Why do comic actors present serious tv programmes later in their careers?

admittedly, it is not all of them who follow this career path. but many seem to. feel free to muse upon why some do and others don't.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1575000/images/_1579328_carr_150.jpg

Roffle. Funnier than he ever was.

And Griff R-J on Restoration and a Pembrokeshire Cottage. They also all end up on 'Who Do You Think You Are'. Also Tony Robinson in various History and Archeology progs.

Fry has done serious acting throughout his career, of course, but not necessarily presenting.

I think (apart from the wretched Oddie) they're good presenters and more likely to draw in an audience than a serious 'expert' presenter. They're probably better at popularizing a subject than academics like Michael Wood, Adam Hart-Davies or Richard Holmes, say. Or even media heavyweights like Andrew Marr. I suppose it depends if it's going to end up on BBC1 or BBC2.

peer recognition?

What I want to know is, what comedian is responsible for the ridiculous opening titles on Michael Palin's programme abut Europe. They're very bad.

Because they're likeable and can lighten up serious or dry subjects with quips where appropriate.

Keith Barron never did this, right?

From their point of view, it's a great career move. Comics(not necessarily good ones) seem to be ten a penny on TV these days, and there's nothing in it for the likes of Palin to compete. He did all that 30-40 years ago.

There's also the straight acting route - Fry is very good and could be potentially superb if he did more. Dickens is a good vehicle for comics to braoden out, for example Johnny Vegas in Bleak House and Charlie Drake in The Old Curiosity Shop.

Still a comic, albeit on autopilot - Rowan Atkinson.

Because they're likeable and can lighten up serious or dry subjects with quips where appropriate.

x2

Somebody once gave a kind of philosophical answer to this: that when you are younger, it is easy to make fun of somebody for not knowing what they are doing, but when you are older and realize how many people don't have a clue it becomes harder.

what is it that makes Palin good at the serious presenting whereas Idle and Cleese, say, wouldn't be? I am trying to imagine Idle or Cleese doing the travelling programmes and I know they'd be rubbish at it but I can't put my finger on why. Of course it might just be that I find it impossible to separate them from their comic creations in my head --> visions of Cleese doing silly walks down a Romanian mountainside or whatever.

Idle and Cleese would often play the funny straight man.

Palin would either play the funny funny man, or the straight non-funny prop.

Cleese is actually a very unfunny man in his natural environment (not a diss) - almost sour, and definitely not someone who could give an engaging, warm yet mostly serious performance as a presenter. Idle has *that* voice, part of the reason why he's funny in the first place, and his career hasn't lent him the gravitas and sense of trust that Palin (and Terry Jones, I'd say) carry off.

palin and jones much warmer and nicer personas, i'd say.

Palin and Jones seem like they must be interested in this stuff, whereas for the other two it would just look like a paycheck.