said:
Lol, I got my shows mixed up. It doesn't really matter though, they are all about the same.
Only if you're not really watching. The only thing that Jay Leno and Craig Ferguson's shows (for example) have in common is the late-night format. The delivery and comedy contained within couldn't be more different.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Baresark said:
Lol, I got my shows mixed up. It doesn't really matter though, they are all about the same.
Only if you're not really watching. The only thing that Jay Leno and Craig Ferguson's shows (for example) have in common is the late-night format. The delivery and comedy contained within couldn't be more different.
Well, that's cool. I guess what I'm saying is that I have never seen anything really funny or different about them, but clearly you watch them more than I do. The late night format is not really my thing, and what little I have seen I have not found very funny. That is just my opinion of course. I'm glad you enjoy them.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
WoahDan said:
It didn't actually happen that way though, what happened is that the Boomers were so much bigger than the Silent Generation that the Silent Generation didn't have much choice in the matter.
Well, yes. Obviously the Boomers have the force of numbers - not only are they are product of a baby boom, they follow a generation that had its numbers reduced by wartime. At the same time, the Boomers saw a growth in wealth and technology like never before. Especially in the realm of medical technology. So, the Boomers have longer, healthier lives, and they can afford to enjoy those lives much longer with money to spend on their passions.

Having said that, the previous generation did not give up on power easily. John McCain (born 1936) ran for President as recently as 2008. Strom Thurmond (born 1902) was a US Senator until 2003. So, no, pre-Boomers were not just handing over power to the younger generation.

WoahDan said:
Which is probably what's going to happen to Generation X, the Millenials are the biggest generation since the Boomers so mainstream culture is going to gravitate to them ASAP, Gen X won't have the luxury of holding on to the reigns for as long as they can like the Boomers did.
Of course. "Generation X" was a "baby bust" generation, and has always been at the fringes of political and social power. "Gen X" were even a minority in their own generation. For example, Sarah Palin (born 1964) is solidly in the age bracket of "Generation X" - but she demonstrates none of the social and cultural traits that are supposed to typify Generation X (cynicism, rebellion, nihilism, anti-corporatism, etc.)

So, really, Gen X is completely misunderstood, and is essentially mythical. There's a reason that Generation Xers (of which I include myself) cling to pop-culture nostalgia so strongly - because they (we) are ultimately rather powerless and ignored. The stereotypical "Gen Xer" was actually a minority amongst a bunch of yuppies and conformists in their own generation. The only reason we even got that name was because of a little-known novel by Douglas Coupland.

My generation invented Boomer-bashing. That's why I can see now, having grown up, that it is so misguided. This narrative that Baby Boomers are evil powermongers is mostly false. Which is why I am so opposed when younger generations like Millenials jump on the Boomer-bashing bandwagon. A lot of the things they are blaming Boomers for are actually the fault of previous generations. And of course, the Boomers had the exact same opinions about their elders -that they were geriatrics clinging to power and holding them down.
 

MCerberus

New member
Jun 26, 2013
1,168
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
WoahDan said:
It didn't actually happen that way though, what happened is that the Boomers were so much bigger than the Silent Generation that the Silent Generation didn't have much choice in the matter.
Well, yes. Obviously the Boomers have the force of numbers - not only are they are product of a baby boom, they follow a generation that had its numbers reduced by wartime. At the same time, the Boomers saw a growth in wealth and technology like never before. Especially in the realm of medical technology. So, the Boomers have longer, healthier lives, and they can afford to enjoy those lives much longer with money to spend on their passions.

Having said that, the previous generation did not give up on power easily. John McCain (born 1936) ran for President as recently as 2008. Strom Thurmond (born 1902) was a US Senator until 2003. So, no, pre-Boomers were not just handing over power to the younger generation.

WoahDan said:
Which is probably what's going to happen to Generation X, the Millenials are the biggest generation since the Boomers so mainstream culture is going to gravitate to them ASAP, Gen X won't have the luxury of holding on to the reigns for as long as they can like the Boomers did.
Of course. "Generation X" was a "baby bust" generation, and has always been at the fringes of political and social power. "Gen X" were even a minority in their own generation. For example, Sarah Palin (born 1964) is solidly in the age bracket of "Generation X" - but she demonstrates none of the social and cultural traits that are supposed to typify Generation X (cynicism, rebellion, nihilism, anti-corporatism, etc.)

So, really, Gen X is completely misunderstood, and is essentially mythical. There's a reason that Generation Xers (of which I include myself) cling to pop-culture nostalgia so strongly - because they (we) are ultimately rather powerless and ignored. The stereotypical "Gen Xer" was actually a minority amongst a bunch of yuppies and conformists in their own generation. The only reason we even got that name was because of a little-known novel by Douglas Coupland.

My generation invented Boomer-bashing. That's why I can see now, having grown up, that it is so misguided. This narrative that Baby Boomers are evil powermongers is mostly false. Which is why I am so opposed when younger generations like Millenials jump on the Boomer-bashing bandwagon. A lot of the things they are blaming Boomers for are actually the fault of previous generations. And of course, the Boomers had the exact same opinions about their elders -that they were geriatrics clinging to power and holding them down.
Meanwhile, late-X and early millenials respond to the apathy, inaction, and weakness (Gen X did not take their chances) and are tech-native. Whether Gen-X gives up power quietly or not, millenials see them as easy targets to roll over. Plus, you know, patience isn't as much as a virtue to the 18-30 set ATM.

We can even see this happening with a couple of shifts in politics right now. Gay marriage and the move towards legalization are foregone conclusions to the younger generations, and the weight behind it steamrolls the opposition.
 

orangeapples

New member
Aug 1, 2009
1,836
0
0
The problem I have with Stephen Colbert is that his persona is way too strong. People are going to be expecting "Stephen Colbert" and get Stephen COlbert.

At least it isn't Jeff Dunham or Daniel Tosh...
 

Berling's Beard

New member
Mar 2, 2010
25
0
0
Great article, Bob! Your reading is right on. Regardless of who is / gets hired / fired for Late Night programming, it's all about the dollars and cents! Time marches on, indeed!
 

Fusioncode9

New member
Sep 23, 2010
663
0
0
I'm really not liking the idea of Colbert giving up his character and becoming another boring late night host. It's not just Leno who sucked at it, Kimmell and Letterman are both extremely bland hosts. Craig Ferguson is about the only late night host I can stand because he actually has a personality, but his patented brand of weirdness wouldn't hold a mainstream audience. Neither can Colbert. Unless Colbert dumbs down his performance and becomes as boring as Jimmy Kimmell he's going to run into the same ratings problems as Conan did when he inherited the Tonight Show. You can't be weird at 11:30 on a mainstream network if you want to draw an audience.
 

havass

New member
Dec 15, 2009
1,298
0
0
Fusioncode9 said:
I'm really not liking the idea of Colbert giving up his character and becoming another boring late night host. It's not just Leno who sucked at it, Kimmell and Letterman are both extremely bland hosts. Craig Ferguson is about the only late night host I can stand because he actually has a personality, but his patented brand of weirdness wouldn't hold a mainstream audience. Neither can Colbert. Unless Colbert dumbs down his performance and becomes as boring as Jimmy Kimmell he's going to run into the same ratings problems as Conan did when he inherited the Tonight Show. You can't be weird at 11:30 on a mainstream network if you want to draw an audience.
I would have preferred Craig Ferguson to take over and get the better timeslot he deserves, but you're right, the only reason he's so entertaining is because he has a small audience and he knows it (and constantly points it out in his show). The crap he does on that show won't fly on a better timeslot because the network will get a ton of complaints for it. Unfortunately, the reason I like Stephen Colbert is the same, his show on comedy central won't click with the mainstream audience. There is no doubt he's going to turn into Kimmell/Fallon's brand of bland once he moves into the Tonight Show...and that's sad.
 

SeeDarkly_Xero

New member
Jan 24, 2014
102
0
0
I've said this elsewhere, but I'll share it here as well...

My wife and I sit down for at least one meal together every day and we watch either the Daily Show or Colbert Report. (Also SHIELD, Star Trek, or whatever new movie we are catching up on, but on a daily basis, mostly those two shows.)

I've enjoyed Colbert from his time on Daily, Stranger w/ Candy, and in the bits performed on a not well known show called Exit 57.

While I'm glad for his success and think he could continue to be great as a late night host on CBS, this doesn't excite me all that much. In fact, it kind of saddens me.

For one thing, he won't be his "character" as portrayed on TCR and thus might not have quite the same ability to remark on and present various news or views that we're not otherwise exposed to.
My wife is concerned, perhaps rightfully, that in a mainstream arena he'll become "light" or "toned-down" to the point his commentary won't carry the same weight it does now or will just be less interesting overall.
And in an hour long format, 5 times a week, if she finds she'll be interested at all... there's just no way we could keep up with it on our schedules (we can barely keep up as it is.)

My other concern is what happened when Craig Kilborn left the Daily Show to do late night: he failed. Granted, Stewart was the perfect and best replacement (to be fair I didn't think so at the time) but that pretty well put Kilborn out to pasture. If Colbert fails this (and yeah it seems unlikely, but it can happen) then we've lost a great show to gain only disappointment.

Jon "Daily" is getting older by the second too... and Oliver still has yet to kick off his thing on HBO.

The Colbert Report has been a part of our nigh-daily ritual for so long (one of the first Colbert pieces we watched together was Fruit Juice on TDS [http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/7q4jt1/fruit-juice]), and as much as I might enjoy more of him, I fear this just means the end of something my wife and I have shared since our first days together. I don't think we'll be happy with that change.
 

Aramis Night

New member
Mar 31, 2013
535
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Aramis Night said:
The entire concept of mentorship is based on this idea. It's something that many humans have been doing since we lived in tribes. Older people grooming younger people to replace them, and not just as a proxy. Previous generations had a sense of their own obsolescence, and would volunteer to take a more background position among their group. A position of respect typically.
But the Baby Boomers also engage in mentorship.

I'm not sure where you're getting the data from that power dynamics suddenly changed with one generation. The generation preceding the Boomers didn't suddenly give away their power to them.
Yes, but when the boomers engage in mentorship it is ,as I pointed out, only to create proxies for their own positions. You yourself brought up how Sarah Palin does not represent the views of most gen x people. And you are right. that is exactly why she was granted power and influence in the first place.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Aramis Night said:
You yourself brought up how Sarah Palin does not represent the views of most gen x people.
No, I did not. I brought up how Sarah Palin does not represent the stereotype of Gen X people, while also pointing out that most Gen X people do not represent the stereotype of Gen X people.

"Generation X" is basically a myth.

Aramis Night said:
And you are right. that is exactly why she was granted power and influence in the first place.
But not by Boomers, by pre-Boomers. The Republicans who chose Palin as a Presidential candidate were pretty anti-Boomer.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
ZeroAE said:
I'm kinda confused of why they CBS chose Colbert. It's a lose/lose situation for them.
The old Late Show viewers are gonna complain of Colbert's political view, and leave for something similar to what they watch.
CBS will probably censor Colbert to a degree, but it'll still be a change.
And Colbert's audience (like me) are not going to watch a gutted Colbert in hour long Late Show I've barely heard about. Seriously, I've barely heard about The Late Show, and when I do, it's when they interview a celebrity I don't know about.
Actually David Letterman is very left leaning, and he hides his bias less than most other hosts, especially when interviewing politicians or people like Bill O'Reilly. Steven Colbert will be fine in that regard. I also doubt that CBS will have to censor Colbert at all, what he already does on his own show could pretty much fly on network television, especially after 10pm. Craig Ferguson, who follows David, is already way 'naughtier' than Colbert's current show. As to whether or not his fans will follow him: even if just a small percentage do it'll be a pickup. It's not like Letterman was going to bring in those fans anyway.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
faefrost said:
All of this is kind of moot. Yeah CBS is looking to bring in the "hip" new "cool cats" them "teenagers" and younger folk. But just as with politics, these decisions are still being made by aging boomers with no respect for those who came after them, and virtually no idea of how they actually do things, particularly consume entertainment anymore. Yeah them teenagers like Stephen Colbert. But do they actually sit down to watch scheduled programming? Colbert works well in a short format. 20 minutes total, that is easily broken into 2 or 3 easily digested YouTube segments. But will the kids follow him into an extended hour long snooze fest interviewing the Kardashians and similar narcissistic celebrity types, over and over, night after night? Or will they just grab whatever comes next as a short funny presenter over the Internet?

I know Bob says that ratings don't matter. But ultimately they sort of do. Even when skewed for concentrations of desirable demographics. Heck it would not surprise me if their are more regular eyeballs in that sweet demographic looking at Bobs offerings each week, then there are looking at Colbert or Stewarts scheduled cable broadcast shows now. (As we saw from that disturbingly explosive Jim thread from a few weeks ago. The ad pimps simply have not found a smooth acceptable way to measure you and inject their content into your brain out here on the interwebz as of yet. ) Colbert won't lose to Jimmy Fallon. He and the old guard networks will lose and are already losing to Netflix and YouTube and the XBox dashboard, and whatever comes after them. CBS needs something more then the Great Rural Purge. They need the great broadcast purge. They need to cut down the antennae and let people watch the way the kids do now. As they wish. But CBS, ABC and NBC cannot do that. They are too tied to the affiliates. They franchised their business model back in the dawn of time. And now they can't steer the ship away from the iceberg without throwing the Franchises overboard. And they can't do that because the franchises are too powerful. They rule local politics among other things. (Or at least they rule the aging and decrepit baby boomers that rule local politics.)

The end result is that they are hobbled from taking a real look at their aging and slowly dying business model, they are instead attempting to give them young uns a bit o spectacle. Show that they can be hip and edgy. That'll bring the kids to them. See, they're still relevant. Just like them record stores and the brick and mortar bookstores. And the brick and mortar game stores like GameStop.
I'm guessing you're correct in all this. I agree with all of it. It will be interesting to see where TV ends up.

---

I gotta say Bob. Interesting take as always. Its very enjoyable to read your takes on stuff, especially since you're so good at drawing lines further back. Your grasp of history and the cultural development makes your articles and shows a delight :)