Norton Pros and Cons

[Kromm]

{inspired by The Tonight Show forum's "Fallon Pros and Cons"--even though the two talk show hosts have so little in common I like the idea of listing a host's strengths and weaknesses}

 

 

For me the big strength of Norton is how great he is at his unique gimmick--the all guests at once/cocktail party format. He's good at it virtually every time.

 

His big weakness is that he's crap at any kind of "formal" comedy.  The opening skits he does are just horrid, and even his monologue is usually pretty bad.  Thankfully the two of those put together is such a small part of any episode.

 

One more for the strength side is how he interacts with his audience. This manifests both in the times he draws the audience into an interview with the celebs, but also in how he runs the Big Red Chair segments.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Kromm

[joelene]

Agreed on all counts. I usually skip the opening segment.

I know this is an unfair criticism, and it applies to all talk show hosts, I guess, but the over praised love and enthusiasm for every product his guests sell can make me roll my eyes so hard. Some of these (usually movies) we know are just crap, but I know it's too much to ask for total honesty. No one would come on the show! But it is kinda fun to look closely during those bits, because sometimes I feel like you can tell if he means it or not. I do like that he often makes fun of people's past, like Peter Capaldi's "modelling" career.

Edited October 18, 2014 by joelene

[Athena]

I skip the monologue and 95% of the musical guests when I watch the show. I often skip the Red Chair too unless I hear the story is particularly good.

 

But it is kinda fun to look closely during those bits, because sometimes I feel like you can tell if he means it or not. I do like that he often makes fun of people's past, like Peter Capaldi's "modelling" career.

 

I think Graham is not as bad as other chat or talk show hosts in this regard. He genuinely likes pop culture and you can tell he's actually seen a lot of the movies he talks with the guests about. I also think you can tell; he's definitely diplomatic in his way about something he isn't keen on. I actually like it because with American talk show hosts, I don't feel they are that interested. Graham is oddly polite about it because he knows it's his job and he seems to actually be a decent guy about it. He needs the guests too.

 

Pros: The interviewing soft style, the drinks, the general atmosphere, whenever Graham and the guests rib each other about the past. Lots of things. :)

[Kromm]

I skip the monologue and 95% of the musical guests when I watch the show. I often skip the Red Chair too unless I hear the story is particularly good.

The appeal of the Red Chair though isn't always the story--it's often Graham's reactions to them (and him poking at the Chair sitters if they're getting boring or outrageous).

[attica]

The opening skit of 'Is it raining? I hadn't noticed!' with Hugh was so dreadful it killed me. I'm a sucker for that kind of humor.

[loriro]

I know this is an unfair criticism, and it applies to all talk show hosts, I guess, but the over praised love and enthusiasm for every product his guests sell can make me roll my eyes so hard.

 

He can be that way, but he's refreshingly self-aware about it. I remember one episode with Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr, and he (graham) was going on and on about how great Jude's work in some kids' theater/tv production was (I think it was Body Work). Jude was amazed that he remembered and one of the guests (might have been Jude)  asked if he really had seen it and he said "No!  I'm a chat show host. I say these things!" in a very self-deprecating way.  It was actually really funny and endearing.  

[Kromm]

I think I've also seen him roll his eyes on a few occasions when over-praising something.  That said, I think he just skips the subject entirely if he doesn't like something at all (and just talks it up in generalities and shows the darn clip).

[dubbel zout]

I think Graham knows the opening skits are terrible. For me that's part of their charm. His monologue is different story, but he's having so much fun I can't hate it too much. And it helps that I don't always get the joke. Hee.

 

I'm surprised someone in the States hasn't tried Graham's format (minus the alcohol). Graham gives each guest his or her own time, so it's not as if they don't get time to push their project. The interplay between the different guests is what makes the show so much fun. Graham is very, very good at keeping things moving, but he's had a lot of practice, too. The show isn't unreplicatable.

[Kromm]

I think Graham knows the opening skits are terrible. For me that's part of their charm. His monologue is different story, but he's having so much fun I can't hate it too much. And it helps that I don't always get the joke. Hee.

 

I'm surprised someone in the States hasn't tried Graham's format (minus the alcohol). Graham gives each guest his or her own time, so it's not as if they don't get time to push their project. The interplay between the different guests is what makes the show so much fun. Graham is very, very good at keeping things moving, but he's had a lot of practice, too. The show isn't unreplicatable.

Someone needs to verify this I suppose, but I think the only actual impediment on alcohol drinking on US TV is in commercials--not anywhere else.  The lack of it may in fact only be due to insurance reasons, and public perception.  Certainly the burden is probably even less on cable channels--so there's that as well.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Kromm

[attica]

They openly booze it up on the Golden Globes, so I think it's just a question of will for a chat-show. On the other hand, maybe it is booze in all those opaque mugs on desks...

[peeayebee]

I'm not sure I have any cons for Graham. I love him.

 

The opening comedy bit is corny and often bad, but in a fun way. I like them. I also like his monologue. Compared to American talk shows, his monologues are quick and short. They're a nice little warmup and intro for the meat of the show.

 

I so admire Graham's rapport with the guests. He listens, he knows when to change gears, when to tease, when to be serious. He's very quick-witted. I think he's very good at making guests feel at ease.

 

I love his suits! They are often tacky, but they, uh, suit him. It's like Cher can wear things that nobody else can pull off.

[Athena]

The appeal of the Red Chair though isn't always the story--it's often Graham's reactions to them (and him poking at the Chair sitters if they're getting boring or outrageous).

 

Yes, and it doesn't always appeal to me. I use to watch them consistently and some of the stories and his reactions are amusing, but I don't really find it as entertaining anymore. It's not an essential experience for me to watch the show. YMMV.

 

Graham is very, very good at keeping things moving, but he's had a lot of practice, too. The show isn't unreplicatable.

 

I definitely think Graham has a natural or long standing ability to keep things moving. As I said above, there is something inherently diplomatic yet funny about how he does things. I don't think many hosts could handle the Mark Wahlberg incident like he did. His comedic timing  and experience helps a lot, and whenever he has a comedian on the show, they work off each other to keep things moving along. Together, they are able to bring the other guest(s) into the "party" e.g. Jack Whitehall and Graham did that with Harrison Ford. 

[Kromm]

It's interesting that we're talking about his good comedic timing in regards to playing off the guests, and yet it's so sorely lacking with formal comedy bits.  It's a really odd dichotomy. Unless it's just that he's got either no (or really bad) comedy writers on his team, and so the moments he's great are ALL off the cuff.

[Popples]

The only con I have about Graham Norton is when he has an overcrowded couch. Most of my favorite episodes have been where it's 3 guests (a couple of really funny ones have been just two, but it's been years since them).

 

One thing I absolutely adore about Graham's style is that he has a real knack for making some celebrities that I detest quite palatable.

[dusang]

I'm surprised someone in the States hasn't tried Graham's format (minus the alcohol). Graham gives each guest his or her own time, so it's not as if they don't get time to push their project. The interplay between the different guests is what makes the show so much fun. Graham is very, very good at keeping things moving, but he's had a lot of practice, too. The show isn't unreplicatable.

 

Personally, I really don't think the overall tone could be replicated in the States.  To my mind, the format works partly because Graham is awesome and partly because British humour is so open.  Although some Americans will get in on the fun, generally they are media trained to total blandness and cannot get off their talking points.  (Not to mention, may not be able to formulate an unscripted sentence.)  Couches with only Americans are generally the dullest, IMO.

 

(There are many examples of Americans expressing surprise at the whole thing but I keep thinking about Benedict Cumberbatch talking about onstage nudity and referencing "teabagging" his girlfriend's mother and you can hear Chris Pine say "I can't believe you just said that." which kind of encapsulates the American/British divide for me.)

[Mumbles]

 

Although some Americans will get in on the fun, generally they are media trained to total blandness and cannot get off their talking points.

I agree - sometimes they can get annoying, like Cameron Diaz, but most of the Americans on the show can't seem to make heads or tails of the show. I wonder how much sway publicists have on UK shows. In the US, they practically dictate what can or cannot be asked - and most hosts comply because if they don't, the publicists deny them access to their other clients. Of the US hosts, the one who can get away with the most is Letterman.

 

I kind of love the corny openings because of their corniness. The Hugh Grant one was great because that scene from Four Weddings is AWFUL- Andie McDowell, whose acting was limited to begin with, is howlingly awful ("Is it raining I didn't even notice").  Hugh was snickering during the sketch so he probably agrees!

 

If I had to get rid of one seg, it would be the red chair, but if a red chair story isn't boring, it's usually really great.

[Shades of Red]

I'm surprised someone in the States hasn't tried Graham's format (minus the alcohol). Graham gives each guest his or her own time, so it's not as if they don't get time to push their project. The interplay between the different guests is what makes the show so much fun. Graham is very, very good at keeping things moving, but he's had a lot of practice, too. The show isn't unreplicatable.

 

 

Personally, I really don't think the overall tone could be replicated in the States.  To my mind, the format works partly because Graham is awesome and partly because British humour is so open.  Although some Americans will get in on the fun, generally they are media trained to total blandness and cannot get off their talking points.  (Not to mention, may not be able to formulate an unscripted sentence.)  Couches with only Americans are generally the dullest, IMO.

 

(There are many examples of Americans expressing surprise at the whole thing but I keep thinking about Benedict Cumberbatch talking about onstage nudity and referencing "teabagging" his girlfriend's mother and you can hear Chris Pine say "I can't believe you just said that." which kind of encapsulates the American/British divide for me.)

 

My son and I have discussed this several times and we both agree part of the charm of Graham's show is the candidness of the guests and some of their stories.  Many of these stories could never be repeated on an American show, (James McAvoy - pineapple story - twice and so many others) in Canada possibly, but definitely not in the U.S.  It's possible some of the guests don't have filters, but I'm sure Graham's ability to make people feel comfortable has a lot to do with the things that are shared.

 

The interplay between the different guests is what makes the show so much fun.

 

Another strength of Graham's occurs when he lets those guests play off of each other.  Sometimes Graham sits back and lets the guests do their thing with other.  I don't think this would ever happen on a U.S. talk show.  Over here it seems sometimes that the host is as "important" as the guest or more so, Graham knows he's there to facilitate and not take over unless necessary.

[Athena]

It's interesting that we're talking about his good comedic timing in regards to playing off the guests, and yet it's so sorely lacking with formal comedy bits.  It's a really odd dichotomy. Unless it's just that he's got either no (or really bad) comedy writers on his team, and so the moments he's great are ALL off the cuff.

 

He definitely has a team that looks for those interesting factoids about the guests or interesting bits and to write his monologue. I do think the monologue is sometimes suppose to be a tacky. 

 

Most of the times, these "Look what we found!" segments are alright as they get the guest to talk about things or even interact with their fans. On a couple of occasions, it's a bit too much e.g. the fanworks they showed Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy. The actors joke about it all the time, but showing them that was a bit too much. 

 

Again, Graham does save this by working off his guests or they to each other. I think he has some decent comic improv skills even though he usually isn't the best panelist when he's on QI, but he can hold his own with the right fellow comedians. 

[proserpina65]

also like his monologue. Compared to American talk shows, his monologues are quick and short.

 

And every once in awhile, they're hysterically funny, if you get who he's talking about.  During the 2010 World Cup, he mentioned the England team seeing a gorilla and a giraffe in the same place, and showed a photo of Wayne Rooney and Peter Crouch; that might not have been funny to every viewer, but to football watchers (especially those of us who'd been referring to Wayne Rooney as a chimp), it was pretty darn good.

[Matt K]

The big Pro for me, and why I watch it, is getting to see all these disparate people interact together.  It doesn't really even matter if I know any of them (although knowing at least on guest on the couch helps).  Seeing Julie Andrews interact with Jonah Hill for instance, especially when neither of them are promoting the same thing.  Or will.i.am and Miriam Margolyes.  That kind of spontaneity of interaction is what really makes this show.  

 

The obvious Con then is when certain guests don't interact.  Like Tom Cruse or sadly Richard Ayoade where he kind of kept to himself.  The other opposite issue is of course when a single guest kind of takes over, e.g. Cameron Diaz.

[dubbel zout]

The obvious Con then is when certain guests don't interact.

 

I think Graham is partly to blame for this. When he gets someone huge on the show, or someone he can't keep his own fandom in check for, that celebrity can end up hogging the show. Though I think Cruise did a decent job of letting Emily Blunt talk when the the two of them were on.

 

I also think there are people who aren't going to put themselves out unless Graham directly engages them. Or maybe they're having a bad day and just want the show to be over. Graham is pretty good about giving everyone a bit of spotlight, even if sometimes it might not be enough of one.

Edited November 7, 2014 by dubbel zout

[HelenBaby]

I'm surprised someone in the States hasn't tried Graham's format (minus the alcohol). Graham gives each guest his or her own time, so it's not as if they don't get time to push their project. The interplay between the different guests is what makes the show so much fun. Graham is very, very good at keeping things moving, but he's had a lot of practice, too. The show isn't unreplicatable.

I think it's because all of the talk show hosts here aren't good at juggling more than one thing, although Conan has been having entire casts of shows lately, like Breaking Bad or Sons of Anarchy. But it's just happened a few times. Plus, there's so much competition for guests, and American celebrities are so fragile (yuk!) they don't want to share their time.

Oh another thing is the booze. I just went on a cruise out of England where a majority of the passengers were from the UK. Everybody I met drank and thought it odd that I didn't much. We Americans are uptight about it, but there's a lot of stigma attached to drinking here.

Edited November 14, 2014 by HelenBaby

[heebiejeebie]

Kathy Griffin tried it.  Rove McManus did here in the States as well.  Neither got the grove due to various skill and talent gaps.  Andy Cohen pathetic idiot that he is takes an entire season of Graham like shenanagins and boils it down to a half hour with himself as the domineering games master with none of the wit and humor and just makes sure to get as many of his guests liquored up to Marky Mark levels so no one notices how nekkid that "emperor" is.  And ugly nekkid at that.

 

I actually think it is not the lack of a skilled host so much as Americans love their celebrities until they hate them.  So the show would either be too insulting of some precious People Magazine cover star or too precious and protective.

[Kromm]

A Con many have suggested is the way many of Graham's episodes now come down to "brigade to promote a single movie".

 

I half agree. I don't think it provides the best resulting interaction... because they all know each other too well to have that spark putting odd groupings together causes, but usually also not well ENOUGH (with most movies) for us to be getting long-time friends with deep history.  That inbetween of co-workers isn't really all that interesting usually.

 

That said, this does help Graham get better guests. If he didn't book guests as extensions to press tours like this, a lot of big names would skip right on by his show.

 

Sometimes the choice of the "extra" guest(s) he adds on as a rider are confusing though. You want oddball mixes, true, but for example, does Kylie Minogue really have anything interesting to say for, on, or around the cast of Star Wars (or visa-versa any of them to HER)?  Apparently not, based upon that recent episode. I think you need either a wry witty outsider who will joke about being sat with much bigger stars, or if not that wry approach then a slightly opposite one with a superfan who's reactions Graham can milk for comedy. Not some blase personage like Kylie, who barely seemed to care who she was sitting with.

[Bridget]

On 10/20/2014 at 7:25 AM, dusang said:

 

Personally, I really don't think the overall tone could be replicated in the States.  To my mind, the format works partly because Graham is awesome and partly because British humour is so open.  Although some Americans will get in on the fun, generally they are media trained to total blandness and cannot get off their talking points.  (Not to mention, may not be able to formulate an unscripted sentence.)  Couches with only Americans are generally the dullest, IMO.

 

(There are many examples of Americans expressing surprise at the whole thing but I keep thinking about Benedict Cumberbatch talking about onstage nudity and referencing "teabagging" his girlfriend's mother and you can hear Chris Pine say "I can't believe you just said that." which kind of encapsulates the American/British divide for me.)

Or the time when Benedict revealed what his fans call themselves: Cumberbitches. NO WAY would that ever be thought to mention, nor even alluded to, on an American chat show.

On 11/7/2014 at 11:55 AM, Matt K said:

The big Pro for me, and why I watch it, is getting to see all these disparate people interact together.  It doesn't really even matter if I know any of them (although knowing at least on guest on the couch helps).  Seeing Julie Andrews interact with Jonah Hill for instance, especially when neither of them are promoting the same thing.  Or will.i.am and Miriam Margolyes.  That kind of spontaneity of interaction is what really makes this show.  

 

The obvious Con then is when certain guests don't interact.  Like Tom Cruse or sadly Richard Ayoade where he kind of kept to himself.  The other opposite issue is of course when a single guest kind of takes over, e.g. Cameron Diaz.

I couldn't agree with you more!!!

[Bridget]

It goes without saying, but the time constraint on an American chat show is what also can be a major buzzkill. I think it's obvious to everyone at home that Graham's shows typically film well over the one hour mark (as noted by the editing).

When the guests, the audience, and Graham don't have 42 minutes to smash everything in together, the entire show comes off so much more smooth because there isn't a rush. The conversation flows naturally as it would in real life.

Now, it is tragic that Graham is only on once a week versus five nights a week, but I'd rather watch one quality show per week than a crappy Mon-Fri show with Celeb A talking for eight to nine minutes about a film the hosts haven't even see and/or sharing an anecdote about being in the makeup chair for a long time. Or whatever it is that they're selling/promoting. 

[MissLucas]

Have to disagree about Cruise not engaging with others. I remember him being completely taken with McFarlane's voice shenanigans and him asking Catherine Tate to do a bit of her granny routine which was hilarious.

I think part of the success is that Norton (or his team) normally manage to get a pretty good mix on the couch. Not just personality-wise but also with regards to being familiar with the show vs. ... ahem couch-virigins. And of course there's the vigorous prep - something you hardly could pull off with a daily show. Last but not least: Norton is just an exceptionally good reader of people. He knows when to push and when to let go.

The only con I have about the show is the intro - the jokes are never that great and you can see the punch-line coming from a mile. That's where the US hosts excel. Luckily Norton's routine is always very short. I have a feeling it's not his favorite part of the show either.

[Kromm]

On 11/14/2017 at 7:39 PM, MissLucas said:

Have to disagree about Cruise not engaging with others. I remember him being completely taken with McFarlane's voice shenanigans and him asking Catherine Tate to do a bit of her granny routine which was hilarious.

Cruise engages sure. But you can see the evil little Scientology demon inside him manipulating things so that he seems friendly and engaging. Increasingly it seems like what it's always been. An act.  Fake, and if you aren't taken in by his shiny teeth and built up reputation... kind of slimy.

[msrachelj]

what happened with mark wahlberg? i must have seen it but i can't remember.

i think graham is the best talk show host. ours in america don't come close. most of them are lousy. i also think he is quite handsome. i wish he were on 5 days a week!