You might be surprised. Yes, in terms of total viewership Letterman easily outperforms Colbert currently.
But in terms of the important 18-49 demographic, they’re already pretty close and Letterman has a big platform advantage.
In the last week, in that demographic Letterman averaged a 0.63 rating while Colbert got a 0.59. That’s only a difference of 50,000 viewers.
So, yes, if he doesn’t pull in total viewership at least similar to Kimmel (who is far behind both Letterman and Leno/Kimmel in total viewership but the advertisers are still happy because Kimmel beats Letterman in the 18-49) it will be a problem but he’s starting out from a pretty solid position if one assumes his audience follows him.
I hate to tell you this, but your side is dying off quickly. Among young people, gay rights isn’t even a debate anymore. And advertisers like young folks with pliable tastes and soon to be growing wallets.
The thing I’m wondering about regarding this move is this: Colbert, for nearly a decade now, has worked a show where he is the constant center of attention. Even when he is interviewing a guest, he and his persona are still a large part of the segment. The only time Colbert ever steps back and lets a guest totally take the spotlight is when there is a musical act performing–and even then sometimes Colbert wants in.
In the standard late night talk show format, a good host has to step back and let the guests own the spotlight a lot–particularly when the guest is a stand-up comic doing a set. Will Colbert be willing to give those guests that kind of space? That’s rarely been the case on the Report; will he get antsy when he has to regularly step back into the shadows and let someone else shine? I’m not sure about that.
I’m vaguely optimistic about this move, though I certainly have some reservations. Mostly, I’m not that interested in the weak, tired, fucked out late night format. I loved watching Carson and Letterman back in the day, but the routineness of their shows, and all other shows since, has long-since left me uninterested in watching any of these shows. I’m sure Colbert will bring his own flavor to the format, but I doubt he can stretch the bounds enough to really make it something new and worth watching. I’ll give him my attention once the new show starts, but if/when Colbert can’t make it entertaining when he has to sit through yet another bland, Wednesday night interview with some C list cast member of some CBS sitcom that I’ll never have an interest in watching, I suspect that’s when I’ll be tuning out.
But I certainly don’t begrudge Stephen the opportunity. Let’s hope he succeeds despite the reservations many of us have.
That’s the character. I’m with you in hoping he can revolutionize late night, and if anyone can, Colbert can. I’m not worried that he couldn’t do the traditional late night format. I just hope he doesn’t settle for it.
Jimmy Fallon does the same thing on The Tonight Show. Like Colbert he has some real musical talent but puts himself onstage with his guests more often than he probably should. He’s solid (and he’s done some great musical parodies) but he’s nowhere near the level of most of his guests or The Roots. If I had to guess, he does this more than Colbert. And to me, Colbert’s performance in interviews is less egotistical than you think: he’s playing an ignorant loudmouth, but he does so in a way that generally allows his guests to make their points at some length and makes Colbert look like an idiot for disagreeing with them. That task will actually be simpler if he’s being himself because he can just be interested in his guests and let them talk, which the Colbert character can’t do.
Well said–if he should “settle for” a show traditional format, that’s the real fear. If he challenges the boundaries and breaks them, then something special could happen here.
I wouldn’t say I think his interview style is egotistical; I just wanted to point out that, even in the midst of an interview with a really interesting guest, Colbert often–whether due to the demands of the character or his just his own personality; I’m not convinced that it was “just the character”–needed to keep himself out front and center scoring points. It was OK with the smart people he brought on the Report, who “got it” regarding the character; I’m less certain that will go over on a regular basis when it’s some dim-bulb starlet sitting in the other chair, or LL Cool J trying to plug NCIS:LA. And even if the attention hog thing was all the character, Colbert as himself might retain some of that style just out of “muscle memory.” It will be easy for him to slip into “Report mode” early in his run, especially he doesn’t break out of gate fast and the pressure to outperform the other shows intesifies.
Still, I think it’s at least worth giving him a look. He’s earned some trust and faith from the fans.
Being a liberal is inherent disdain for Middle America, i.e. real America, i.e. not those effete Commies on the coasts. Liberals by definition hate real Americans.
If you don’t understand this, you must be a liberal.
It’s the character. I think it was O’Reilly who said the guest shouldn’t get to talk for more than eight seconds uninterrupted. That’s what he is doing. And by scoring points he is making the other person’s argument look good by playing a stupid person who opposes them. He won’t cut people off that way on The Late Show.
If you’ve ever seen Colbert interview someone out of character (or just watched one of his “Report” interviews with a scientist who’s less outgoing than NDT), I think you’d realize that he’s actually one of the more generous interviewers in show biz. In fact, one of the most obvious “tells” for when Colbert is struggling to maintain character is when he becomes so intrinsically fascinated by what his interviewee is saying that he just starts asking them real questions. Like I mentioned, this happens a lot when scientists come on the show, especially if the science is a relatively apolitical topic like astrophysics.
IMO, what has allowed his Colbert Report persona work for as long as it has is that his actual personality is the polar opposite of his O’Reilly parody, which comes through in small ways on the Report. For example, if you pay attention to the show, you’ll notice that, even at his most political, Colbert almost never goes for straight-up ad hominem the way actual pundits do. Mostly, he parrots their ad hominems (or, often, simply shows clips of them doing their thing) and lets them hang themselves out to dry. But the underlying message is always, “Look at how fundamentally flawed this argument is,” and not “Look at what a dickhole this piece of shit is!”
That’s what makes me confident that he’s going to kick ass at the Late Show. He’s a master of calibrating his interview style to match his subject, and I have no doubt that he’ll continue to bring his intellect to bear on important topics of the day. He’ll do plenty of celebrity interviews as well, but even those should generally be more interesting than the “tell us a silly story about shooting Movie X” pablum that is de rigeur for the format.