★★★★★ 0/5

Andrew Denton: After 9:30 TV should embrace new comedians

More calls for late night television to take a few risks in developing new talent.

10
Leave a comment

I read with interest an article about the limited spaces for new comedy writers and performers to learn their television craft.

Question Everything, hosted by Wil Anderson and Jan Fran, is one show where new writers are brought in the room to create material. The CJZ produced show is one of the few TV places willing to give talent the chance to develop.

Revered producer Andrew Denton agrees notes that ABC is the main home for TV comedy in Australia, but its budgets have shrunk, at the same time as it has become more risk-averse.

He describes how TV after 9.30 pm is considered “dead space” and suggests that it could be used to spotlight emerging talent – without requiring an established comedian to front it (a sentiment echoed by TVT readers this week).

“Wil will be the first to acknowledge that it’s because of his status that he keeps getting repeat projects,” said Denton. “The good thing is he’s creating a platform within that for other people to be heard and seen. It would be great if projects that didn’t have a need for Wil Anderson to front them on the ABC. And that’s not about Wil. That comes back to ABC being prepared to take risks.”

Anderson also acknowledged, “Having that space is a privilege and you try to leverage whatever power comes with that on behalf of other people. That is overly worthy. And I will deny that I ever said this, despite the fact that you have it recorded,” he laughs.

WTFAQ‘s Chas Licciardello says the answer doesn’t lie in dropping established talent from prime timeslots, but in having more airtime available for TV comedy – and ensuring people are ready to take their place.

“I want as much as possible to give new people the opportunity to be those who take the entertainment industry into the next era, whatever it may be,” he says.

You can read more at WA Today.

10 Responses

  1. People are talking about the lack of viewership after 9:30 and the reasons for that but I think the main point isn’t about ratings, it’s about developing talent and giving newer people opportunities in a late night spot gives them a low-stakes way to develop their skills and promote themselves so that they can be ready for bigger things when the time comes and so we don’t have to rely on the same 5 people to host prime time shows. I think it’s a great idea from Andrew.

  2. The big issue to me is the fact that all networks love to milk that 7.30 to 8.30pm and shows overrun the schedule. So what happens is a program scheduled over 8 30pm invariably starts at 9.15-9.30pm. By this stage a viewer is tapped out and habits change. Streaming is changing our habits as well.

  4. Who still thinks of airtime? There is a good reason why no networks target popular shows at 9:30pm. If you put stuff targeted at young people on at 9:30pm your target audience will be half way through streaming Heartbreak High after they’ve finished watching MAFA, and will stream your show on the train to uni in the morning. I’m old and I only been watching one show live, Merlin while I’m eating dinner, and that’s only because there are were no referendum ads in it.

  5. I agree that 9.30pm is now considered a “dead space”, which is a shame. Full of unwanted repeats (is’t that what the multi channels are for?) And there’s not much opportunity for comedians and comedic writers to appear.

    Both ABC and 10 used to have a lot of comedy/talk shows in the last 20 years. From shows like 10’s The Panel, Good News Week and Rove, to ABC’s The Glass House, Spicks and Specks, Enough Rope and Frankly. Now, there’s not enough. There’s Have You Been Paying Attention, which rates very well.

    9.30pm works well for new content on the ABC. With all the overruns from reality shows on commercial tv, it does make it trickier

  6. I said it before and I say it again, comedy is very personal and what works for one won’t work for another.

    But I have to agree with Andrew that TV production has always been risk adverse (don’t work in the industry so that is just an outsider perspective). But it appears to me that TV executives wait to see what works (which requires one brave sole to be the risk taker) and then the rest just pile in behind doing endless variations of the same theme, until we are all sick of that “franchise”.

    But TV has a problem:
    * young people don’t watch TV, so whatever they do has to be tailored towards and integrated with social media output.
    * TV is also losing revenue (again my assumption) and I don’t think they can afford to take too many risks.

    Maybe one of the TV station (mostly likely the ABC) could take a punt on young film makers after 9.30. But again I suspect that will upset their one remaining demographic – oldies.

      1. Yes on social media and streaming, but not FTA TV, which was the comment I was making. Nothing the FTA TV channels do after 9.30 will make much of a difference attracting young people, because they don’t even consider going there in the first place to consume content (good, bad or indifferent).

        It is a bit like fishing, the FTA TV need someway to hook younger people into watching FTA shows, otherwise it is destine to die a long slow death as the demographic profile rolls on.

        1. Streaming is still television though. There are also FTA shows that cut through of which MAFS is probably the top of that tree. The story wasn’t necessarily about attracting younger viewers, but developing talent and taking a few risks.

Leave a Reply