I have some questions this morning about Stephen Colbert's debut show. This one's from Kiva K…
So when do we get the ratings? How long before they mean something?
Any minute now, they should be in. If they're great, I don't think they mean much since there was an enormous curiosity and a big advertising push. If they're dreadful, that would probably mean America wasn't as interested in Stephen Colbert as anyone thought and that could indicate trouble…but that ain't gonna happen.
My guess is the ratings really don't mean much for about 4-6 weeks unless they're spectacularly high or low. CBS will look at numbers that are not generally available to the public…like what was the tune-out during the show? Are people just tuning in for the first fifteen or the first half-hour? What's the drop-off after the mid-break? Some of that might be cause to worry. Some of that might contribute to the refinement and shaping of the format.
And this Friday night, Jimmy Fallon has Donald Trump on as a guest. How will Colbert with Amy Schumer fare against that competition?
But really, this is not a short-run competition. Colbert's going to be there for a while no matter what the numbers are. This is not like the situation when Conan O'Brien took over The Tonight Show and by the end of the first week, the network was hearing suggestions from the affiliates that they dump the tall kid and put Leno back in that slot. CBS is not going to try to put Dave back in his old position nor is there any obvious replacement. Even with less than stellar numbers, I don't think there will be any loss of confidence at the network in Colbert.
None of the above should be taken to suggest I think Colbert's numbers won't be stellar. Betcha he does great.
This next is from Richard Gersh…
For me the biggest surprise of the new Late Show with Stephen Colbert was the end credit — producer Jon Stewart. That sheds a whole new light on Stewart leaving The Daily Show when he did, and what he'll be doing next. I wonder what your thoughts are? Do you think Stewart will be an active, Freddie de Cordova-type producer?
The credit was Executive Producer, which can mean a wide range of participation, including only financial. I worked on a network series once where one of our two Executive Producers did naught but collect checks. He didn't even watch the show. It was just a deal.
My guess — and I'm guessing here because I was just as surprised at that as you were — is that it's basically ceremonial. It's Colbert's way of giving his old friend-benefactor some money and maybe an office to work out of…and if the Late Show with Stephen Colbert wins an Emmy, Mr. Stewart will get another Emmy. Otherwise, I think he's just consulting — and probably not taking any time away from whatever else he left The Daily Show to do.
Fred DeCordova, by the way, went from being a hands-on, run-everything producer for Johnny Carson to being largely a figurehead. He did very little on The Tonight Show in the last years of Johnny. There was a personal falling-out with Mr. Carson and also a feeling that Fred was dragging the show down, especially with bookings. It wasn't so much that he was old as that he was very negative about any guest he didn't know of…and he didn't seem to know of anyone who'd been in show business less time than Buddy Hackett.
Peter Lassally was really the guy running things then and others outranked Fred in a practical sense. So Mr. DeCordova just shuffled papers and ran some meetings and did traffic cop work here and there but wasn't making any real decisions. I would imagine Jon Stewart won't even do any of that…but he probably will turn up on the show for more cameos and the occasional guesting. Maybe they'll even regard him as their stand-by guest in case some biggie pulls a McCain and cancels at the last minute.
Lastly, here's a question from Joe Wahl…
Fallon's show seems to largely be about playing games with guests and Kimmel's is often about playing tricks on unsuspecting people. Do you think Colbert's made a conscious decision to avoid those two areas?
I sure hope so. Fallon's games seem like something they do because they work better than his interviews — and that seems like a function not of the games being so great but of the interviews being so weak. Not long ago when Jimmy had Don Rickles on, it really reminded me how poor an interviewer Fallon is. Since Rickles was in no shape to play drinking games or break eggs on his head, the segment was just talk. Fallon gushed a lot and said over and over how great it was to have The Living Legend on his show…but he didn't participate in the discussion. He just let Don ramble.
It's Talk Show 101: When you have Rickles on your show, you needle him, insult him and give him something to play off of. Fallon just sat there and grinned at everything Don said. One gets the feeling that while other talk show host's producers admonish their star to "Go out there and be funny," Fallon's urge him to "Go out there and be likeable!" Which he is. One reason I think Colbert will do so well is that he can be likeable and funny.
Likeable is not of no value in television. It's the main thing James Corden has going for him. Corden actually has some sharp material in his monologues but there's a disconnect. He doesn't feel like a comedian delivering his jokes. He feels like a guy who would never be doing monologues anywhere, let alone on network TV, if it wasn't part of his current job description…so he's out there reading material that someone wrote for him. That has always been one of my problems with Conan.
Say what you will about Leno, he never looked uncomfy delivering a monologue. Matter of fact, that was the portion of his show where he seemed most at ease. Stand-up is something new to Colbert but he's already better at it than most of the other guys.
I've set a Season Pass for his Late Show. I already like him in his new gig and I'm fascinated to see how it evolves, especially when it loses that New Show smell and has to run like an established program.