Jump to content

Ryan Seacreast leaving "Live with Kelly & Ryan"


dragonflies

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Page Six is reporting that ABC wanted Mark since last summer and were hoping to open the season with a new host rather than having the switch in the spring.

What I just thought about is how odd it will be if they ever need a guest host.  Obviously, Mark has subbed for Ryan before, but women have also substituted for Kelly on occasion this season, and it will be interesting to see if they ever allow two guest hosts, or if Mark will host with a guest anytime this year.

However, the more I think about it, the more excited I am to watch.  Mark is a great storyteller.  I like the vicarious nature of hearing about their extravagant lifestyle.  And, Mark can cook, so the chef segments will be less awkward. 

I also wonder how long it will take them to produce a new opening video?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Finding a suitable replacement is no small feat, but having Mark on fulltime doesn't seem like the best decision to me. It's all good for the interview segments, but the magic of the, "What did you do last night?" opening portion of the show is lost when you have a married couple telling us what they did rather than two unmarried co-hosts hearing the stories for the first time while sharing them with the audience. I guess that's the Regis and Kathy Lee purist in me. I don't watch regularly, sometimes I catch the late night reruns, but Seacrest wasn't as insufferable as I expected him to be. I mostly wondered how many millions is it fair for one man to make with his multiple gigs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To you freedom, Ryan.

I don't enjoy Kelly and find her obnoxious and grating. I think Mark has a great likeability factor and in some respects is a better fit for a daytime talk show than Kelly is.

When Regis and his wife Joy would be on together, they had a certain rapport that did not spoil the 'what happened last night' portion of the opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Unexected but not surpsing given how busy Seacrest is. Mark is a solid choice. I suppose Kelly didn't want to go through months of guest hosts and the audience is already used Consuelos. Hopefully the saying about working with your spouce doesn't happen here -- but they all ready worked together on All My Children.

I expected Kelly to leave before Ryan, in that case Maria Menunos would have been a solid replacement. 

As for the future of the show, (this was tried already) but Michael Strahan, Sarah Haines and Keke Palmer were good together. I believe their show didn't work out because GMA 3 was an unkown show duplicating a saturated format. LIVE on the other hand has an established brand and maybe the trio --or Michael and one of the two ladies-- would work. But please keep LIVE going rather than replacing it with GMA 3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One of the most interesting things from her book and her press tour was about her getting the job and then the co-host searches.

She co-hosted on a fluke, the guest Char the Psychic predicted she was pregnant, she really hadn't told anyone that she was actually pregnant, and it went viral.  So, she gets called back, but they kept saying she wouldn't get the job, and it seemed like Regis didn't like her.  But, then six months into her pregnancy they offered her the job, with no money for wardrobe, no paid pregnancy leave, she had to use Regis's hair and makeup team, and AMC wouldn't release her from her contract.

Then, Regis leaves, without telling her first.  She sits through rounds of co-hosts, and nobody ever asked her who they should hire (despite Regis obviously having a say in hiring her). They hire Strahan and she learns from Page Six that he makes more money than her.

Then Strahan leaves, again without telling her, and after six months, they asked her to call Ryan to get him to take the job.  She still doesn't know if they make the same money.  And, only got an office when Strahan left.

Now, I'm sure she makes plenty of money, but the gender gap is remarkable given that the show has relied on her for more than twenty years, eight years longer than Regis was with the show originally.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If her POV is the whole story, she should vocalize this more because Regis and the narrative around Michael present Kelly as being bitter that they left her. 

I like Ripa, I just find her to be too overly worshiping of some celebrity guests some of which feels fake. 

Edited by ironlion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As for the evolution of the show: Regis & Kathy Lee had a good friends/mature married couple rapport. Regis & Kelly had an older man hot young trophy wife vibe. Kelly & Michael had a burly footballer petite wife chemistry going. Ryan & Kelly had a more goofy brother sister energy. We can already tell what the dynamic with Mark & Kelly will be, let's see if the audience responds well to Mark full time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members

I feel like Kelly's recent Variety interview confirmed for me that the tabloids no longer have any power over the media.

Kathy Lee was raked over the coals by the tabloids.  There were weekly covers with unflattering photos of her yelling.  And for what?  She was a perky host with a successful commercial career who built two live-in health clinics for people with AIDS.  In retrospect, we know that the constant cruise commercials and KMart clothes were probably used to supplement her lack of income from Live.  When she was involved in a child labor scandal, her response changed the industry and she replied immediately.  When her husband publically cheated with an airline hostess, she stayed on the air and maintained her composure.  Yet, she was the punching bag of the National Inquirer for years. 

Kelly learned from Kathy Lee's experience and avoided tabloid drama.  She would appear occasionally, but there wasn't much traction, nor fodder for trash media critiques.  However, 20 years ago, this interview would have made her a front-page staple. The tabs hate whenever a woman expresses a need for equity in pay.  They would have dragged her as an avarice villain who forced her co-stars out of their jobs, rather than recognizing her as one of the longest-running daytime hosts (Regis hosted for 22 years, and Kelly has been there for 23) who deserves some respect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think it helped that Kathie Lee was just plain exhausting. I watched too much of Live in those years, mostly when staying with loved ones who had it on in the background every morning, or when in doctor's offices, and the shift from a "perky" figure to one who would spend 20-30 minutes every episode venting and complaining and being aggrieved was suffocating, even if I did share her views of the tabloids. Kathie Lee has never really been able to see the world around her, which later led to unfortunate moments like asking Martin Short questions about his happy marriage without knowing his wife had been dead for several years. 

The tabloids had lost some of their power by the time Kelly came along, but Kelly also just wasn't that interesting to write about in comparison. She's mostly a quietly tiring, shut down presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

Well, the Post is trying it this week.  They've chosen to highlight negative Twitter responses to her pairing with Mark for two days in a row (promulgating the fictional idea that Twitter has ever been an accurate gauge of mainstream audience response).  Including, a totally erroneous headline about Mark responding to the "backlash" which was really an EW interview about how much he enjoyed his first day on air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Stephanie writing a novel is odd.  She's never seemed interested in writing or much of a creative type.  Is One Stormy Night a nod to the primetime Days episode from the early 90's?  That would literally have nothing to do with Stephanie, nor were any of the characters featured in that special closely related to her IIRC.  Although One Stormy Night isn't a super creative title or anything, so it's probably just a coincidence.  And, yes, it was very rude for Alex to just take Stephanie's personal, private writing without asking lol.
    • And its 2025, not the 1970s, 80s, 90s... just bc pre-emptions have been a thing for decades, doesn't mean there shouldnt already be ways to deal with it in the modern era. Airing th episodes in the markets that can and putting them up and directing viewers to CBS.com to see them for free and of course Paramount Plus for those subscribers, seems like a reasonable compromise. Today's tv market leans heavily towards streaming so there is no reason why they shouldnt leverage that when it comes to this
    • Anita Dupree is Ruth Marshall from Generations. Ruth also a past of being a singer who gave it up because of raising a family and having a husband.

      Please register in order to view this content

      Still. THIS ONE!  
    • Some photo collages I've done. 

      Please register in order to view this content

                     This is not mine. 
    • Your right, as opposed to other matriarchs, even Nancy Hughes, Bert had a vital life outside of her family. She wasn't just sitting in her kitchen waiting for someone to stop by and cry. She volunteered, and later (thanks actually to Pam Long) had a job running the Patient Advocacy program, had friends, it didn't seem weird if she was at a party or an event, (with Nancy even with Marland it was like she was tagging along and every felt responsible for including her)  Bert was kind of a role model for aging gracefully and independently. I dont understand why they didnt bring a recast Mike and Hope back when Alan returned.  Your right, his animosity towards Ed and his branch, seemed forced....but not as much as the years of Alan hating on the Lewis family, then even worse, the Coopers..(like they would be a match for Alan..they would be totally beneath his notice.) They should have had Mike in constant oppostion to Alan and Roger (Ed was too docile and had his own problems at home) especially if Alan was involved with Alex.
    • Loving the show these days, one week into the post Ron era and I am feeling the difference. First off, thrilled to see Steve and Kayla together, and with their daughter. Ron never cared about this legacy couple. Shawn asking Steve to help him steal the drug is very much, finally, in character, for Bo's son. Bo would absolutely do the same thing. I am excited about this whole story, and now Xander is clearly in the mix. Will Titan provide the resources to help Kayla synthesize the drug, save Bo, and then take credit?  Leo was not too bad today but he is still obnoxious. Gabi and Philip though... now that has more spark than she has ever had with dull JJ. Here for this! Especially since it seems he gets to keep his stolen Co CEO job (and honestly, he should, Victor would want him at Titan. I think the solution is Xander gets Titan and Philip gets Dimera).  I liked Xander and Alex too, it is good to see them working together after the whole mess up last year with their names. Stephanie's book was an odd thing. Guess Alex will try to get it published with or without her permission. Kind of rude to just walk off with it.
    • I NEED MY SILK PRESS SHEILA FIX!
    • Thanks! I've kept thinking that he carried some negatives.  Patrick Mulcahey told a story about a scene being written where a helicopter swooped down upon a group of people & the P&G rep tried to sell them on the idea of it not being a helicopter, but a blue luxury sedan. Yeah, NOT. 
    • I've never thought about this. I'm curious about what made you think to pose it as a question. I am strong on AW & weak on OLTL.  Linda Dano & Stephen Schnetzer both acted on OLTL first & then were lifetime characters on AW. Both shows had Agnes Nixon.  Irna Phillips had two main proteges: Agnes Nixon & Bill Bell. Irna was part of the creation of 2 soaps that in the 1970s were in grave danger of very early cancellation. Agnes Nixon saved AW & Bill Bell saved DAYS OF OUR LIVES.  After being HW at AW Agnes created OLTL, right? Her first ABC tenure, where before she had been a P&G writer, 1st GL & then AW. (Do I have that chronology correct?) Both AW & OLTL had very high points in terms of ratings, awards, success & also very low points where they struggled. At times OLTL was considered "not as good" as AMC. At times AW was considered "not as good" as DAYS OF OUR LIVES. They share anything & everything that relates to being a New York City soap. I think they share that they didn't get the respect they deserved. Both had their female lead be the strongest character on the show & also that they were the unquestioned star of the show.  When AW's cancellation was announced, Angela Shapiro went to P&G & tried to buy AW to air on ABC. It is not known how she planned to schedule that but one theory was that she would air AW & OLTL both as half hour soaps, back to back, mid to late afternoon. P&G declined & then she tried to buy the character Felicia Gallant. No, again. Then she did what we all know too well & put Linda Dano as Rae on all the ABC soaps. I have dubbed that 'Shapiro's Folly'.  Honestly, I don't think that OLTL suffered from being "Bay City-fied" or AWfication. However, these are some [nitpick] parallels or similarities. Possibly they are of interest. Anyway, I've had fun with it. 
    • Oh, wow. This explains why there is a scene in one of the 1987 episodes where Alan out of the blue brings up Rita to Ed! It always seemed incredibly out of place before now. For most of 1987 Alan was involved with Vanessa. Marland initially planned to have Rita and Vanessa become rivals over Ed. They ultimately decided Ed and Van were not a good pairing. While I was never convinced Van was in love with Alan, she could be very possessive, so the two of them fighting over him could have been very interesting.  If she had come back with a KID, after Maureen accepted Ed's baby with Claire.... SO MANY great possibilities here. Not to mention, if she had come back, MAYBE that would have kept Alan out of Reva's orbit. (I can dream, can't I?) My guess for why they didn't bring her back in 1989--Alan was being hustled off the canvas, plus after bringing back Zaslow and Garrett, they might not have been able to afford her. He complained a lot about Mike's romantic pairings. I seem to remember he also complained that he didn't get to do enough action scenes. I think he wanted to fly a helicopter in a scene and was miffed they had the stunt man do it. Which was probably done because of insurance reasons. In Locher Room interviews I can't recall anyone who worked with him who speaks of him fondly, while people will speak warmly about Chris Bernau and Tom O'Rourke. The best Elvera could do was mention he flirted with her mother during a set visit.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy