This is an interesting topic to me, and one I actually was thinking about just last week. I had Conan on one night, watched about 15 minutes of it, then switched over to a Seinfeld re-run (the original Art Van de Lay episode--still hilarious).
Late night talk shows used to be a cornerstone of family time. To call Johnny Carson an icon is to understate what he really was. He eclipsed what any current (or future, I would dare say) talk show host could ever hope to be (I am excluding Oprah; I think she falls in a different genre).
I don't think there is one thing we can point to that would satisfactorily explain the relegated status of late night TV. But I will offer a few things which i think play a factor:
1. More options
Talk shows had little to no competition until realistically the 1990's. It's no longer just Leno vs. Letterman. Like Colls said, now it includes Kimmel, Fallon, Conan, Ferguson, Stewart, Colbert, Handler, Lopez (I think that was cancelled, but my point still stands), and Handler. This is a far cry back when Ed Sullivan or Johnny Carson were literally the only shows in town.
The options extend far past talk show hosts though: Television back when Carson ruled the airwaves was restricted to like four channels. Now with more options, it's getting harder to watch a talk show which follows the same format every night for five nights a week. As I mentioned in the opener, I switched quickly to a Seinfeld rerun, but that just as easily could have been a hockey game, a History channel special, or a movie.
2. An aging fan base
I remember back when Conan took over the Tonight Show, there was a big debate as to why Conan wasn't getting the same rating Leno was? Conan was younger, more energetic, had a cult-like fan base, and appealed to the younger demographic in general.
I think they are dead on with their assumptions, however, the viewer base for late night talk shows is declining rapidly. I would say 9 out of 10 people age 18-24 would prefer Conan over Leno, however, I would say that less than 1 in 10 people in that age group actually watch talk shows. This goes back to point number one about there being more available options.
Contrast that to the older generations, which grew up with talk shows. Watching Carson/Leno/Letterman was a part of their nightly routine. They're the ones still watching, and Conan's humor just isn't for them. I guess my point is that loyalty to talk shows in general trumps loyalty to a specific host.
3. Access
I do remember a handful of occasions years ago when I thought to myself "wow, I really want to see Conan's interview with (insert celebrity) tonight." It seemed fantastic to get a candid look into the life of a famous actor/author/sports figure.
I haven't had that thought about a talk show since probably 2006. 60 Minutes certainly arouses that feeling occasionally, but Conan? Kimmel? Fallon?--no.
I think part of this is that we currently have access to what every celebrity is doing/saying/thinking 24 hours a day. If I am that interested in what a celebrity has to say, why wait until 11:30 PM when it's literally just a mouse-click away. The social media boom is a big factor in this (case-in-point: Tom Hanks' most recent tweet was 14 minutes ago). Same idea with websites like TMZ and Perez Hilton (both the scum of the universe, mind you--pretty sure if Dante was alive he would include a new circle of hell solely for these asshats).
I'm not going to give a rundown of each of the hosts, as Colls covered all the bases there, and I have nothing intelligent to add.
Last point: huge ups to Colls for taking the reins and getting us back into gear. All it took was a thought-provoking topic, and I'm back in 100%.
One love,
PBR
No comments:
Post a Comment