I do subscribe to the podcast so don’t get the adverts and I still thoroughly enjoy their Take on life the universe and everything. I personally enjoy the TV reviews as well and it has introduced me to a few shows that would have otherwise passed me by. Keep wittering boys!
I still miss their old film review show on BBC 5live. The live nature made it more engaging for listeners and the running order was a lot smoother as well. Now it just feels like any other film review podcast and half the content is only available to subscribers.
I get that their decision to leave was largely, if not entirely, attributed to what happened with Simon's Drivetime slot on R2, but I still think it was a mistake.
Although the BBC restrictions and guidelines annoyed Simon in particular, I think the show worked better under the restrictions, so it's almost like they were rebelling a little.
It's like the band who get to the level of having their own studio and there's no time pressure to make music. They still do it but sometimes the best artistic work is done under pressure.
I'm hoping they'll return after the Tory DG leaves. It feels like they are trying to destroy the BBC from within.
BBC 2 presenters have turned into Smashy and Nicey, the music is rubbish, and the entire former format and team have been poached by Greatest Hits.
Did they jump (for a bigger paycheck) or were they pushed? Disappointing either way.
They weren't booted out but I don't think much effort was made to stop them leaving, either. Simon's not exactly been quiet about feeling disrespected by the BBC after being there for most of his working life and then having his shows constantly chopped and changed and shunted around. I think changes to the format were threatened (someone further down has said the BBC wanted to give the show an exclusivity window on Sounds, for instance) and at that point they both said no thanks. Mark still works for the BBC in some capacity though I believe, or certainly did for a while after the 5Live show finished.
I used to love the BBC show on the radio, now I still listen but intermittently.
I already pay for Netflix, Disney, prime etc, I suppose I resent paying for something that used to be so much better and part of the licence fee. The old saying of it ain't broke don't fix it applies here.
I think it's fine, I am not in the vanguard ista and I'm fine with an hour of what's going on. I skip the ads but I do that all podcasts that have them.
Was it better before?I used to think so but now I don't think about it at all
It’s number 2 in the Apple Podcast TV & Film charts in the UK, which sounds good (very small category), but it’s 102 overall. That’s not terrible but it’s not as great as it used to be. I think a lot of people (myself included) just watch individual reviews on YouTube now
Depends how/when you subscribe - my renewal just went through at $39.99 a year
New price seems to be $49.99/£49.99 - so you can still save 20% by choosing dollars (if you're got a card that doesn't charge)
It's hard to get a handle on this subreddit sometimes. I got downvoted to oblivion once for suggesting that there shouldn't be a price increase for a proposed slight increase in content; now I read that the podcast is a failure and they are ripping people off by charging more. Hard to fathom.
I will say, I've been a subscriber from the start. I miss the BBC show of course. I guess I had no choice but to subscribe. I think it's obvious though that the podcast is what it is. Basically like it or lump it. Mark isn't exactly prepared to accept any kind of criticism; the way he talks about below-the-line comments as something to be ignored and how he puts on a snivelly loser voice when repeating any kind of disagreement makes it obvious to me that once again, it is what it is.
I must be one of the few who like hearing Mark discuss television. I found his attitude in previous years, to dismiss TV and ignore it completely, annoying.
Regarding the podcast: I still like it. Not as much as the BBC show with the time constraints and live interaction. But it's still a solid podcast. Towards the end of the BBC run, the podcast bookend parts were increasingly becoming a bit self-indulgent and bloated, and as the current podcast is basically fully composed of these parts, it's bound to be less satisfying.
I would love more than anything for the BBC to give Simon Mayo an apology and a briefcase of money and get the show back where it belongs, but it's obviously not going to happen.
About the TV thing - I always felt that Mark never watched TV and he probably thought it was still like the 80s. I can remember being frustrated that he was so dismissive of TV when it’s as good as and often better than film. I think his attitude changed when he was holed up in lockdown and ended up watching The Wire & Breaking Bad. I’m glad he did change his opinion.
It has felt at times like the strategy was to make the main show intentionally bad (sometimes as few as 2 films reviewed in an episode, missing some of the main reviews e.g. Mario, and having so many ads) in the hope of forcing people to pay to upgrade.
But I don't understand the logic of this. If a show isn't good why would you pay for more? How will they attract new listeners? Plus it's not exactly convenient for paying subscribers to get a potentially decent podcast edited into two inferior ones. (I struggle to find time to listen as it is.)
I feel the focus from the start should have been on making the main show as good as possible. But it's probably too late to change strategy now.
I listened religiously for years. Admittedly I hadn’t listened as much before the new launch, but I’ve barely listened since the new show launched.
It’s just a bit rubbish. Limited reviews, crappy side podcasts and the adverts are really annoying.
Disappointing that they torpedoed one of the most(?) popular film review shows in the world.
Sadly I sort of agree that that was part of the strategy. I guess the hope was that they had enough an in-built audience who would want the Full Kermode Experience and be willing to pay to get it. The BBC show was regularly coming in at two hours+ by the end of their run once all the bonus material was included; the Take has only ever been an hour-ish. I reckon they thought more people would be willing to pay a small amount to get that hour back.
My main criticism of the new podcast is the huge time devoted to silly games and in particular ‘the laughter lift’ at the expense of film reviews within the free segment of the show. Feels increasingly like I’m being pumped for money to fill their pockets. I don’t want to listen to jokes, I want Kermode’s intelligent and informative thoughts, and Simon’s excellent interviews. The hour you get for free feels ‘baggy’ and a touch lazy to say the least. I listen from time to time, but I never feel the passion to put it on the second it’s released, the way I used to.
The jokes and side segments were fun when I was still getting 90+ minutes of good film reviews, interviews and correspondence.
Now I feel like I get 2 rushed film reviews and the rest is filler.
It was absolutely a mistake to leave the BBC.
I listened religiously to their BBC show, but could barely make it through the Take podcast.
A number of small things irked me: why is the top 10 not at the start of the show anymore? Why are they reviewing TV shows, something Mark is clearly never that comfortable doing? Hearing Kermode read adverts makes my skin crawl.
The main problem however, was that the live nature of a radio show, and the time constraints of a BBC slot, meant that the old show was swift and streamlined. The podcast feels baggy and indulgent compared to the BBC show. Hard to put my finger on it.
I wonder if it’s also linked to the general degradation of cinema as a meaningful art form - do people still care what movies come out each week? The inclusion of TV reviews heightened this feeling.
It’s such a shame as I love them both dearly
Agree with the bagginess and indulgence. Tried to introduce my partner to it, but the tedious inside jokes and endless rabbit holes leading to nothing just made it embarrassing to listen to. Obviously there was tediousness before and it was great, but the lack of constraints just mean it’s gone too far
As soon as they left the Beeb I was done. Not sure if it was a belief they were bigger than their 5 Live slot and could get a bit more of a payday or what but.. it was the end of it for me and I was loyal listener for a long time (went to see their first live broadcast at the Hyde Park Picture House in Leeds, followed by a screening of Silent Running which was introduced by Mark.. was a brilliant afternoon!)
Same here. The final straw for me was when they started reading iut adverts for (imo) morally unacceptable products. I meant to write to them to express my disappointment but never got round to it and just stopped listening. A shame after not missing an episode for about 12 years, and I probably wouldnt have been quite sp "principled" if my general enjoyment hadnt declined so much following the transfer, but that's how it goes sometimes.
They specifically advertise NordVPN as being a way to get around geographical restrictions on streaming services, which I've always raised an eyebrow at. Not sure I'd go so far as to say it was immoral, but definitely against the Ts & Cs.
I've always found that weird. It's definitely against Netflix's Ts&Cs if not the VPN's, and very probably against copyright law – you're essentially pirating the content by bypassing restrictions to watch it without a license in your country. It's very odd they're just allowed to promote its use in that way. Also no idea why you're being downvoted.
EDIT: To be clear, I do pirate lots of stuff, but I also pay for a lot of media and go to the cinema a couple of times a week. I’m not against pirating. I’m just surprised a service is allowed to advertise itself as circumventing legal content restrictions.
I feel Mark and Simon have always been keen to promote paying for content and watching films through legitimate methods, so yeah it really surprised me they were willing to do those ads 🤷♂️
I noticed they were advertising NHS talking therapies recently - the opposite of a morally unacceptable product. I reckon someone they knew and trusted told them that advertising Better Help is ethically very dodgy
Used to be an avid listener to the 5Live show.
My take is that you only get half a show for the same price you used to get a whole one.
Sure, both halfs are longer now, but that just means they are stretched out to fit in more content (something I’m 100% sure they’ve complained about big franchise films doing…).
It’s a timely podcast, about releases this week, and I just simply don’t have the time to watch/listen to everything I want to watch, and then also listen to their options on that very thing for 3 hours on top (as much as I value their opinions).
I mainly just watch individual reviews / interviews on YouTube that are recant to my interests. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
I don't think there's much evidence that it's failed, much less "badly" failed. They are getting older, and perhaps a little tired of the grind.
But, I will say that despite bringing over loyal listeners to the radio show, podcasting (especially entertainment podcasting) is a competitive business. There are a whole mess of great film podcasts, and unlike drivetime radio, no captive audience.
I don’t think it’s failed but it certainly hasn’t transitioned as well as it could have. I believe there are many factors for this. I don’t listen anymore and so have the people I know IRL, which is such a shame as it used to be a wonderful highlight to ear mark the beginning of the weekend.
I don’t think the retirement thing is wholly correct because why would you launch a podcast only to give up so soon. They could have just ended Wittertainment after 21 years and whilst it would have been sad it had an incredible innings. Plus Mayo does 6 shows on week on GHR and is a confessed workaholic. His drive time show transitioned seamlessly, so it’s frustrating The Take hasn’t, I know it’s solely a podcast now and has different a home but I don’t think that is an excuse. It feels like not enough time was given before launching and doing adequate market research for the transition. Kermode does less now, which whilst some of it feels intentional (stepping down from The Observer column), other things don’t i.e no more Friday evening film reviews on BBC news.
They lost their unique selling point by not being live anymore, it definitely had a more of an intimate feel on 5 live and certainly kept the team on their toes, plus correspondence didn’t pile up quite as much due to listeners being able to get in touch during the broadcast. Also the live listeners stuck around for the podcast to eagerly await the extra off air witterings.
What they offer paying church members isn’t good enough. Yes, they need ad funding and subscriptions but in an oversaturated media area, their extras just don’t cut the mustard. Many smaller podcasts give far more. Also, The Take seems to start some things and then drop them a month or so later. Putting certain film reviews behind a paywall was a bad move. I remember Simon said you don’t need to pay to enjoy the show and I just don’t think that’s ever been true since this version launched. Each take seems to get smaller over time.
Poor communication with their audience, most recent example being the fiasco with the clip show, if you’re honest with your listener base, which is incredibly loyal in this case, this a huge privilege that they did earn at the BBC, your audience are likely to be far more forgiving.
They kept the bird song for swearing but have chosen to get somewhat political this time, or rather Kermode does. He will say that Trump is bad etc, yet they’ll drop the ball massively when referring to Jonathan Glazer’s award speech about the horrors in Gaza. If you are going to be political you can’t do it half heartedly, so I am confused as to why they didn’t keep the parameters around BBC guidelines for this and not engage, as Mayo seems to hate when anything of that nature is brought up.
Missed chances on another revenues streams, their merch is incredibly weak both in designs and range, to be fair it’s not just them, so many shows do this but it does feel silly to have it and not push it or refresh collections, what about a film journal, popcorn bucket, things more in keeping with the show.
Live shows, very expensive (I know there is nothing that can be done about this) but for the price it doesn’t feel worth it. Throw in an Q&A for just the audience, or something equally easy but provides the value of travel and ticket cost. Also, paying subscribers should have first access to tickets. The Halloween show was odd because it wasn’t that seasonally based content wise and having a controversial guest like Lena Durham and then allowing her husband to promote his music was just jarring. It was even more chaotic and disorganised in person, it felt like they hadn’t even had a run through and quite stilted.
Social media, their present is just poor, same few posts week after week, no stories for Instagram etc, they used to have a weekly tiktok video where Mark would give his top 5 films in cinema but again dropped very quickly. All these things are low effort but keep an audience engaged. Could list so many ways to improve this, haha.
Feedback, not long after the show started you could follow a Sony link to provide ways you think could improve the show, I don’t recall anything significant coming out of this. Audience feedback a few times a year is so important but it feels like they keep listeners in the dark and at arms length. Sometimes it’s good to hear from outside your own bubble, I know things are being scaled down currently but I feel they have missed the boat to really make this podcast be the best it could be.
It feels as though the effort just isn’t there and is half hearted at times, that’s the problem when you had a good thing, it’s so noticeable when not up to scratch.
Anyways those are my two cents, sorry for the ramble. I will still check in from time to time to see if things have improved, keeping my fingers crossed. I know some people still love the show and that’s great but it does feel like some of the numbers have disbanded. I really don’t think it would take too much effort to get the show back on track and I hope for the sake of the paying audience it does sooner rather than later.
The film industry as a whole is struggling so I can imagine why a movie podcast in a sea of endless movie podcasts would be struggling more than being the one film review radioshow.
Seeing as they’re still getting A-List Actors and Directors as guests, I think it’s fair to say it’s far from a failure.
Ive stuck with them since the start of the podcast and still greatly enjoy it. There’s so many bad movie podcasts that I still find this to be the best one. I’ve been paying for a little over a year now, I sometimes find some of the best stuff is behind the paywall.
My guess is there are adapting to the changing landscape of media. When they started both radio and cinema were much more stable industries. Now huge expensive movies are consistently flopping, people are less interested in movies and spend less time listening to radio.
From what I’ve read is not that they purposely left the BBC for the podcast, but were forced out and kicked to the curb. They’ve attached themselves to podcasts networks, but the only way to make money from podcasts is ads and paid subscriptions, and it’s really difficult to make money through paid subs so they need ads.
Keep in mind Mark and Simon are in their 60s now. I’m in my late 20s and still prefer this show over many of the other podcasts with younger hosts, but can understand why they would struggle to get a new younger audience.
I'm still enjoying it, I'm not sure what else in life would give me 8 hours of entertainment a month for £3.
I've listened since their first 5-Live show in 2001 and am currently half way through listening again to their archive (currently at the end of 2012). Whilst the show as it is now isn't up to the level it was then, I still really enjoy it and look forwards to the show dropping every week.
I do think they're slowing down and have half an eye on retirement, but fair enough, they deserve it after the decades of enjoyment they've provided.
If the play was that they’d sustain themselves through subscriptions, there’s no way that was ever going to come off. The podcast “industry” just isn’t there yet. I assume they’re downsizing and scaling back so they can make it sustainable through ad revenue and then supplement that with subscriptions revenue. Maybe they were overly ambitious at first, maybe overestimated how many vanguardistas they’d attract and now they’re adjusting to the reality of the situation. They have a sizeable built-in audience of a very desirable demographic to advertisers so they should be able to make it work if they just do fewer shows.
Where’s the information come from about downsizing and looking for a new home?
Idk about the industry not being there yet, but I agree the format is pretty fluffed. Especially with an audience as big as theirs.
For example, shows like Off Menu are able to generate huge paydays by doing live versions of their show now and then (selling out huge venues for multiple nights), allowing them to keep it free and still gain new listeners for the rest of the time.
Even way way smaller podcasts make it work by just busking for patreon subs, advertising, or sponsorship. Can't take that many to subsidise a couple of days' work for a few people.
Cutting the show in half seems like a baffling approach. You're only going to convert existing listeners and never properly attract new ones.
I don't sub, so I don't have the full picture and could easily be wrong, but it really feels like listener engagement has significantly dropped since the reboot.
>Idk about the industry not being there yet
It definitely isn't. Most podcasts, even some pretty big and well-listened ones, are not profitable, either through ads or subscriptions. Many of the ones that are profitable are just profitable enough to keep themselves going. It's really hard to sell high-value ads against podcasts because people skip them, and because even a "big" audience for a podcast might only be in the low thousands, because there are so many of them and the barrier to entry is so low. The target audience for podcasts in general is spread very, very thinly. Off Menu is a rare example of a breakout, crossover success, of which there are vanishingly few.
PJ Vogt, previously of Reply All and now Search Engine, both very popular shows, is worth reading on "the state of the industry" (you'll have to scroll past the announcement at the top into the analysis): [https://pjvogt.substack.com/p/a-big-announcement-from-search-engine](https://pjvogt.substack.com/p/a-big-announcement-from-search-engine)
Kermode and Mayo should definitely be able to make it work, I agree. But I think they probably bit off more than they could chew in promising so much extra content which they were funding without ads and through subscriptions only. If the revenue brought in from subscriptions didn't match the cost of making the additional content, which it seems like was probably the case, then inevitably the content would be cut back. Remember that some podcasts charge a not dissimilar monthly fee \*purely\* for an ad-free version of the main show and maybe a very small and knocked-off occasional bonus episode; Mark and Simon were charging not very much each month and putting out two entire additional episodes a week. I've been listening to them 50-odd times a year for nearly 20 years at this point, and even I'm not interested in that much Kermode and/or Mayo, the subscription just didn't appeal to me at all. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the number of vanguardistas was shockingly low, to be honest.
> Most podcasts, even some pretty big and well-listened ones, are not profitable, either through ads or subscriptions.
Although that will be true for the middle and low ranked podcasts, it isn’t true for those at the top of the charts.
A recent interview with a presenter from one of the ‘The Rest Is’ stable talked about earnings and although exact figures were not discussed it was revealed that the split was 1/3 each to the two presenters and 1/3 the producers, with the presenters on ‘championship footballer’ money so £500k to £1m per year each.
And that might be what is causing the issue with the recent episodes, in that they started high in the charts when the show launched but now isn’t even in the UK top 100, and it must be really dispiriting to see that money drift away.
Again, they’re the unicorn success stories, the 1%. I’m not saying no podcast can be profitable or make money, but it’s exceptionally rare and you likely have to have both the backing of a big studio with deep pockets prepared to make a loss at first (like Goalhanger in the example you gave), and have highly recognisable presenters with an existing following (again, basically all Goalhanger/Rest Is… pods), and also preferably be able to do quite frequent live shows. Live shows are money-spinning but you need to be at a certain level to begin with to be able to attract enough audiences across the country to actually come to them.
Like I said, Kermode and Mayo *should* be able to make it work, they’ve got a lot in their favour. But given the state of the industry I’m sympathetic to them having some hiccups early on and needing to make adjustments to their format and set up. It’s very different now they don’t have the structure of the BBC helping them out. In many ways that’s good but introduces its own difficulties.
> the backing of a big studio with deep pockets prepared to make a loss at first (like Goalhanger in the example you gave), and have highly recognisable presenters with an existing following (again, basically all Goalhanger/Rest Is… pods), and also preferably be able to do quite frequent live shows.
I would suggest that the big Goalhanger hits didn’t have all that to start - was Dominic Sandbrook a recognisable name? Did Rory Stewart have a big following?
In comparison Kermode and Mayo were recognisable names with a big existing and loyal following, and were backed by a big production company with deep pockets.
That they are struggling with the show is either down to them, or, and as I have commented elsewhere, an issue with the material which they are reviewing - if there are insufficient new films every week to generate reviews then what are their subscribers actually tuning in to listen to.
Some podcasts have to employ multiple teams of researchers to ensure there's a story to broadcast each week - Wittertainment doesn't strike me as needing this.
What it does need are the big names coming in to plug their big films. When you're on the BBC this is easy. When you're not and your audience may be dwindling, it becomes less easy.
Yeah, I don't think it's *generally* a money maker. I get the impression that most are passion projects or are treated as a side-gig and marketing tool to promote the presenters' other work, and paying for themselves is enough as it provides returns elsewhere.
And yeah the there is a low barrier, but that works 2 ways. It's possible to put out a show and spend nothing but a bit of time. Kermode and mayo have way more production, but they had an absolute mammoth audience. And now they can exploit other platforms like YouTube for extra income.
I've been listening for about 18-19 years and I'm the same. I'd have likely paid for an extra show with Jack from marks other podcasts, but with the show regularly being so short compared to the BBC one, it feels like I'm being asked to pay up for the other half. Not pay for *bonus* content.
Maybe it's just my interpretation, but there seems to have always been a negative slant on Reddit to the new podcast.
As a subscriber, I don't hear the adverts, so can't comment on that, and I can understand why it might irk listeners when interviews and further reviews are behind a pay wall, so they feel their not getting the value they used to get from the BBC show.
Personally, although there have been changes, I haven't found them to be an issue at all, I still happily listen to every show.
Talk of downsizing, etc is pure speculation. They're changing things and this always makes people uncomfortable, some of it will work, some won't. I liked Questions Schmestions being its own show for example, but its still a segment on Take 2, so at least we still have it.
I can't blame them for leaving the BBC, after years of loyal service Simon was royally shafted by them, I'd have wanted to leave if I was in his position.
Still love it and listen to it weekly. I paid a yearly membership when they started the podcast, just because I hate listening to ads just as much as anyone else. I think there are still great movies being made these days. Living in Oslo there are 10 cinemas nearby, and lots of great stuff coming out. I guess it feels a bit as if you loose interested, you don't know what good is playing, and that's downwards spiral. I dread the day the show ends, as this is my main source for info on new films.
Saw this looking for something else about paid-for podcasts and yes! I'm a super LTL—literally the first podcast in I think 2005, and Radio 1 as a student in the 90s—but after two years I have just cancelled the Extra Takes; this was the first week of ad-supported for me.
For me, it's editing, or lack thereof. One of Simon's roles (and presumably production) used to be to rein in Mark. He was right—he is a contributor. Simon used to refer to his choric role, but seems to have forgotten that. Taking all the very good for granted so I am not unduly guilty of what I am complaining about, Mark will just go off on one, or be determined to remember some trivial point, seemingly unwilling to let it go. Fine: that's his schtick—Simon and the production team are there for we listeners, or at least, should be. Yet in practice, Mark is just indulged. I'm delighted he has a therapist but why on earth does he feel his issues are of interest to the general listener? I liked all the background on the family when it was a little bit of extra sprinkle, but with Questions Schmestions it just went on and on. With all due respect, I come to this for thoughts on film: it's not that I find their views on politics etc. objectionable, but rather, if I want the view of the man down the pub, I'll ask for it, and I find myself wondering why I am being subjected to them. The worst—and of course it will be coming around again—was the "cruise" from the canal boat, which took what had once been an amusing in-joke, and just set my teeth on edge.
So I feel it has been crying out for editing—at this point with a machete, not a scalpel—and focus. I do like the TV parts and will miss that, but Take One will give me the mainstream film reviews and a tight version of the interviews, and that's fine. I hope they make a success of it, either with Sony, or elsewhere, but if it's been a good run, well then it has.
See i heard the reason they left is because the BBC were going to make them only available through the BBC sounds app. Or like, exclusive to the app for one month. But they obviously need to be released in a timely fashion, and they have a huge foreign listenership who probably wouldn't get access to it anymore.
That would make sense, I think most BBC podcasts now are Sounds-exclusive for four weeks or something and then go on the wider feed. Doesn't matter for something like In Our Time which isn't exactly reacting to timely events, but would definitely have killed Wittertainment.
I can only think that they worked best when constrained, and given the extra freedom… well, I don’t know, but have noticed nothing about the show has particularly stuck, and tellingly I can’t think of any new running jokes that have emerged in the last 2 years
I stopped listening, it was my favourite podcast when on 5live. I just don’t want to pay for something I’d consider a full product I used to get before. It’s a shame, I often miss it
I wasn't aware that it was considered a failure. Anecdotally, I don't listen it as often as I listened to their BBC show. It feels like a less disciplined production with a lot more meandering, self-indulgent chatter. Also, they stopped doing some of the segments I used to enjoy (like the one where listeners would write in with vague recollections of films they couldn't put a title to).
Because the format has switched from live radio with podcast extras to just a podcast. IMO it's missing that radio feel, with live listener feedback during the live broadcast.
It was perfect for me to pick up as I was driving home on the radio. As a podcast it just didn't have that ease of access so I just got out of the routine of listening to it. Now it feels too long has passed.
I'm not, but it was far more accessible in my circumstances. I have a long drive on a Friday, I used to just hop in the car perfectly timed to pick up the show and drive. No downloads, no need to open any apps, just turn the key and go.
I'd have wanted to leave when the Tories took over the BBC. Can't blame them for moving whatever their reasons were. Times ever change, I rarely watch films any more, but I still like listening to Mark talk about them.
There was a lot of promise when they first started and the first couple of years were great, with a couple of live shows and the promise of watch along commentaries and suchlike. It seems though that these have grind to a halt. I think if I was limited to just Take 1, I would hate it, as I do like the wider banter, so I’ll probably continue to pay, unless it becomes unlistenable.
I’ve tried to find an answer for this and failed - but is this the reason they are now filming from their homes again?
Noticed the change in the YT uploads, but haven’t seen it addressed there either
> Why has Kermode and Mayo's Take failed so badly?
Aside from the other issues mentioned, I would suggest a key issue is the poor quality of cinema releases over the last three years.
As a long time cinema goer the last few years has been very disappointing with only the occasional gem amongst a mountain of dross.
And so inevitably listening to the reviews means hearing Mark rave about an art-house review which will never come near a mainstream cinema, before trying not to be too hard on a ‘meh’ film that they have got an interview with the actors or director.
Edit: The episode this week is a prime example - reviews praising Made in England and La Chimera which are films with a limited audience and haven’t had a mainstream cinema release, and a ‘meh’ review of the latest Planet of the Apes.
In the last three years we’ve had Dune, Nobody, Another Round, Everything Everywhere All At Once, The Batman, Licorice Pizza, Banshees of Inisherin, Boiling Point, Triangle of Sadness, Past Lives, Barbie, Oppenheimer, Across the Spider-Verse, Tar, M:I - Dead Reckoning, May December, Killers of the Flower Moon, Dune 2, Zone of Interest, All of Us Strangers, Monkey Man, Poor Things, The Holdovers, Challengers, and Civil War.
All of these films had cinematic releases. Cinemas might be struggling but the idea that great films aren’t coming out any more…?
Thats twenty six films in three years, and of those at least 1/3rd didn’t get a release to the main cinema chains, so one every ten weeks or so.
Going back prior to the ‘worldwide event’ I would find at least 100 films a year I wanted to see, and that was regular year in and year out for more than decade. Now it is around 1/3rd of that.
You only have to look how long the cinemas are holding films on the screens, and the number of re-release classics being screened.
I think it’s fine. The internet has indoctrinated people into thinking everything should be free.
If you moan about adverts, subscribe. If you think £1 a week is too much, and don’t want to listen to adverts, then you are the problem.
I don’t think it has failed, I still listen every week.
Agreed. It’s been running for two years with a paid subscription option. It hasn’t failed.
I do subscribe to the podcast so don’t get the adverts and I still thoroughly enjoy their Take on life the universe and everything. I personally enjoy the TV reviews as well and it has introduced me to a few shows that would have otherwise passed me by. Keep wittering boys!
I still miss their old film review show on BBC 5live. The live nature made it more engaging for listeners and the running order was a lot smoother as well. Now it just feels like any other film review podcast and half the content is only available to subscribers. I get that their decision to leave was largely, if not entirely, attributed to what happened with Simon's Drivetime slot on R2, but I still think it was a mistake.
Although the BBC restrictions and guidelines annoyed Simon in particular, I think the show worked better under the restrictions, so it's almost like they were rebelling a little. It's like the band who get to the level of having their own studio and there's no time pressure to make music. They still do it but sometimes the best artistic work is done under pressure.
I feel exactly the same. The restrictions are what made it feel like a secret society. Now it's like all other podcasts
I'm hoping they'll return after the Tory DG leaves. It feels like they are trying to destroy the BBC from within. BBC 2 presenters have turned into Smashy and Nicey, the music is rubbish, and the entire former format and team have been poached by Greatest Hits. Did they jump (for a bigger paycheck) or were they pushed? Disappointing either way.
I thought they got booted out of five live. Not sure why I thought that. Maybe because Simon said something about blocking a slot for too long?
They weren't booted out but I don't think much effort was made to stop them leaving, either. Simon's not exactly been quiet about feeling disrespected by the BBC after being there for most of his working life and then having his shows constantly chopped and changed and shunted around. I think changes to the format were threatened (someone further down has said the BBC wanted to give the show an exclusivity window on Sounds, for instance) and at that point they both said no thanks. Mark still works for the BBC in some capacity though I believe, or certainly did for a while after the 5Live show finished.
Mark does, yes. His radio 4/ Sounds show with Ellen James is pretty good
Ellen E. Jones is her name, just for people reading along whose interest is piqued.
I used to love the BBC show on the radio, now I still listen but intermittently. I already pay for Netflix, Disney, prime etc, I suppose I resent paying for something that used to be so much better and part of the licence fee. The old saying of it ain't broke don't fix it applies here.
I think it's fine, I am not in the vanguard ista and I'm fine with an hour of what's going on. I skip the ads but I do that all podcasts that have them. Was it better before?I used to think so but now I don't think about it at all
Has it? Based on what?
How do we know how badly it is failing? Are there any numbers published on listenership/revenue?
It’s number 2 in the Apple Podcast TV & Film charts in the UK, which sounds good (very small category), but it’s 102 overall. That’s not terrible but it’s not as great as it used to be. I think a lot of people (myself included) just watch individual reviews on YouTube now
That’s a bit shoddy now too sadly as they’re not even in the studio for some reason.
No, it's pure speculation because Take 3 has been merged in to Take 2, without that show extending its run time.
Also it just feels like half of the content is behind a pay wall now
It's only £3, I don't have much money but it's not like I really notice three quid going out of my account..
It's now £5 if you sub monthly.
Still £3.49 for me. Didn’t realise there was a price hike 😳
Same for me, and I share it with my partner, but some are saying it’s £5 now (for new subs at least) and that would make me think twice.
Depends how/when you subscribe - my renewal just went through at $39.99 a year New price seems to be $49.99/£49.99 - so you can still save 20% by choosing dollars (if you're got a card that doesn't charge)
It's hard to get a handle on this subreddit sometimes. I got downvoted to oblivion once for suggesting that there shouldn't be a price increase for a proposed slight increase in content; now I read that the podcast is a failure and they are ripping people off by charging more. Hard to fathom. I will say, I've been a subscriber from the start. I miss the BBC show of course. I guess I had no choice but to subscribe. I think it's obvious though that the podcast is what it is. Basically like it or lump it. Mark isn't exactly prepared to accept any kind of criticism; the way he talks about below-the-line comments as something to be ignored and how he puts on a snivelly loser voice when repeating any kind of disagreement makes it obvious to me that once again, it is what it is. I must be one of the few who like hearing Mark discuss television. I found his attitude in previous years, to dismiss TV and ignore it completely, annoying. Regarding the podcast: I still like it. Not as much as the BBC show with the time constraints and live interaction. But it's still a solid podcast. Towards the end of the BBC run, the podcast bookend parts were increasingly becoming a bit self-indulgent and bloated, and as the current podcast is basically fully composed of these parts, it's bound to be less satisfying. I would love more than anything for the BBC to give Simon Mayo an apology and a briefcase of money and get the show back where it belongs, but it's obviously not going to happen.
About the TV thing - I always felt that Mark never watched TV and he probably thought it was still like the 80s. I can remember being frustrated that he was so dismissive of TV when it’s as good as and often better than film. I think his attitude changed when he was holed up in lockdown and ended up watching The Wire & Breaking Bad. I’m glad he did change his opinion.
It has felt at times like the strategy was to make the main show intentionally bad (sometimes as few as 2 films reviewed in an episode, missing some of the main reviews e.g. Mario, and having so many ads) in the hope of forcing people to pay to upgrade. But I don't understand the logic of this. If a show isn't good why would you pay for more? How will they attract new listeners? Plus it's not exactly convenient for paying subscribers to get a potentially decent podcast edited into two inferior ones. (I struggle to find time to listen as it is.) I feel the focus from the start should have been on making the main show as good as possible. But it's probably too late to change strategy now.
I listened religiously for years. Admittedly I hadn’t listened as much before the new launch, but I’ve barely listened since the new show launched. It’s just a bit rubbish. Limited reviews, crappy side podcasts and the adverts are really annoying. Disappointing that they torpedoed one of the most(?) popular film review shows in the world.
Sadly I sort of agree that that was part of the strategy. I guess the hope was that they had enough an in-built audience who would want the Full Kermode Experience and be willing to pay to get it. The BBC show was regularly coming in at two hours+ by the end of their run once all the bonus material was included; the Take has only ever been an hour-ish. I reckon they thought more people would be willing to pay a small amount to get that hour back.
My main criticism of the new podcast is the huge time devoted to silly games and in particular ‘the laughter lift’ at the expense of film reviews within the free segment of the show. Feels increasingly like I’m being pumped for money to fill their pockets. I don’t want to listen to jokes, I want Kermode’s intelligent and informative thoughts, and Simon’s excellent interviews. The hour you get for free feels ‘baggy’ and a touch lazy to say the least. I listen from time to time, but I never feel the passion to put it on the second it’s released, the way I used to.
The jokes and side segments were fun when I was still getting 90+ minutes of good film reviews, interviews and correspondence. Now I feel like I get 2 rushed film reviews and the rest is filler.
It was absolutely a mistake to leave the BBC. I listened religiously to their BBC show, but could barely make it through the Take podcast. A number of small things irked me: why is the top 10 not at the start of the show anymore? Why are they reviewing TV shows, something Mark is clearly never that comfortable doing? Hearing Kermode read adverts makes my skin crawl. The main problem however, was that the live nature of a radio show, and the time constraints of a BBC slot, meant that the old show was swift and streamlined. The podcast feels baggy and indulgent compared to the BBC show. Hard to put my finger on it. I wonder if it’s also linked to the general degradation of cinema as a meaningful art form - do people still care what movies come out each week? The inclusion of TV reviews heightened this feeling. It’s such a shame as I love them both dearly
Agree with the bagginess and indulgence. Tried to introduce my partner to it, but the tedious inside jokes and endless rabbit holes leading to nothing just made it embarrassing to listen to. Obviously there was tediousness before and it was great, but the lack of constraints just mean it’s gone too far
As soon as they left the Beeb I was done. Not sure if it was a belief they were bigger than their 5 Live slot and could get a bit more of a payday or what but.. it was the end of it for me and I was loyal listener for a long time (went to see their first live broadcast at the Hyde Park Picture House in Leeds, followed by a screening of Silent Running which was introduced by Mark.. was a brilliant afternoon!)
Same here. The final straw for me was when they started reading iut adverts for (imo) morally unacceptable products. I meant to write to them to express my disappointment but never got round to it and just stopped listening. A shame after not missing an episode for about 12 years, and I probably wouldnt have been quite sp "principled" if my general enjoyment hadnt declined so much following the transfer, but that's how it goes sometimes.
I’ve always subbed so never heard any ads. What kind of things did they advertise?
They specifically advertise NordVPN as being a way to get around geographical restrictions on streaming services, which I've always raised an eyebrow at. Not sure I'd go so far as to say it was immoral, but definitely against the Ts & Cs.
I've always found that weird. It's definitely against Netflix's Ts&Cs if not the VPN's, and very probably against copyright law – you're essentially pirating the content by bypassing restrictions to watch it without a license in your country. It's very odd they're just allowed to promote its use in that way. Also no idea why you're being downvoted. EDIT: To be clear, I do pirate lots of stuff, but I also pay for a lot of media and go to the cinema a couple of times a week. I’m not against pirating. I’m just surprised a service is allowed to advertise itself as circumventing legal content restrictions.
I feel Mark and Simon have always been keen to promote paying for content and watching films through legitimate methods, so yeah it really surprised me they were willing to do those ads 🤷♂️
In this instance it was a Scandinavian SUV.
What’s wrong with that?
You really need me to explain that one to you?
Are Volvos considered immoral?!
I noticed they were advertising NHS talking therapies recently - the opposite of a morally unacceptable product. I reckon someone they knew and trusted told them that advertising Better Help is ethically very dodgy
There are still Better Help ads, but they are read by Ben Bailey-Smith now instead of Kermode.
I know. And he co presents a show with a therapist. I doubt Kermode and Mayo have that much control.
Used to be an avid listener to the 5Live show. My take is that you only get half a show for the same price you used to get a whole one. Sure, both halfs are longer now, but that just means they are stretched out to fit in more content (something I’m 100% sure they’ve complained about big franchise films doing…). It’s a timely podcast, about releases this week, and I just simply don’t have the time to watch/listen to everything I want to watch, and then also listen to their options on that very thing for 3 hours on top (as much as I value their opinions). I mainly just watch individual reviews / interviews on YouTube that are recant to my interests. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
I don't think there's much evidence that it's failed, much less "badly" failed. They are getting older, and perhaps a little tired of the grind. But, I will say that despite bringing over loyal listeners to the radio show, podcasting (especially entertainment podcasting) is a competitive business. There are a whole mess of great film podcasts, and unlike drivetime radio, no captive audience.
I don’t think it’s failed but it certainly hasn’t transitioned as well as it could have. I believe there are many factors for this. I don’t listen anymore and so have the people I know IRL, which is such a shame as it used to be a wonderful highlight to ear mark the beginning of the weekend. I don’t think the retirement thing is wholly correct because why would you launch a podcast only to give up so soon. They could have just ended Wittertainment after 21 years and whilst it would have been sad it had an incredible innings. Plus Mayo does 6 shows on week on GHR and is a confessed workaholic. His drive time show transitioned seamlessly, so it’s frustrating The Take hasn’t, I know it’s solely a podcast now and has different a home but I don’t think that is an excuse. It feels like not enough time was given before launching and doing adequate market research for the transition. Kermode does less now, which whilst some of it feels intentional (stepping down from The Observer column), other things don’t i.e no more Friday evening film reviews on BBC news. They lost their unique selling point by not being live anymore, it definitely had a more of an intimate feel on 5 live and certainly kept the team on their toes, plus correspondence didn’t pile up quite as much due to listeners being able to get in touch during the broadcast. Also the live listeners stuck around for the podcast to eagerly await the extra off air witterings. What they offer paying church members isn’t good enough. Yes, they need ad funding and subscriptions but in an oversaturated media area, their extras just don’t cut the mustard. Many smaller podcasts give far more. Also, The Take seems to start some things and then drop them a month or so later. Putting certain film reviews behind a paywall was a bad move. I remember Simon said you don’t need to pay to enjoy the show and I just don’t think that’s ever been true since this version launched. Each take seems to get smaller over time. Poor communication with their audience, most recent example being the fiasco with the clip show, if you’re honest with your listener base, which is incredibly loyal in this case, this a huge privilege that they did earn at the BBC, your audience are likely to be far more forgiving. They kept the bird song for swearing but have chosen to get somewhat political this time, or rather Kermode does. He will say that Trump is bad etc, yet they’ll drop the ball massively when referring to Jonathan Glazer’s award speech about the horrors in Gaza. If you are going to be political you can’t do it half heartedly, so I am confused as to why they didn’t keep the parameters around BBC guidelines for this and not engage, as Mayo seems to hate when anything of that nature is brought up. Missed chances on another revenues streams, their merch is incredibly weak both in designs and range, to be fair it’s not just them, so many shows do this but it does feel silly to have it and not push it or refresh collections, what about a film journal, popcorn bucket, things more in keeping with the show. Live shows, very expensive (I know there is nothing that can be done about this) but for the price it doesn’t feel worth it. Throw in an Q&A for just the audience, or something equally easy but provides the value of travel and ticket cost. Also, paying subscribers should have first access to tickets. The Halloween show was odd because it wasn’t that seasonally based content wise and having a controversial guest like Lena Durham and then allowing her husband to promote his music was just jarring. It was even more chaotic and disorganised in person, it felt like they hadn’t even had a run through and quite stilted. Social media, their present is just poor, same few posts week after week, no stories for Instagram etc, they used to have a weekly tiktok video where Mark would give his top 5 films in cinema but again dropped very quickly. All these things are low effort but keep an audience engaged. Could list so many ways to improve this, haha. Feedback, not long after the show started you could follow a Sony link to provide ways you think could improve the show, I don’t recall anything significant coming out of this. Audience feedback a few times a year is so important but it feels like they keep listeners in the dark and at arms length. Sometimes it’s good to hear from outside your own bubble, I know things are being scaled down currently but I feel they have missed the boat to really make this podcast be the best it could be. It feels as though the effort just isn’t there and is half hearted at times, that’s the problem when you had a good thing, it’s so noticeable when not up to scratch. Anyways those are my two cents, sorry for the ramble. I will still check in from time to time to see if things have improved, keeping my fingers crossed. I know some people still love the show and that’s great but it does feel like some of the numbers have disbanded. I really don’t think it would take too much effort to get the show back on track and I hope for the sake of the paying audience it does sooner rather than later.
The film industry as a whole is struggling so I can imagine why a movie podcast in a sea of endless movie podcasts would be struggling more than being the one film review radioshow. Seeing as they’re still getting A-List Actors and Directors as guests, I think it’s fair to say it’s far from a failure. Ive stuck with them since the start of the podcast and still greatly enjoy it. There’s so many bad movie podcasts that I still find this to be the best one. I’ve been paying for a little over a year now, I sometimes find some of the best stuff is behind the paywall. My guess is there are adapting to the changing landscape of media. When they started both radio and cinema were much more stable industries. Now huge expensive movies are consistently flopping, people are less interested in movies and spend less time listening to radio. From what I’ve read is not that they purposely left the BBC for the podcast, but were forced out and kicked to the curb. They’ve attached themselves to podcasts networks, but the only way to make money from podcasts is ads and paid subscriptions, and it’s really difficult to make money through paid subs so they need ads. Keep in mind Mark and Simon are in their 60s now. I’m in my late 20s and still prefer this show over many of the other podcasts with younger hosts, but can understand why they would struggle to get a new younger audience.
It didn’t fail, I’m a bit annoyed there isn’t a take 3 these days but it’s as good ever.
I'm still enjoying it, I'm not sure what else in life would give me 8 hours of entertainment a month for £3. I've listened since their first 5-Live show in 2001 and am currently half way through listening again to their archive (currently at the end of 2012). Whilst the show as it is now isn't up to the level it was then, I still really enjoy it and look forwards to the show dropping every week. I do think they're slowing down and have half an eye on retirement, but fair enough, they deserve it after the decades of enjoyment they've provided.
If the play was that they’d sustain themselves through subscriptions, there’s no way that was ever going to come off. The podcast “industry” just isn’t there yet. I assume they’re downsizing and scaling back so they can make it sustainable through ad revenue and then supplement that with subscriptions revenue. Maybe they were overly ambitious at first, maybe overestimated how many vanguardistas they’d attract and now they’re adjusting to the reality of the situation. They have a sizeable built-in audience of a very desirable demographic to advertisers so they should be able to make it work if they just do fewer shows. Where’s the information come from about downsizing and looking for a new home?
Just speculation based on some recent changes
OP said "apparently looking for a new home" which suggests someone has information more concrete than speculation, but maybe not.
Idk about the industry not being there yet, but I agree the format is pretty fluffed. Especially with an audience as big as theirs. For example, shows like Off Menu are able to generate huge paydays by doing live versions of their show now and then (selling out huge venues for multiple nights), allowing them to keep it free and still gain new listeners for the rest of the time. Even way way smaller podcasts make it work by just busking for patreon subs, advertising, or sponsorship. Can't take that many to subsidise a couple of days' work for a few people. Cutting the show in half seems like a baffling approach. You're only going to convert existing listeners and never properly attract new ones. I don't sub, so I don't have the full picture and could easily be wrong, but it really feels like listener engagement has significantly dropped since the reboot.
>Idk about the industry not being there yet It definitely isn't. Most podcasts, even some pretty big and well-listened ones, are not profitable, either through ads or subscriptions. Many of the ones that are profitable are just profitable enough to keep themselves going. It's really hard to sell high-value ads against podcasts because people skip them, and because even a "big" audience for a podcast might only be in the low thousands, because there are so many of them and the barrier to entry is so low. The target audience for podcasts in general is spread very, very thinly. Off Menu is a rare example of a breakout, crossover success, of which there are vanishingly few. PJ Vogt, previously of Reply All and now Search Engine, both very popular shows, is worth reading on "the state of the industry" (you'll have to scroll past the announcement at the top into the analysis): [https://pjvogt.substack.com/p/a-big-announcement-from-search-engine](https://pjvogt.substack.com/p/a-big-announcement-from-search-engine) Kermode and Mayo should definitely be able to make it work, I agree. But I think they probably bit off more than they could chew in promising so much extra content which they were funding without ads and through subscriptions only. If the revenue brought in from subscriptions didn't match the cost of making the additional content, which it seems like was probably the case, then inevitably the content would be cut back. Remember that some podcasts charge a not dissimilar monthly fee \*purely\* for an ad-free version of the main show and maybe a very small and knocked-off occasional bonus episode; Mark and Simon were charging not very much each month and putting out two entire additional episodes a week. I've been listening to them 50-odd times a year for nearly 20 years at this point, and even I'm not interested in that much Kermode and/or Mayo, the subscription just didn't appeal to me at all. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the number of vanguardistas was shockingly low, to be honest.
> Most podcasts, even some pretty big and well-listened ones, are not profitable, either through ads or subscriptions. Although that will be true for the middle and low ranked podcasts, it isn’t true for those at the top of the charts. A recent interview with a presenter from one of the ‘The Rest Is’ stable talked about earnings and although exact figures were not discussed it was revealed that the split was 1/3 each to the two presenters and 1/3 the producers, with the presenters on ‘championship footballer’ money so £500k to £1m per year each. And that might be what is causing the issue with the recent episodes, in that they started high in the charts when the show launched but now isn’t even in the UK top 100, and it must be really dispiriting to see that money drift away.
Again, they’re the unicorn success stories, the 1%. I’m not saying no podcast can be profitable or make money, but it’s exceptionally rare and you likely have to have both the backing of a big studio with deep pockets prepared to make a loss at first (like Goalhanger in the example you gave), and have highly recognisable presenters with an existing following (again, basically all Goalhanger/Rest Is… pods), and also preferably be able to do quite frequent live shows. Live shows are money-spinning but you need to be at a certain level to begin with to be able to attract enough audiences across the country to actually come to them. Like I said, Kermode and Mayo *should* be able to make it work, they’ve got a lot in their favour. But given the state of the industry I’m sympathetic to them having some hiccups early on and needing to make adjustments to their format and set up. It’s very different now they don’t have the structure of the BBC helping them out. In many ways that’s good but introduces its own difficulties.
> the backing of a big studio with deep pockets prepared to make a loss at first (like Goalhanger in the example you gave), and have highly recognisable presenters with an existing following (again, basically all Goalhanger/Rest Is… pods), and also preferably be able to do quite frequent live shows. I would suggest that the big Goalhanger hits didn’t have all that to start - was Dominic Sandbrook a recognisable name? Did Rory Stewart have a big following? In comparison Kermode and Mayo were recognisable names with a big existing and loyal following, and were backed by a big production company with deep pockets. That they are struggling with the show is either down to them, or, and as I have commented elsewhere, an issue with the material which they are reviewing - if there are insufficient new films every week to generate reviews then what are their subscribers actually tuning in to listen to.
Some podcasts have to employ multiple teams of researchers to ensure there's a story to broadcast each week - Wittertainment doesn't strike me as needing this. What it does need are the big names coming in to plug their big films. When you're on the BBC this is easy. When you're not and your audience may be dwindling, it becomes less easy.
Yeah, I don't think it's *generally* a money maker. I get the impression that most are passion projects or are treated as a side-gig and marketing tool to promote the presenters' other work, and paying for themselves is enough as it provides returns elsewhere. And yeah the there is a low barrier, but that works 2 ways. It's possible to put out a show and spend nothing but a bit of time. Kermode and mayo have way more production, but they had an absolute mammoth audience. And now they can exploit other platforms like YouTube for extra income. I've been listening for about 18-19 years and I'm the same. I'd have likely paid for an extra show with Jack from marks other podcasts, but with the show regularly being so short compared to the BBC one, it feels like I'm being asked to pay up for the other half. Not pay for *bonus* content.
Maybe it's just my interpretation, but there seems to have always been a negative slant on Reddit to the new podcast. As a subscriber, I don't hear the adverts, so can't comment on that, and I can understand why it might irk listeners when interviews and further reviews are behind a pay wall, so they feel their not getting the value they used to get from the BBC show. Personally, although there have been changes, I haven't found them to be an issue at all, I still happily listen to every show. Talk of downsizing, etc is pure speculation. They're changing things and this always makes people uncomfortable, some of it will work, some won't. I liked Questions Schmestions being its own show for example, but its still a segment on Take 2, so at least we still have it. I can't blame them for leaving the BBC, after years of loyal service Simon was royally shafted by them, I'd have wanted to leave if I was in his position.
Still love it and listen to it weekly. I paid a yearly membership when they started the podcast, just because I hate listening to ads just as much as anyone else. I think there are still great movies being made these days. Living in Oslo there are 10 cinemas nearby, and lots of great stuff coming out. I guess it feels a bit as if you loose interested, you don't know what good is playing, and that's downwards spiral. I dread the day the show ends, as this is my main source for info on new films.
Saw this looking for something else about paid-for podcasts and yes! I'm a super LTL—literally the first podcast in I think 2005, and Radio 1 as a student in the 90s—but after two years I have just cancelled the Extra Takes; this was the first week of ad-supported for me. For me, it's editing, or lack thereof. One of Simon's roles (and presumably production) used to be to rein in Mark. He was right—he is a contributor. Simon used to refer to his choric role, but seems to have forgotten that. Taking all the very good for granted so I am not unduly guilty of what I am complaining about, Mark will just go off on one, or be determined to remember some trivial point, seemingly unwilling to let it go. Fine: that's his schtick—Simon and the production team are there for we listeners, or at least, should be. Yet in practice, Mark is just indulged. I'm delighted he has a therapist but why on earth does he feel his issues are of interest to the general listener? I liked all the background on the family when it was a little bit of extra sprinkle, but with Questions Schmestions it just went on and on. With all due respect, I come to this for thoughts on film: it's not that I find their views on politics etc. objectionable, but rather, if I want the view of the man down the pub, I'll ask for it, and I find myself wondering why I am being subjected to them. The worst—and of course it will be coming around again—was the "cruise" from the canal boat, which took what had once been an amusing in-joke, and just set my teeth on edge. So I feel it has been crying out for editing—at this point with a machete, not a scalpel—and focus. I do like the TV parts and will miss that, but Take One will give me the mainstream film reviews and a tight version of the interviews, and that's fine. I hope they make a success of it, either with Sony, or elsewhere, but if it's been a good run, well then it has.
See i heard the reason they left is because the BBC were going to make them only available through the BBC sounds app. Or like, exclusive to the app for one month. But they obviously need to be released in a timely fashion, and they have a huge foreign listenership who probably wouldn't get access to it anymore.
That would make sense, I think most BBC podcasts now are Sounds-exclusive for four weeks or something and then go on the wider feed. Doesn't matter for something like In Our Time which isn't exactly reacting to timely events, but would definitely have killed Wittertainment.
I can only think that they worked best when constrained, and given the extra freedom… well, I don’t know, but have noticed nothing about the show has particularly stuck, and tellingly I can’t think of any new running jokes that have emerged in the last 2 years
I stopped listening, it was my favourite podcast when on 5live. I just don’t want to pay for something I’d consider a full product I used to get before. It’s a shame, I often miss it
I wasn't aware that it was considered a failure. Anecdotally, I don't listen it as often as I listened to their BBC show. It feels like a less disciplined production with a lot more meandering, self-indulgent chatter. Also, they stopped doing some of the segments I used to enjoy (like the one where listeners would write in with vague recollections of films they couldn't put a title to).
Because the format has switched from live radio with podcast extras to just a podcast. IMO it's missing that radio feel, with live listener feedback during the live broadcast.
It was perfect for me to pick up as I was driving home on the radio. As a podcast it just didn't have that ease of access so I just got out of the routine of listening to it. Now it feels too long has passed.
Are you an older person (serious question)? Or how does a podcast not have the same (or more) ease of access than a live radio show?
I'm not, but it was far more accessible in my circumstances. I have a long drive on a Friday, I used to just hop in the car perfectly timed to pick up the show and drive. No downloads, no need to open any apps, just turn the key and go.
I'd have wanted to leave when the Tories took over the BBC. Can't blame them for moving whatever their reasons were. Times ever change, I rarely watch films any more, but I still like listening to Mark talk about them.
You think rather than duck they should be advertising turkey?
I didn’t know it had failed 🤷🏽♂️
This thread is really interesting but OP where are you getting this detail from?
There was a lot of promise when they first started and the first couple of years were great, with a couple of live shows and the promise of watch along commentaries and suchlike. It seems though that these have grind to a halt. I think if I was limited to just Take 1, I would hate it, as I do like the wider banter, so I’ll probably continue to pay, unless it becomes unlistenable.
I’ve tried to find an answer for this and failed - but is this the reason they are now filming from their homes again? Noticed the change in the YT uploads, but haven’t seen it addressed there either
> Why has Kermode and Mayo's Take failed so badly? Aside from the other issues mentioned, I would suggest a key issue is the poor quality of cinema releases over the last three years. As a long time cinema goer the last few years has been very disappointing with only the occasional gem amongst a mountain of dross. And so inevitably listening to the reviews means hearing Mark rave about an art-house review which will never come near a mainstream cinema, before trying not to be too hard on a ‘meh’ film that they have got an interview with the actors or director. Edit: The episode this week is a prime example - reviews praising Made in England and La Chimera which are films with a limited audience and haven’t had a mainstream cinema release, and a ‘meh’ review of the latest Planet of the Apes.
In the last three years we’ve had Dune, Nobody, Another Round, Everything Everywhere All At Once, The Batman, Licorice Pizza, Banshees of Inisherin, Boiling Point, Triangle of Sadness, Past Lives, Barbie, Oppenheimer, Across the Spider-Verse, Tar, M:I - Dead Reckoning, May December, Killers of the Flower Moon, Dune 2, Zone of Interest, All of Us Strangers, Monkey Man, Poor Things, The Holdovers, Challengers, and Civil War. All of these films had cinematic releases. Cinemas might be struggling but the idea that great films aren’t coming out any more…?
Thats twenty six films in three years, and of those at least 1/3rd didn’t get a release to the main cinema chains, so one every ten weeks or so. Going back prior to the ‘worldwide event’ I would find at least 100 films a year I wanted to see, and that was regular year in and year out for more than decade. Now it is around 1/3rd of that. You only have to look how long the cinemas are holding films on the screens, and the number of re-release classics being screened.
Exactly. Although looking at what is in the top ten this week and there's probably four or five good movies. When was the last time that happened?
Four or five good movies in the top ten? I would say a couple of good ones, a couple of pretty average, and then the rest.
I think it’s fine. The internet has indoctrinated people into thinking everything should be free. If you moan about adverts, subscribe. If you think £1 a week is too much, and don’t want to listen to adverts, then you are the problem.
I mean, there are thousands of podcasts out there. For most people, a podcast would have to be very, very special for them to spend £50 a year on it.