Is it too late to save the Late Late Show (Mod warning post #434)

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

To my mind, what's stark about these numbers is the context: consistently, 400k plus tune-in to Reeling in the Years, Room to Improve, and Winning Streak (for the week ending 24th, Novemeber, Wednesday's Fair City had 544k viewers!). That demonstrates that there is a mass of viewers who will watch anything

That's a pretty big jump you're making there, and fairly insulting to a lot of people. Just because these aren't programmes you may enjoy, doesn't mean they aren't popular.

Winning Streak I find to be a godawful piece of cringe TV, but some people watch it religiously. I mean, "Get the dinner made or we'll miss Winning Streak", religious. These aren't people who are watching these shows in the absence of something to do, this is a hardcore fanbase who don't miss them. The power of that fanbase can't be written off as "just some aul wans".

I do agree with the rest of your post though, that they should look at doing something with the format. It's not really the LLS's fault that it's become a platform for book-pluggers. That's the nature of the format. Back in the 70s and 80s, there were less channels, less talk shows, so the likes of Billy Connolly were more than happy to come onto a show, talk crap for an hour and have a bit of a laugh, and get some national exposure. If you were releasing a book you would go on Parkie, Gaybo, a few radio shows and you've got 99% coverage of the British Isles.

Now, however you have far more channels and talk shows, many with much bigger viewerships (think Graham Norton), such that an invite to the LLS is no longer a prestige event for a celebrity, rather another media request where they get to demand an appearance fee, or plug their latest book/film/pet project. In order to get good coverage, they have to run a talk show circuit of 30 or 40 different interviews in various regions.
The international spread of media also creates more markets to play in, further limiting time and requiring people to be picky.

Maybe the answer is to focus on current events more, bring in smaller local celebrities like Christy Moore or Glen Hansard who might not have the appeal of Colin Farrell, but will be happy to come and just have a chat and a laugh without trying to plug anything.

They just need someone who is interesting, interested and with a sense of humour presenting the show.

Everyone has an interesting story to tell but Ryan does not seem to be able to draw it out in his guests.

Certainly should be at least 30 minutes shorter.

It also shouldn't be live, recording on a Thursday or even a Friday evening would certainly reduce the cringe factor and awkwardness that LLS with Ryan Tubridy often suffers from. Graham Norton, Jonathan Ross and Jay Leno all have better, tighter programs.

Finally, they need to become less reliant on interviewing RTE personalities about their RTE product.

It is probably not an issue right at the top of their minds. But the LLS set is absolutely terrible. Dreary and depressing. Even compared with the 1980s late late with the yellowish colour. The 80s were supposed to be more depressing than now!

The format simply doesn't work in 2013, nor has it worked for years. No other programme attempts to mix celebrity guests and hard-hitting panel discussions. The only other show I can think of that tried to balance the two was That's Life ("Hey! Look at the dog on rollerskates! Now, let's talk about the homeless..."), which the BBC put out of its misery years ago.

I don't think that the book-plugging element is a problem in itself. Anyone who goes on the Jonathan Ross or Graham Norton shows are also promoting a film or a book or a DVD, so it's just become the norm on chat shows. The difference is the calibre of guest and the fact that both Ross and Norton, whether you like either of them or not, are much more polished and at ease with genuine A-Listers. Not that the LLS gets many A-Listers. Tubridy was practically trembling a few years ago because Anna Faris (bubbly, but hardly Sandra Bullock) was on, so unusual was it to have any American personality on the show.

Tubridy's problem is that he is completely terrified of going off the pre-prepared questions. He clings onto those cards like his life depends on them. Someone could say something revelatory - like Jack Lemmon announcing he was an alcoholic on Inside the Actors' Studio - and he'd be in a blind panic. When Michelle Heaton was on talking about her traumatic surgery decisions, he just couldn't handle it, and it seemed he was more keen to cut to a commercial break for his sake than hers. I'm not disputing it was a hard subject to talk about, but he's the one paid to do just that.

The laziness and predictability of the questions is equally sloppy. Bryan Cranston was on earlier this year, and the researchers obviously had a quick look at the imdb and saw that he had been in many high-profile TV shows over the years, and decided to work a little quiz around it. Now, Cranston was excellent, but they got away with it because he entered into the spirit of proceedings. Anyone else, it would have been cringeworthy.

The main problem is the format. I'm old enough to remember the old school 1980s LLS, and at the time, the mix of celebrity guests and the inevitable heavy discussion of "issues" kind of worked, but it was a very different Ireland back then, where some people still lived in the Land of Two Channels, so exposure to such things was a selling point.

In that pre-internet, pre-satellite TV world, long before media saturation of celebrity culture, to see anyone remotely famous in the show was a big deal. There was a novelty in seeing an actor or a comedian, because to most people, they were of another time and place, and yet there they were, talking to Uncle Gay.

Tubridy got in a strop a few years ago, referring to the fact that people kept going on about Peter Ustinov on the show, but failing to grasp that the very thing that MADE Ustinov's appearances memorable was his gift as a raconteur, and - dare I say it - Gaybo being comfortable in letting the man speak. Tubs is never going to create memorable TV by hauling in whoever happens to be sitting in the RTÉ canteen.

The misery slot has got to go. Who needs to hear sad stories of sickness, death, etc on a Friday night.

It needs to be kept upbeat to entertain the audience.

Unfortunately the presenter drains the energy and buzz from the guests. Over the years he has done this to Take That, Juliette Binoche, Mia Farrow to name a few. These are big names - they should have been memorable interviews (for good reasons, not memorable for the way the presenter handled these guests).

And need I remind you of the horrendous Rhys Ifans interview???!!

Lapin wrote: »

Saving LLS in 6 easy steps.


Drop the weekly dose of depression, suicide and cancer.

Bring back topical debates with audience participation and bring back panels of guests.

Splash out on one international famous guest per week and shut the revolving on regular RTÉ faces plugging RTÉ programmes.

Take the show out of Dublin a couple of times a season.

Snip a half hour off the length of it.

Give it to Brendan O'Connor.

U
Job done.

Fell on the last hurdle I'm afraid.

Lapin wrote: »

I for one seriously hope the elderly are still in existence in about 30 years time. :eek:

Nothing to do with the LLS.

Its a purely selfish perspective !

+1...

:eek:

Tubbers can't adlib.

He's essentially an empty suit.
He's stiff, he flaps if the conversation veers off the set questions and most importantly he's on utterly ridiculous money.


The licence payers fee would be better spent on something more worthwhile.
The Late Late is irrelevant and as has already been said is basically a trawl of the canteen to highlight whatever ****e RTE are churning out for the winter.

I think someone like Sean Moncrieff could do a great job hosting a show with both light-hearted and serious topics. One of the better interviewers i've heard in the last few years. His show on Newstalk is one of the best things on radio.