There 130 new posts since I last checked this thread.
Anything new and different?
Anything new and different?
Colbert cancelled
31,271 Views |
587 Replies |
Last: 16 days ago by captkirk
maroon barchetta said:
There 130 new posts since I last checked this thread.
Anything new and different?
Naaa...same ol' same ol' by the same ol' same ol'
DannyDuberstein said:
If you are going to "retool" to deal with a $40mm problem, I start with the guy making $15mm who is doing his first gig where he actually is himself and his true personality. Again, the format is a dinosaur and the host has proven to be been so politically divisive that half the country isn't interested in anything he does. Contract is up; perfect time to come back with something different and at a much different cost structure. Also gives you a head-start on your 2 chief competitors at whatever that is
I already posted this but CBS has already cancelled one late night talk show without retooling. It was losing money and they cancelled and did not backfill.
So, the precedent is already there. There is no re-tooling a format that is highly endangered especially when even major hosts say the format is dead.
I think re-tooling argument is a false one.
CBS will have a new late night talk show within a couple years. May have to do something where they wait for his contract to run out or whatever, but they will have one
dreyOO said:
I thought Colbert was hilarious on Comedy Central. And he's terrible on this format.
It's really that simple to most of us.
I recently saw a clip of Johnny Carson explaining why he wouldn't take on heavy topics and alienate people by using his platform. But apparently, Colbert never saw that or took it to heart.
This isn't it, but you nailed it with your first sentence.
He was funny in the Colbert character, but he is not good as an actual interviewer as himself.
PatAg said:
CBS will have a new late night talk show within a couple years. May have to do something where they wait for his contract to run out or whatever, but they will have one
I see two ways to go:
- Reinvent the format to be a video version of Podcasts. Small ~30 person audience, witty host, longer form interviews, able to have non celebrity authors and scientists, etc. on. Similar to The Dick Cavett show.
- Take the Fallon and Cordon model to the extreme and you only exist to create You-Tube clips that can be monetized outside of your time slot.
YouBet said:DannyDuberstein said:
If you are going to "retool" to deal with a $40mm problem, I start with the guy making $15mm who is doing his first gig where he actually is himself and his true personality. Again, the format is a dinosaur and the host has proven to be been so politically divisive that half the country isn't interested in anything he does. Contract is up; perfect time to come back with something different and at a much different cost structure. Also gives you a head-start on your 2 chief competitors at whatever that is
I already posted this but CBS has already cancelled one late night talk show without retooling. It was losing money and they cancelled and did not backfill.
So, the precedent is already there. There is no re-tooling a format that is highly endangered especially when even major hosts say the format is dead.
I think re-tooling argument is a false one.
Are you talking about After Midnight? Because if so, that's simply not true. Tomlinson herself decided not to renew her own contract, and instead return to touring. It was at that point that the show was cancelled, with CBS opting to discontinue rather than replace her. Yes, ratings were bad, and CBS had apparently internally discussed potentially pulling the plug at some point. But they were prepared to keep it going, with Tomlinson, likely at a cheaper budget.
The big shift is that young comedians don't need a network gig anymore to make it big. Why would someone like Tomlinson, Bargatze, or Gillis want to chain themselves to a desk for 15 years doing the exact same thing?
Agreed. They can make way more money elsewhere now.
The Original Houston 1836
Joined:
Feb 6, 2025
Posts:
2,919
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You'd think since the audience skews so heavily old people anyway that they'd consider putting on classic late night stuff. NBC has the rights to Johnny, Dave, Jay and Conan for decades.
PatAg said:
CBS will have a new late night talk show within a couple years. May have to do something where they wait for his contract to run out or whatever, but they will have one
No. That format is dead.
I realize that there are challenges for any traditional network platform, but I don't necessarily think it's dying because of what it is. It is dying because of what it has become. I think you see across the board that people really long for the old school "tune your brain out" kind of shows where you can tune in and just laugh as you try to unwind and fall asleep. Pretty sure that's why these shows are scheduled when they are.
I know I would gladly tune in for Letterman of the 90s or Carson or any of that on a regular basis. I just don't wanna hear about politics when I wanna be entertained. Right wing or left-wing I don't care. I don't wanna hear it.
I know I would gladly tune in for Letterman of the 90s or Carson or any of that on a regular basis. I just don't wanna hear about politics when I wanna be entertained. Right wing or left-wing I don't care. I don't wanna hear it.
TCTTS said:YouBet said:DannyDuberstein said:
If you are going to "retool" to deal with a $40mm problem, I start with the guy making $15mm who is doing his first gig where he actually is himself and his true personality. Again, the format is a dinosaur and the host has proven to be been so politically divisive that half the country isn't interested in anything he does. Contract is up; perfect time to come back with something different and at a much different cost structure. Also gives you a head-start on your 2 chief competitors at whatever that is
I already posted this but CBS has already cancelled one late night talk show without retooling. It was losing money and they cancelled and did not backfill.
So, the precedent is already there. There is no re-tooling a format that is highly endangered especially when even major hosts say the format is dead.
I think re-tooling argument is a false one.
Are you talking about After Midnight? Because if so, that's simply not true. Tomlinson herself decided not to renew her own contract, and instead return to touring. It was at that point that the show was cancelled, with CBS opting to discontinue rather than replace her. Yes, ratings were bad, and CBS had apparently internally discussed potentially pulling the plug at some point. But they were prepared to keep it going, with Tomlinson, likely at a cheaper budget.
I'm talking about the gay guy that had a show. Can't recall his name.
Is he a girl now named Tomlinson?
YouBet said:TCTTS said:YouBet said:DannyDuberstein said:
If you are going to "retool" to deal with a $40mm problem, I start with the guy making $15mm who is doing his first gig where he actually is himself and his true personality. Again, the format is a dinosaur and the host has proven to be been so politically divisive that half the country isn't interested in anything he does. Contract is up; perfect time to come back with something different and at a much different cost structure. Also gives you a head-start on your 2 chief competitors at whatever that is
I already posted this but CBS has already cancelled one late night talk show without retooling. It was losing money and they cancelled and did not backfill.
So, the precedent is already there. There is no re-tooling a format that is highly endangered especially when even major hosts say the format is dead.
I think re-tooling argument is a false one.
Are you talking about After Midnight? Because if so, that's simply not true. Tomlinson herself decided not to renew her own contract, and instead return to touring. It was at that point that the show was cancelled, with CBS opting to discontinue rather than replace her. Yes, ratings were bad, and CBS had apparently internally discussed potentially pulling the plug at some point. But they were prepared to keep it going, with Tomlinson, likely at a cheaper budget.
I'm talking about the gay guy that had a show. Can't recall his name.
Is he a girl now named Tomlinson?
Late Late Show with James Corden. Taylor Tomlinson is actually funny.
ETA I remember the Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn and Craig Ferguson after that. Those guys were ****ing hilarious **** James Corden for ruining it.
Yeah, that show was reportedly losing $20mm per year. When his contract was coming up, the word was he made the decision to "spend more time with family" (code for "I'm fired but we've agreed to part nicely where we both save face") and CBS ended the show entirely. Magically, that announcement was made about a year in advance of his contract being up. Sound familiar on timing?
But this one was a conspiracy pressure by Trump. Reality is that CBS is simply mercy killing this dinosaur money pit of a format when they get the opportunity as these high dollar contracts expire. And it happens a year out because that's when agents/hosts want an extension/clarity and the network needs time to assemble a replacement if it's going a different direction.
But this one was a conspiracy pressure by Trump. Reality is that CBS is simply mercy killing this dinosaur money pit of a format when they get the opportunity as these high dollar contracts expire. And it happens a year out because that's when agents/hosts want an extension/clarity and the network needs time to assemble a replacement if it's going a different direction.
Cordon existed mainly to create you tube clips of Carpool Karaoke and his other skits. And he knew it.
maroon barchetta said:
There 130 new posts since I last checked this thread.
Anything new and different?
People that use common sense are saying it was a business decisions.
The Liberals are blaming Trump and think it's a conspiracy.
So.....no.
You also have to remember that Trump loves to take credit for things that he had little or nothing to do with. Entirely possible that they knew the show cancellation was a part of the deal, and then convinced Paramount to go public with it now so Trump could take a victory lap.
I get the idea that re-tooling the budget is typical before cancellation. But I'm guessing Colbert wasn't real thrilled with cutting 40%+ of his budget when he is "#1" in his time slot. Also entirely possible they tried to renegotiate with him and he refused a pay cut or to cut any staff. Of course we'll never know any of that so most will choose to believe what ever they want.
I get the idea that re-tooling the budget is typical before cancellation. But I'm guessing Colbert wasn't real thrilled with cutting 40%+ of his budget when he is "#1" in his time slot. Also entirely possible they tried to renegotiate with him and he refused a pay cut or to cut any staff. Of course we'll never know any of that so most will choose to believe what ever they want.
Sapper Redux said:Teslag said:rgvag11 said:
MOAR Gaslighting. LOL Try again.
People have continually said in this thread that Colbert is being canceled do to his declining popularity, particularly due to his politics. The facts do not support that conclusion.
No, people have said it's because he lost $40 million a year for his employer. The reason for his terrible ratings is irrelevant.
He just sucks at his actual job, which is selling advertising. And that's why he lost his job.
So because they were losing money, the company just happened to decide to completely shut down production and fire the entire staff of a long running institution rather than find cost savings right before they needed the partisan FCC to sign off of their merger. Sure. That smells above the board.
But they didn't completely shut down the production. They are likely going to run his show through his contract that ends in May, 2026, but other key players (producers) had expiring contracts soon, and it was going to be pretty obvious when all new contracts ended at the same time as Colbert.that the show was ending.
My conspiracy belief - I think many in upper management of Paramont not only knew that the show was going to get cancelled, but that the merger was going to soon be approved by the FCC. I think they specifically waited to make the announcement not only right before the merger was approved, but also right as the newest South Park episode launched.
The execs, many of whom hate what Paramount leadership did in paying off the 60 Minutes lawsuit, not only get more people blaming Trump, but more importantly the South Park and Colbert episodes get a bump in viewership and attention. I also think it helps launch Colbert into his next opportunity.
Seriously. Someone already said it. The show was a dog.
Occam's razor. This **** isn't complicated.
Occam's razor. This **** isn't complicated.
[You can post a link to the Tweet or small quotes from an article but you have been told many times not to post large parts of articles and we are not going to shorten your posts any more . We are going to remove them if you are not going to follow the rules. -Staff]
[Quoting material this behind a pay wall or a sign in wall is strictly prohibited. -Staff]
[Quoting material this behind a pay wall or a sign in wall is strictly prohibited. -Staff]
Oh man I look forward to reading all that someday.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next round of late night TV shows are hosted by today's top podcasters. They've already proven themselves in the marketplace, and they know how to put out regular content. Not sure how many would they give up their steady and lucrative audience to take on that risk.
I've never once been told by staff not to post large parts of articles, much less been told "many times." This issue has never been brought to my attention, and to my knowledge you've never once shortened my posts in this regard. So please don't publicly reprimand me as if this has been some kind of ongoing issue. That said, now that I know it's prohibited, it won't happen again.
[You had a post edited on page one of this thread and this is in the User Agreement.
16. Copyrighted Content
Please refrain from posting long-form articles in their entirety or repurposing knowingly copyrighted content. Please do not post or upload images you know to be copyrighted. Posting links to interesting news articles for discussion (with a couple of lines of summary/or notes of interest) is permitted.
-Staff]
[When we put edits in threads it also for other posters to avoid edits and it helps us keep threads cleaned up. If you have any other questions about moderation please feel free to use the Contact option. Thank you. -Staff]
[You had a post edited on page one of this thread and this is in the User Agreement.
16. Copyrighted Content
Please refrain from posting long-form articles in their entirety or repurposing knowingly copyrighted content. Please do not post or upload images you know to be copyrighted. Posting links to interesting news articles for discussion (with a couple of lines of summary/or notes of interest) is permitted.
-Staff]
[When we put edits in threads it also for other posters to avoid edits and it helps us keep threads cleaned up. If you have any other questions about moderation please feel free to use the Contact option. Thank you. -Staff]
rynning said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the next round of late night TV shows are hosted by today's top podcasters. They've already proven themselves in the marketplace, and they know how to put out regular content. Not sure how many would they give up their steady and lucrative audience to take on that risk.
I don't see why anyone would do that other than chasing the fame bug. You would be giving up all of your freedom and content decision authority by moving to TV and away from podcast. Not to mention maybe having to uproot your life and move.
Well that's one way to get a ban. I predict that post is edited with:
[If you have an issue with moderation, email the moderators. Enjoy your ban.]
Or something similar. I know from much experience in this arena.
[If you have an issue with moderation, email the moderators. Enjoy your ban.]
Or something similar. I know from much experience in this arena.
This thread has been enlightening. It's amazing how folks have dug in and gone to the mat essentially arguing that an "entertainment" show that lost 40 million dollars a year for their employer got canceled for anything but not being profitable and hemorraging massive amounts of cash. Especially when they have zero idea what went on behind the scenes before or after the cancellation.
Colbert, and others, have taken a format that used to be funny and enjoyable and turned it into an hour long, one sided political rant every single night. People tuned out, and that led to where we are today. The only surprise is that it took this long to get here.
TCTTS said:
I've never once been told by staff not to post large parts of articles, much less been told "many times." This issue has never been brought to my attention, and to my knowledge you've never once shortened my posts in this regard. So please don't publicly reprimand me as if this has been some kind of ongoing issue. That said, now that I know it's prohibited, it won't happen again.
They told you on page juan not to post entire articles.
Cliff.Booth said:TCTTS said:
I've never once been told by staff not to post large parts of articles, much less been told "many times." This issue has never been brought to my attention, and to my knowledge you've never once shortened my posts in this regard. So please don't publicly reprimand me as if this has been some kind of ongoing issue. That said, now that I know it's prohibited, it won't happen again.
They told you on page juan not to post entire articles.
Got eeeeeeeem
How many times do I and others have to say that Colbert's show was cancelled primarily for financial reasons, that late night talk shows are a dying format, that the writing was already on the wall, etc. I've repeated those things over and over and over again in this thread. No where did I say it got canceled "for anything but." Again, my only additional point, shared by the vast majority of coverage/reporting, as it pertains to the Skydance/Paramount deal, is simply that the Trump of it all ALSO played a part. That it was a consideration on the part of Ellison & co, in so much as it would likely earn them favor, alongside their DEI concessions and everything else they just so happen to make public this past week. Countless, trustworthy reporters/insiders/experts have acknowledged this, who have endlessly proven that they have more than "zero idea" what went on behind the scenes. That some of you so easily discount and "lol" at them is just as much of a display of your biases, opposite whatever you claim mine are.
Cliff.Booth said:TCTTS said:
I've never once been told by staff not to post large parts of articles, much less been told "many times." This issue has never been brought to my attention, and to my knowledge you've never once shortened my posts in this regard. So please don't publicly reprimand me as if this has been some kind of ongoing issue. That said, now that I know it's prohibited, it won't happen again.
They told you on page juan not to post entire articles.
I'm just now seeing that. I don't often go back and check the first page of a thread after the fact. It wasn't communicated directly to me in that regard, but it's still my mistake. I'll own that, and staff of course has every prerogative to ban me if they so choose.
You can just not respond if you feel like you're making the same argument ad infinitum and the discussion is going in circles. That is definitely a viable option in such scenarios.
YouBet said:rynning said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the next round of late night TV shows are hosted by today's top podcasters. They've already proven themselves in the marketplace, and they know how to put out regular content. Not sure how many would they give up their steady and lucrative audience to take on that risk.
I don't see why anyone would do that other than chasing the fame bug. You would be giving up all of your freedom and content decision authority by moving to TV and away from podcast. Not to mention maybe having to uproot your life and move.
Yeah, any of the top podcasters are already doing well for themselves. Not sure why they'd want to jump into that mess and give up all their freedom. They'd immediately regret it.
Sea Speed said:
You can just not respond if you feel like you're making the same argument ad infinitum and the discussion is going in circles. That is definitely a viable option in such scenarios.
Funny how you're not saying the same thing to everyone else who has made the same argument opposite mine, ad infintum. That is definitely a viable option to you.
TCTTS said:
Countless, trustworthy reporters/insiders/experts have acknowledged this, who have endlessly proven that they have more than "zero idea" what went on behind the scenes.
I dunno bro, I think the only thing that would convince me that these reporters believe this is if you find and post an entire article by one of them here....