News1 min ago
Chat Shows
27 Answers
Does anyone else agree that such chat type shows as The Graham Norton Show, Alan Carr Chatty Man and The Matt Lucas Awards are the pits?
Why do they have to continuously flaunt their 'campness', with their cheap and rather silly sexual innuendoes?
As for their guests, they are mainly insignificant nobodys who have little or no personality and very little experience of life to chat about, and incidentally what contribution does Matt Lucas Mother have to make to his show?
Bring back such chat show hosts as Des O'Connor and Parkinson, the recent re-runs of Parkinson have been superb, especially the recent one where he interviewed the great late David Niven.
Why do they have to continuously flaunt their 'campness', with their cheap and rather silly sexual innuendoes?
As for their guests, they are mainly insignificant nobodys who have little or no personality and very little experience of life to chat about, and incidentally what contribution does Matt Lucas Mother have to make to his show?
Bring back such chat show hosts as Des O'Connor and Parkinson, the recent re-runs of Parkinson have been superb, especially the recent one where he interviewed the great late David Niven.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have banged on previously about a term that I have invented - 'BBC gays' which refers to Norton, Carr etc., insofar as they are seen as the 'safe' side of homosexuality. They are cuddly and friendly and slightly cheeky in a music hall sort of way, so old grannies can watch them and grin at how 'naughty' they are.
Obviously there is no point in being a 'BBC gay' unless you populate a programe format that allows you to emphasise it at regular intervals, say about every fifteen seconds or so.
So that is the format of show that these presenters offer, and people like it or not - personally I don't, so I don't watch them.
It's a fair point that Parkinson was a very different style of interviewer, so it's not comparing like with like to say that he was better than Norton and Carr because the format is very different indeed.
We have to accept that as in all things, chat show entertainment has moved on, and the days of Parkie are gone, as are the massive viewing figures that type of show produced. The popular format now is the Americn version, pioneered by Jonathan Ross with The Last Resort, and evolved by him, with the baton picked up by Norton, and Carr etc.
To sumnmarise, I find the constant campness to be tiresome, so I don't wach these shows, but I am increasingly in the minority, which is the way it is.
Obviously there is no point in being a 'BBC gay' unless you populate a programe format that allows you to emphasise it at regular intervals, say about every fifteen seconds or so.
So that is the format of show that these presenters offer, and people like it or not - personally I don't, so I don't watch them.
It's a fair point that Parkinson was a very different style of interviewer, so it's not comparing like with like to say that he was better than Norton and Carr because the format is very different indeed.
We have to accept that as in all things, chat show entertainment has moved on, and the days of Parkie are gone, as are the massive viewing figures that type of show produced. The popular format now is the Americn version, pioneered by Jonathan Ross with The Last Resort, and evolved by him, with the baton picked up by Norton, and Carr etc.
To sumnmarise, I find the constant campness to be tiresome, so I don't wach these shows, but I am increasingly in the minority, which is the way it is.
unlike julianclary, norton andcarrs sexuality is actually rarelymentioned, or acknowledged... it is the effeminate nature of themi thinksomedont like
i used to know a guy whose every other comment was about the size of his bumhole ... occasionally it was wittybut mostly just tedious and gross - oneday wasso exasperated i asked himwhy...an he wasshocked...
i used to know a guy whose every other comment was about the size of his bumhole ... occasionally it was wittybut mostly just tedious and gross - oneday wasso exasperated i asked himwhy...an he wasshocked...
Don't care their camp etcWhat bugs me is lack of depth, three guests on a sofa no time to actualy talk about anything. Its embarrasing really.
Thing with Parkinson was he didn't like the sound of his own voice and he let the guest talk.
Different styles maybe but if someones on a chatshow you at least want to hear about them.
I no longer watch.
Thing with Parkinson was he didn't like the sound of his own voice and he let the guest talk.
Different styles maybe but if someones on a chatshow you at least want to hear about them.
I no longer watch.
The level of guest on Ross and Norton is similar to Parkinson's/Frost's/Harty's/O'Connors mainstream guests ie actors, singers etc with a career in the public eye to maintain.
There may be a slight difference in that some of the A Listers today will consider they don't need or want to do that whereas shows like Parkinson had such a huge share of audience missing a regular appearance was tantamount to announcing one's retirement.
The main shift over the years as has been referenced already is away from the 'journalist' interviewer (Piers Morgan is still working that one) to the 'entertainer' host on the american model.
In the US, the famous hosts are mostly stand up comedians eg Leno and Letterman.
Jonathan Ross shamelessly nicked the format and others have adapted it.
Parkinson's journalistic style worked more depth though he became more sycophantic and less challenging in his latter years and he was dependent on getting interesting guests because in himself he was a dull, tedious 'professional yorkshireman'. Ross, Norton etc are consistently good if you like them - if you don't, you'll hate it and even an interesting guest won't make much difference.
There may be a slight difference in that some of the A Listers today will consider they don't need or want to do that whereas shows like Parkinson had such a huge share of audience missing a regular appearance was tantamount to announcing one's retirement.
The main shift over the years as has been referenced already is away from the 'journalist' interviewer (Piers Morgan is still working that one) to the 'entertainer' host on the american model.
In the US, the famous hosts are mostly stand up comedians eg Leno and Letterman.
Jonathan Ross shamelessly nicked the format and others have adapted it.
Parkinson's journalistic style worked more depth though he became more sycophantic and less challenging in his latter years and he was dependent on getting interesting guests because in himself he was a dull, tedious 'professional yorkshireman'. Ross, Norton etc are consistently good if you like them - if you don't, you'll hate it and even an interesting guest won't make much difference.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
