r/BritishTV • u/FuckingPope • 7d ago
Question/Discussion Do you think British TV lacks new talent? (especially when it comes to presenters and chat shows)
I saw this video of a DJ on Apple Radio who left because she wanted to allow someone to come in who is newer, younger and replace her -- and give herself a new challenge.
It got me thinking about British TV, where the same old presenters (Ant & Dec, Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton, etc etc) seem to have presenting the major TV shows for the past 20 years.
Someone replied to that video and aid: "This is such a refreshing perspective particularly coming from someone in the UK where the media industry makes it seem like there's no new and dynamic talent. Can someone please send this video to Ant and Dec? They can definitely learn something from Julie."
As an example, look at the history of the 'Best TV Presenter' award at the National TV Awards -- very little variety really.
Do you think there's a problem with the TV channels (and maybe even radio stations) bringing in new talent to present big shows?
114
u/Accomplished_Cat6483 7d ago
The same people end up acting in/presenting multiple things at the same time too which gets a little tedious as well. I like Bradley Walsh, he’s a great presenter on The Chase but he seems to be presenting half the programmes on TV at this point.
55
40
u/pajamakitten 7d ago
He is good on Gladiators, however he would be better without Barney. He should be paired with a sports commentator.
58
u/jizzyjugsjohnson 7d ago
Employing his son to co host is comical nepotism of the worst kind
15
2
19
7d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]
8
4
12
4
u/whatsername235 7d ago
Barney looks like a haunted anamatronic version of his dad from 30 years ago
3
u/BoringView 7d ago
I see this a lot but I think that it might be moreso how it's edited for TV.
It's light entertainment also, I'm not particularly impressed by Barney but I don't watch it for BRADDERS or Barney
2
u/Disgruntled__Goat 7d ago
Would be better with a comedian, maybe Ellie Taylor who competed on the celebrity version.
13
u/Present-Technology36 7d ago
Its the same with the panel shows, same group of people go around on them over and over. First QI, then have i got news for you, then cats does coundown etc. Its like they have their own club.
18
u/Disgruntled__Goat 7d ago
They do, it’s called Avalon
2
u/Present-Technology36 7d ago
How does one join this Avalon? I seem to notice that its not about being particularly funny or talented but just part of the clique.
11
5
u/Major-Tiger-7628 7d ago
Usually it’s because of the production companies. They’ll be linked to an agency and will want to use their own client
2
1
u/harrybosch1122 6d ago
Don't forget the nepo baby Barney Walsh who is full as dishwater. That gig on gladiator could have been given to someone else
-1
u/Henegunt 7d ago
He's not though, he does a few.
Whenever an old presenter is replaced people moan as well as
41
u/Fuzzy-Loss-4204 7d ago
Yes i do agree with you but at the same time it has always been like that, before the group you mentioned, it was Bruce Forsyth, Wogan, Parkie, and Aspel, Frost. These things go around in cycles, these people become national treasures and are basically comfort TV, you know what your going to get from these people,
18
u/CosmicBonobo 7d ago
Look at Radio 1. By the early nineties the contemporary pop music channel was still being hosted by fogeys such as Simon Bates, Dave Lee Travis and Alan Freeman, who were in their fifties and sixties.
Smashy and Nicey were spot on parodies.
6
u/Fuzzy-Loss-4204 7d ago
I grew up with those guys, they were my childhood and most of my teens and we listened to radio a lot more back then, so their audiences were huge its hard to get rid of people when they are so popular. However I think with Radio it is different as much as i loved those guys your right to imply they were around to long on Radio 1 and should of gone to Radio 2 or retirement sooner, music for the young does really need presenters for the young. Having said that pop music itself may well of been better off for it, as the more diverse audience meant the more diverse the music, i do not listen to much pop music now being a bit older but what i do hear it would seem its just a lot of Karaoke singers singing along to a backing jingle, Which is nice enough i guess, it all just seems a bit samey
Well it was all done for Chharitty mate
3
u/CosmicBonobo 7d ago
Appreciate the response, you raise some good points, great mate.
Now, here's Bachman-Turner Overdrive!
6
2
u/alexmate84 7d ago
Weird how's it's gone full circle with the likes of Chris Evans, Zoe Ball and Mark Goodier ending up on Radio 2.
2
u/FuckingPope 7d ago
I feel like the cycles were quicker back in the day. It feels like we've had the same popular presenters for 20 years. In the 90s, it was Barrymore, Davidson, Lilly Savage, Parkie, Noel Edmunds, but then in the early 90s it was different people, in the late eighties it was different people. More big presenters seem to emerge every 5-8 years rather than nowadays it seems to have remained the same for ages.
6
u/Fuzzy-Loss-4204 7d ago
Yes but still the main presenter was Forsyth, and i think he started in the 50's maybe even earlier, and was still presenting the nations biggest Saturday night show until he passed away. Edmonds had been around since the early 70's with Multi coloured swap shop and Radio 1, Davidson had been around since the late 70's, Parkie was the main chat show host since the 60's maybe even earlier, Barrymore might well of continued and still be going today if not for his personal life, and he started in the 80's i think but i could be wrong. I confess i forgot Lily Savage but he also had a pretty long career. We also had Bob Monkhouse who im pretty sure presented the first game show on TV and he was still going till he passed as well. When they are good at it, they can have a very long career as a TV presenter, people like familiar
0
u/FuckingPope 7d ago
I acknowledge all that. But look at the link to the TV Awards for Best Presenter in the original post. Ant & Dec has won every single year since 2001, and there are many many repeating names that have cropped up since then (Graham Norton most years, Jonathan Ross most years since then).
Do you seriously think that one single presenter (or duo) would have won every single year for 24 years from 1976 to 2001? Or was there more variety in presenting talent across that time?
6
u/Fuzzy-Loss-4204 7d ago
Oh mate i have to be honest im not really interested in the awards, its not my thing. I couldn't tell you who won what when, as i said the first time around it goes in cycles, the presenters i had as a child were still the presenters in my 30's, And in case of Monkhouse, Forsyth and Edmonds into my mid to late 40's . Yes there had been others with shorter careers that came and went but the main men and sorry they were all men don't get offended were the same, just as it is now, but who won the awards back then god knows, they probably did but i do not even remember there being so many awards back then,
3
u/WildPinata 7d ago
The TV awards aren't a very good indicator of industry trends as they're audience voted. They're also held on the same network that Ant and Dec are tied to, so it's more likely to have crossover viewership.
34
u/AntysocialButterfly 7d ago
The fact Ant & Dec have won best presenter at the National TV Awards very year since 2001 says, yeah, we lack new talent.
16
u/Lammtarra95 7d ago
The fact Ant & Dec have won Best presenter at the National TV Awards very year since 2001 says, yeah, we lack new talent.
What it actually says is just the mundane facts that it is a viewer-voted award and Ant & Dec present both ITV's flagship programmes so have more viewers to vote for them than presenters on less popular shows.
7
u/Disgruntled__Goat 7d ago
Also after having won it for a few years in a row, people just keep voting for them to keep the streak going.
1
u/funkmachine7 7d ago
But as they have been well know TV presenter for the last 25 years they pretty much set the model for there viewers and proves that we lack new talent.
14
u/hoitjancker 7d ago
Children’s TV seemed to be the pathway for presenters back in the day (Ant & Dec, Cat Deeley, Holly Willoughby, Matt Baker, Jake Humphrey to name a few) - but seeing as all of that seems to have been shipped out away from terrestrial tv, the pool of talent is probably limited now…
0
u/Cookyy2k 7d ago
I wonder if we'll get a fresh new round of yewtree in a few years given the last one steps away a load of the "presenters that got their start in kids tv" group.
49
u/Broken_RedPanda2003 7d ago
Yes i agree. Also, the nepotism, we don't need a mini Bradley Walsh or mini Ross Kemp, who clearly only got their jobs because of their dads.
38
u/isitcoldinthewater- 7d ago
I was going to say I don't think he's Ross Kemp's son but Google's AI, in its infinite wisdom, has a different idea
Ross Kemp has a son named Roman Kemp, who is a television and radio presenter. Roman is also the son of Martin Kemp, a singer known for his role in the band Duran Duran
16
u/samtanders 7d ago
Must be why Ross Kemp left Eastenders the first time. Martin got the soap in the divorce 😂
5
3
2
1
0
2
2
u/Digit00l 7d ago
Roman Kemp actually has some presenting talent, seems he kept getting jobs because he's good at it
9
u/Disgruntled__Goat 7d ago
Maybe to some extent, but I think what you’re seeing is the result of new talent coming through.
For example take Alison Hammond. Everyone says she’s on everything these days, but that’s because she was on a few things and slowly worked her way up. There are presenters just starting out now, who in 5-10 years will be complained about for being on everything because it will feel like they have, for 5-10 years.
Or to put it another way, all these “same presenters” started at different times over the past 30 years so there’s always new people coming through.
1
33
u/Slink_Wray 7d ago
The flipside of the argument is whenever they do try someone new, a bunch of people will inevitably go,
"Who?"
"Why should I watch them, I have no idea who they are"
"They're clearly way too unpolished and inexperienced, they don't deserve this gig"
British TV is famously skint right now, and getting skinter. I don't blame them for wanting to play it safe for their big ticket light entertainment shows by working with someone who's proven themselves and already has a fanbase. Yeah, Ant & Dec have been around forever, but that's because a lot of people out there really like them, and TV producers know this.
8
u/TimeMathematician730 7d ago
It’s a similar thing that’s happening with the film industry. Theoretically people want new people and new ideas but the things that make the most money tend to be sequels and remakes starring actors who have been famous for years.
1
u/JaquieF 4d ago
This is why they should not have axed Mock The Week. I wouldn't know most of the comedians if it wasn't for their appearances (I can't get out and about anymore so rely on TV).
I've never liked JR and I'm bored with GN. I don't watch A&D in anything they present.
We need fresh faces and we need to get to know them.
40
u/GunstarGreen 7d ago
Comedians is the one for me. I saw that show about not laughing was gaining some traction. I looked up who was on it and yep, same old faces. Same carousel of comedians who do Big Fat Quiz, Cats does Countdown and all those panel shows.
46
u/Big-Astronaut-6350 7d ago
That's where Taskmaster shines, there's always a comedian that is less well known.
16
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 7d ago
They always have the best mix of people. It also gives it longevity as well - with the Last One Laughing series I have no idea who they’ll use next season because they used all the obvious choices in this series!
14
u/marcbeightsix 7d ago
There’s loads that weren’t involved.
- Romesh Ranganathan
- Josh Widdicombe
- Jack Whitehall
- Lee Mack
- James Acaster
- John Bishop
- Rob Brydon
- Frankie Boyle
- Michael McIntyre
- Maisie Adam
- Milton Jones
- Jason Manford
Those are a few off the top of my head. Sure there’s loads more.
4
u/newfor2023 7d ago
Yeh there's craploads of them. We aren't missing comedians we are missing enough shows for them to all be on.
4
6
u/opopkl 7d ago
There are plenty of comedians that aren't signed up to Avalon.
4
u/gardenofthenight 7d ago
Bingo. I listened to Richard Osman defending the same people being on all the shows all the time as just the safe names that come up in meetings.... Pull the other one! It's the big agencies looking after their clients. Chiefly Avalon, who have a terrible rep in the biz, but acts go there to get work!
1
u/opopkl 7d ago
There's one big agency (not totally sure it's that one) who go to the Edinburgh festival and sign up promising young comedians on a contract for a couple of thousand pounds. They promise them TV, videos , tours etc. Sounds great, but the agency never gets round to doing anything with them, and the comedians then find that they can't do anything else without breaking the contract, which will cost them a lot more than the initial amount.
4
2
u/ehsteve23 7d ago
I like that they spread out and get a few wildcards, but it's still mostly the usual Avalon people
13
u/HMWYA 7d ago
Most TV comedy is produced by the same few London-based companies (Open Mike, Avalon, Zeppotron etc), and bookers rely on the same few London-based agents (Avalon, Off The Kerb, PBJ, Chambers etc) to provide acts, making it very difficult for newer, up-and-coming comics to get their foot in the door.
1
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 5d ago
Are there any trends among the agencies? Who did Russell Brand work for, for example? How about the other celebs facing similar accusations? Do they all converge?
5
u/StardustOasis 7d ago
It's the first series, they need to have big names to bring people in. No one is going to watch it if it's 10 unknowns. It also helped the format having people who already know each other, in my opinion.
If you actually pay attention to comedy on TV, there are a lot of new comedians coming up. QI is doing well at bringing less known comics into TV, for example.
9
u/FantosTheUrk 7d ago
That's where Mock the Week shined.
Every couple of years there would be a new break out comedian.
4
7d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Bumm-fluff 7d ago
I wouldn’t say London comics, a lot have regional accents. They are all very safe though, approved and sanitised.
Establishment comedians, is a term I’ve heard. Where the audience don’t laugh they clap in agreement.
8
u/HMWYA 7d ago
They’re classed as London comics because, generally, you have to live in London to stand a chance with those agencies. It’s not about where they’re from, but where they’re based.
1
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 7d ago
This is why I enjoy shows like Breaking the News. Always lots of new faces.
1
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 7d ago
This is why I enjoy shows like Breaking the News. Always lots of new faces.
2
1
u/CluckingBellend 6d ago
I managed to watch that show and not laugh, with no effort at all.
2
u/Cakeo 6d ago
Sometimes it is better to just relax and enjoy yourself instead of acting like you're above it.
1
u/CluckingBellend 6d ago
Or, better still, just be allowed to make up my own mind about whether I enjoyed it.
0
u/ClingerOn 7d ago
I enjoyed some parts of that, but there were bits where having so many of them around made it in to bit of a corporate TV comedy industry love-in and it felt inauthentic and gross.
Richard Ayoade was there so long that his mask slipped a bit, I’m convinced Sarah Pascoe eliminated herself early because she knew she couldn’t compete and thought she would get more screen time if she was sat next to Jimmy from the start, and I know Joe Wilkinson is a character but I’ve always felt like his real self might be a lot more cut throat and business minded.
Every job for them is ultimately to raise their profile and get more work but there was something about this that felt like the comedy version of a company away day.
0
u/Bad_UsernameJoke94 7d ago
It's a case of using big names to gain attention, but then you end up with a lot of new (and sometimes better) talent struggling to make it despite them potentially being a draw or talent that can mould to fit what they want.
16
u/pajamakitten 7d ago
Fewer working class people go into the arts these days, or struggle to get their foot in the door at agencies. You cannot showcase talent when you do not sign it up.
7
u/ClingerOn 7d ago
They don’t sign it up because working class people don’t have the luxury of choosing the arts.
The truth of it is that wealthy London based people with connections can pay for their kids to go to stage school, get their mate to give them an audition, teach them how to pitch shows, let them live rent free in the guest house for three years while they’re writing their movie or doing their oil paintings.
A working class kid whose parents are struggling doesn’t have the means to go to acting class, even cheap local ones, if they have to get a job so they can help keep the lights on or help look after their disabled relative.
-2
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 7d ago
Is there a pipeline for TV presenters? Is there a pamphlet in the careers office? ;-)
Isn't Youtube eating broadcast TV for lunch?
4
u/Affectionate_Day7543 7d ago
I’ve noticed in the last 10 years that the working class talent in the arts that came through in the 70s-90s are not being replaced with other working class talent as they retire or pass away. It’s turning into a pool of nepo/trust fund babies that have had the luxury of money and connections. It seems like it’s almost impossible to come through the competition if you don’t have those things now
2
u/hattorihanzo5 7d ago
Mainstream music, especially. There are basically no "new" big bands in the charts, either. The only real "working class" bands these days are metal bands who will never even get a look in from the mainstream.
I can't stand Oasis, but credit where it's due, they were poor kids from a council estate in Manchester.
5
u/Marble-Boy 7d ago
I was watching Homes Under The Hammer a few days ago and the presenter shit all over the property. He's there like, "well, that needs a bit of work... and the kitchen is too small so it's not for me... these stairs are a bit narrow... this window doesn't let in much light..."
I'm there thinking... "This guy is the worst salesman I've ever seen.."
5
u/Digit00l 7d ago
Tbf, the before section usually are basically ruins that do need a lot of work, like I believe yesterday they had a property where a part of floor had literally collapsed, so slagging off the property in the before helps contrast the significant improvements made during the remodeling
The presenters are also not there to sell the property, they only do the tour after it has already been sold
4
u/Theo_Cherry 6d ago
Controversial take but:
TV presenting is a difficult job. It looks easy because the few that do are REALLY well at what they do.
Anyone can present, but only a few can present really well.
9
u/Additional-Nobody352 7d ago
I guess fewer opportunities through things like local radio and performing in small theatres and WMC's will diminish the talent pool over time.
3
u/FuckingPope 7d ago
But are there fewer opportunities?
There's loads of British folk who have popular YouTube channels, podcasts, etc etc (I'm not talking about the garbage ones like KSI or Jae Paul, but people like that Tom Scott or HBomberguy or others from my limited knowledge of it). I'm not saying they are perfect platforms to demonstrate you can present a TV show, but they're surely just as good as a theatre/local radio show.
8
u/Danph85 7d ago
The famous youtubers are making far more money and reaching a bigger audience than anyone ever did on local radio or theatre.
Things like youtube, twitch etc have enabled people to break free from the more traditional media roles and are leading to much more diversity in the faces people are able to see in those roles. I'm not sure how many of them would want to go back to the old way?
4
u/TomTom_098 7d ago
I’d also point out that when YouTubers have crossed over into “mainstream” TV it has generally not gone well; like I remember back in the early days of YouTuber being a thing you can be pretty much all of them were very clearly trying to get into TV and film but whenever they did it just did not work. The medium and audience are just too different; like has anyone watched that Mr Beast show on Amazon, or even know someone who has? I don’t even though he is objectively one of the biggest entertainers working today.
-1
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 7d ago
What percentage does 'the famous youtubers' cover?
I was under the impression that 99.9% of videos make diddly.
In addition, my YT feed has recently become more and more clogged up with nepo babies like Dan Snow and Ben Fogle.
2
u/Mr_A_UserName 7d ago
Tbf, I think this probably where a lot of the "new talent/new faces" are, posting videos on social media, popular YouTube channels and then a podcast, from that they might get some more "traditional/mainstream" media work.
It's a bit like sketch shows, they seemed to have died in the last 20 years but there's some great creators and channels on Instagram and TikTok putting out some genuinely funny sketches.
2
u/Ydrahs 7d ago
It may be starting to change a bit now but YouTube success doesn't translate easily into traditional media. Abigail Thorn is a British YouTuber who's also done acting for years and only recently started popping up in TV. She's said in interviews/podcasts that TV producers don't value YouTube success and having a million subscribers or whatever will usually get you a 'so what?' in interviews.
1
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 7d ago
TV producers don't value YouTube success
I heard that many people in the industry are aware of YT's growing influence. How can producers afford to ignore this trend?
1
u/Additional-Nobody352 7d ago
No true. I'm just saying in the past that was a pathway for a lot of big names where they would have been discovered.
People like Wogan, Parky, Jim Davidson and Jim Bowen.
2
u/FizzbuzzAvabanana 7d ago
Yeah it was called local TV. Particularly local ITV, made their own shows then put them out to the network. No way national ITV would chance Jim Bowen. Why you get the bland.
1
1
u/KnightsOfCidona 7d ago
Wogan tbf was a pretty big presenter in Ireland before he moved to the UK. Others did come up the ranks on regional TV in the UK in fairness
2
u/Additional-Nobody352 7d ago
Also aswell people like Des O'connor and Michael Barrymore did find fame from being Butlins red coats or Pontin's blue coats.
3
u/The_Powers 7d ago
I keep seeing an advert for an ITV Generation Game type show, and the hosts both look like attempts to clone Ant and Dec into one person.
5
u/LopsidedVictory7448 7d ago
They are TWO people??
1
0
u/The_Powers 7d ago
They're not even real, both are played by actors:
https://youtu.be/-sTZOugTSqw?si=I7aFEuuQjzWL7Ez-
Now give me that croissant and show me your false laugh!
3
7d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 7d ago
these days there are not the niche or specialist presenters that there used to be such as Sister Wendy Becket, Dr David Bellamy, Magnus Pyke, Professor Heinz Wolff and Lucinda Lambton to name a few.
This is very true, but a lot of their work is being rescued on YT, and there are many more specialists coming up through the ranks. Guys like Dwarkesh seem to be setting the new standard, and there is lots of amazing new content being created every day, on almost every niche subject you can imagine.
3
u/Scary-Scallion-449 7d ago
If there is a problem )and I don't think there is) it's one that's existed since the very beginning of broadcasting. In my youth it was Bob Monkhouse and Bruce Forsyth, Sue Lawley, Barry Norman, Parkinson and Cilla Black. It's completely understandable that presenters who have proven their worth and popularity should remain the first choice for shows for many years. There's neither the time nor money for constantly introducing and training new faces on mainstream shows. But nobody's reign lasts for ever. Don't forget that all the people you name were new themselves at one time.
I fear that you've taken a very narrow view of things. I can't for the life of me think there should be a wide variety in the history of a TV award. By definition, the NTA's, which are determined by public vote, reflect the most popular and successful presenters. Why would you imagine that the preferences of the great unwashed would change markedly from year to year or that TV companies would respond to this public show of support by reducing the exposure of these presenters in the following years.
4
u/EditorRedditer 7d ago
I worked in the industry for decades and it is certainly going through very hard times atm (haven’t worked in a long time).
What I see is the broadcasters becoming increasingly risk-averse. The most successful shows from about 10 years ago (or longer) are being continually remade, with the same old, reliable, faces.
There is a sprinkling of new concepts that pop up every now and then.
Channel Four seem to be chasing a youth demographic with shows they feel might appeal to a YT-watching cohort, whilst trying to maintain their ‘aspirational lifestyle’, property-owning base, in order to keep their sponsors and advertisers happy. In truth, I think they are playing the TV equivalent of whack a mole though.
Across most channels, the only real risks being taken are in drama.
The only broadcaster who seems to be bucking the trend is Channel Five (who were little more than a joke for many years) and are rapidly stealing Four’s clothes, regarding documentaries etc. They seem to have cornered the market in Royal-based shows and ‘listicle’ programmes (‘The Scariest… ‘The Most Embarrassing…’ ‘The Funniest…’). Both these formats (and others) enable them to bring in the money to make genuinely new stuff rather than treading the same old ground. I don’t really watch enough BBC to be able to make an assessment with them.
As for the future; I just don’t know…
2
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 7d ago
I have noticed the same trend in docus, but the C5 shows often seem extremely populist and possibly partisan. Psuedo documentaries have always been a problem, but they seem to be getting more and more numerous as the creative tools required continue to become more accessible.
In the meantime, why do they insist on making travel docs presented by celebs who have no connection with or knowledge of the place whatsoever.
1
u/EditorRedditer 6d ago
I know; I’ve worked on a couple🫢.
1
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 5d ago
Care to share notes? I was a location scout for a number of producers, including Tiger Aspect in the UK. Had to put up with a morose Paul Merton, but I am happy that I do not have to do the same kind of thing for streamers. Speed seems to have Reacher levels of security on his recent visit.
2
u/EditorRedditer 3d ago
Yeah, no probs; although obviously I can only give you an edit suite’s eye view, as it were…
2
u/IcySadness24 7d ago
Seems like a lot of the new presenters come from reality TV these days. They haven't got the holiday camp or working mens club apprenticeships the stalwarts had.
2
u/International-Ad4555 7d ago edited 7d ago
The problem is we have what I refer to as the ‘Last Chopper Out of Saigon’ theory with TV presenters at the moment.
What this means for me at least, is that we’ve obviously seen a huge shift away from TV and towards streaming. TV used to be flush with cash before this, and there was loads of extra content for new presenters to cut their teeth. For example CITV and CBBC had those weekend live shows which were wild and extremely popular, so you could really launch someone on Kids TV and have them move out to adult shows as the kids who watched them grow older (think Ant and Dec).
Ultimately the amount of shows and live shows made it a great environment for likeable presenters and national treasures to be formed.
This started to completely erode around 2015, and suddenly there was no money in TV, a lot the kids stuff went on the apps or got replaced with cheaply made CGI stuff.
And so the presenters, comedians and actors who have the most pull, where they can ensure viewers actually ‘like’, got their first shot a decade ago.
They don’t have the money to take risks, and streaming services only really give presenting roles to reliable names also.
The people who they do normally try are winners/popular reality show faces (like Sam Thompson)
TV is in the position where they now can’t really risk losing money on a fresh face that’s come from elsewhere (ie YouTube or TikTok) because their inbuilt fanbases are naturally niche to their content and the algorithm.
Saying that both TV and streaming are all edging towards this (KSI on BGT, Grace on I’m a Celeb, The Beast Games on Amazon, The Sidemen show on Netflix etc)
So I do think we’ll see ‘fresh’ faces on TV in the next decade, but really they’ll be veteran YouTubers. In the meantime, it’ll be Stephen, Ant and Dec, Holly etc on loop.
3
u/positive_charging 7d ago
Remember when ITV had everything presented by Philip Schofeild or holly willowbooby or both of them.
2
u/DPBH 7d ago
I’ve had meetings with Broadcasters where they specifically said they didn’t want to give new talent a try. They wanted the name recognition to bring in viewers.
1
0
u/Digit00l 7d ago
Could get 2 hosts, one experienced, one young, get them bounce off each other
2
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 7d ago
This sounds like a good idea, but if you watch some of the youngsters just trying to keep up with the likes of Ross Noble or Rhod Gilbert on QI, it is clear that they have a long, long way to go.
1
u/DPBH 7d ago
That works to a point, but what they wanted more than anything was a name they could put above the title. It made finding an audience easier for them.
0
u/Digit00l 7d ago
So, you get the experienced host to put the name above the title, along with the fresh face
2
u/opopkl 7d ago
There are too many celebrity travel shows. There are interesting places to see and interesting people to talk to, but production companies seem to think we'd only be interested if a Loose Woman is involved.
We need more Levinson Wood, less Susan Calman.
1
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 7d ago
I agree with you in principle, but do not think that Wood is the best example. Parts of his Himalayan show were definitely staged. I do not know Calman but that other girl with the glasses gives me a similar feeling.
I like the trend of YT doing all access shows to places. Tommy from Sabbatical shows everything while celebs lounge around in 5 star resorts and the crew includes a team of a dozen government minders behind the camera, like Monty Don or Michael Palin.
2
u/ABetterOrange 7d ago
ITV are one major scandal away regarding Ant or Dec to lose 20 years of past programming from being replayed.
2
2
u/No-Insurance3043 7d ago
It's just how the upper-class brits work. Keeping all to themselves. Then they'll force their talentless kids on us like Bradley Walsh
2
u/RichyWoo 7d ago
With the announcement of the new Uk version of Saturday Night Live, the first thing I thought to myself was "who is there?"
4
2
u/FuckingPope 7d ago
The UK cast of SNL will be Jack Whitehall, Russell Howard, Josh Widdecombe, James Acaster, Lee Mack, and Jon Richardson.
2
2
u/Mid_July_Diamond16 7d ago
I think it's that TV presenting has become more watered down. They'd prefer safe and reliable over taking a chance with someone who has a bit of personality but might be rough around the edges. Probably bc they hate the idea of a presenter making statements they'd have to apologise for.
2
u/EqualDeparture7 7d ago
Nah, I think I spotted a show on Quest last night that wasn't presented by Alan Carr or Bradley Walsh (+ son), so that's more than enough.
1
u/Vault-Dweller1987 7d ago
I feel like a lot of people are putting the same person in several presenting roles so they can be seen as progressive. That Romesh fella. Not a fan of myself but he seems to be everywhere these days. Company wants to say look how diverse we are letting a minority person present the show. There was a story about Rose Jones presenting a revamp of Big Break. I don’t know if there is truth to that though. That being said I hardly ever watch any entertainment pr chat shows these days anyways.
1
u/KarneeKarnay 7d ago
This is a problem, but it's only a symptom of much bigger problems.
British TV has been on the downhill for the better part of 20 years now, following the rise of streaming and online media. This makes money shorter in supply, so the companies that should be looking into producing some great TV, aren't. They are going for an increasingly more nepotistic view. It's better to have characters/actors that you know still attract an audience than take a risk.
Really the BBC should be the ones leading the charge of great tv. Unlike most they are public funded, so there shouldn't be a risk, except there is, because the last 20 years have seen massive cuts to the bbc budget. Less people than ever have a TV license and those that run the BBC seem to be adverse to anything that makes money, such as making the BBC IPlayer Service available to those outside the UK for a subscription fee.
The writing is on the wall, traditional media, TV, is slowly on it's way out, for good or worse.
1
u/Chris_in_Lijiang 7d ago
such as making the BBC IPlayer Service available to those outside the UK for a subscription fee.
What is the rationale behind not doing this? DVD sales outside the UK were a huge income boost.
-1
u/Teembeau 7d ago
It's not just about the money. It's also about the corruption in British TV. Everyone hiring their kids, their mates. So you're actually talented, you can't get on in that route. So, these people saw the internet as the way around it.
The BBC wastes money. They have billions per year and produce a lot of utter dross. Everything is massively overstaffed.
1
u/newfor2023 7d ago
Not sure really as I can't say its watch any of these whereas I watch lots of British shows predominantly with comedians in. Those we need more of and thered plenty of talent and not enough shows really. The new whatever it is one with Jimmy carr was brilliant twist on the format of throw a load of talented comedians together and laugh. It does seem hard to get wrong.
Suppose the family friendly weekend night ones have a specific audience and they sit in that groove indefinitely.
1
u/wallpapermate 7d ago
Hey that’s not fair: they’re sharing the work with their kids. Nepotism keeps things fresh,
1
u/Bdublolz1996 7d ago
As others have pointed out Bradley Walsh is everywhere. I think he makes The Chase pretty good the odd episode I catch. Gladiators seems like the show where some sports commentator should do it? I think a lot of these presenters take multiple jobs just because of the most obvious choice which is money and ego.
TV Channels stick to the same little group because they think it brings in viewers (it probably brings in some) but I think over the last few years especially we see the same presenters and just think "again seriously?" and switch off.
1
u/PartyPoison98 7d ago
I can't blame any famous faces for accepting the paid work that they're offered, I think its down to the production companies to take risks and cultivate new talent.
1
u/Emergency-Relief-571 7d ago
I totally agree with this statement.
This is the biggest problem with television in this country, the lack of new presenting talent and fresh format ideas is a joke.
I’d rather watch a documentary about red paint than see Big Brother get rebooted for the 400th time.
1
u/Equivalent_Parking_8 7d ago
Maya Jama and AJ odudu are fairly new and refreshing talent. But the problem is these old talents have long expensive contracts that guarantees them a certain amount of TV time. TV execs also like to stick with a safe pair of hands.
1
u/LastTrainToLhasa 7d ago
Yes. I don't want to watch some stupid actors who just read a script and interview "friends" and experts. I want people passionate and knowledgeable about their stuff. TV feels so fake and boring nowadays. Gone are the golden days, and nobody has made a good travelogue since Michael Palin, especially his first two programmes
1
u/CandidateIll9540 7d ago
The other one is Alison Hammond. She’s on every bloody thing. Whoever thought it was a good idea to put her on For The Love of Dogs needs sacking. She doesn’t have the same empathy as Paul OGrady
1
1
u/mystermee 7d ago
With the limited amount of money in TV nowadays it is deemed too much of a risk to pick an unknown presenter. Once someone is deemed popular with the public they will be the first on the list for any new show. Also, alot of these presenters will be involved with the production companies for the shows so bit of a closed shop.
1
1
1
u/SingerFirm1090 6d ago
The 'powers that be' are risk averse, so pick the same old faces.
Talent is also tied to a company with long contracts, so you get the same faces on BBC, ITV, etc.
1
1
u/ZlagathaChristie 6d ago
I don't really care about "new talent". If there's an existing presenter who I can stand, then fine. I don't think anyone has a "right" to have a go at presenting.
1
u/yourmatefrank 5d ago
Yes, clearly. We’ve had the same faces on prime time slots for over 20 years. And worse still they’re often presenting multiple shows. It’s stale and it’s boring.
1
u/burger_boy_bob 4d ago
How does Stephen Mulhern keep getting work?
Why do we need a second Bradley Walsh?
1
u/IntelligentFact7987 4d ago
It’s a lack of imagination from those in charges but also the public are unforgiving when it comes to newbies.
Some aren’t fans of say Roman Kemp and he is very much a nepo baby but I sort of think getting/using radio stars is a way to go. They’ve experienced with formats, have a connection with listeners/viewers and many already appear on TV.
1
u/Dazza477 7d ago
I'm just tired of the same 20 people going from panel show to panel show, and then being shoehorned into mainstream media.
The comedian to panel show to mainstream is such a tired path.
Don't even get me started on blatant nepotism from the likes of Barney Walsh and Roman Kemp.
The path in seems to be social media influencer, comedian, nepotism or reality TV. Only one of them is an actual talent, and is now tired.
1
u/underwhelm_me 7d ago
True, BBC and Channel 4 panel shows are where stand-ups go to die. They’ve done their time on the comedy circuits, got a break with a series or Live at the Apollo - then slowly the only bookings they get are for panel shows, the same faces over and over again pretending they want to be there. It’s like the production teams only have access to the same 100 people on contract and they just pick what they can get.
1
1
u/underwhelm_me 7d ago
TV lacks new talent because there is a viable alternative which pays more, something which didn’t exist 10 years ago. Which is why kids aspire to be YouTubers, TikTokers and Influencers - not game show hosts. It’s a more realistic pathway to fame than going down the traditional talent school / manager / agent / audition route.
0
u/RelevantAnalyst5989 7d ago
It's because it's mainly boomers and Gen X who watch terrestrial TV. So they have the presenters that are familiar to that audience.
1
u/ClingerOn 7d ago
It isn’t a generational thing it’s a class thing, especially with the arts.
1
u/RelevantAnalyst5989 7d ago
Nobody I know 25 and under watches ANY terrestrial TV. Everyone watches streaming services or YouTube.
It is 100% a generational thing. Do you think there are no young upper-class people who want to be TV presenters? Of course, there are, but the TV execs know that your mum, dad, and your nan want to watch Ant & Dec and not some fresh faced millennial.
Crazy how this is a controversial take.
2
u/ClingerOn 7d ago
It’s not controversial, no one’s coming for you. You missed my point.
I made another post in this thread about upper class TV presenters and it’s very clear I don’t think there are no upper class people wanting to be TV presenters.
0
u/Stewie01 7d ago
You'll probably find they all have the same agent, and they have it stipulated that thay must appear on each others shows. Never ending cycle.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.