Over at www.newsfromme.com, Mark Evanier writes yet again about the late night wars. He makes a very important point, one that is at the heart of why I was screaming at the TV earlier this year when Andy Richter was on Regis and Kelly. Richter said that The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien had good ratings during the summer before Jay Leno came on at 10:00. That's a bald-faced lie, and one that once again leads the audience away from the fact of the matter: Conan was failing in his time slot even during the summer. I was so angry when the audience of Regis and Kelly wildly applauded Richer's statement.
The truth is that Conan O'Brien was failing and then Jay Leno came on at 10:00 and he failed and so surrounding the 11:00 news was a bunch of failure. Leno never, ever impacted O'Brien's ratings. He impacted the ad revenue for the 11:00 affiliates. I'm not saying Leno wasn't a failure. At 10:00 p.m., he was.
(I do, however, disagree that he failed because his show was too much like his old Tonight Show. I thought The Jay Leno Show was trying too hard to have humor like The Office and all of these droll, dry sketch shows we see popping up. The younger comedians he brought on want so badly to be as deadpan as Colbert or outraged as Jon Stewart - which if you think about it, are just rehashes of how Letterman was [deadpan] and Leno was [outraged] during the glorious Late Night with David Letterman years.)
I don't watch any of these shows anymore but I still, deep down, root for Jay Leno. I don't understand what decision he was supposed to make in 2004. The only decision anyone would have accepted, truly, was if he retired and left television altogether. If he had said, "No, I won't give up The Tonight Show in 2009," he would have been called a bully who wouldn't let anyone else play with his toys (although, according to Bill Carter's new book, Leno didn't have a choice in the matter anyway - NBC told him Conan was getting the show instead of negotiating with him like previously thought). The media, that hated him anyway, was not going to accept any situation other than Leno going away, out of sight out of mind. When it was announced he would do a 10:00 p.m. show, everyone was waiting for him to fail which, in my opinion, was really unfair.
It's just like the book, the bane of my existence, That Book (not it's real title), wherein the editors tell aspiring writers that when they (the editors, who work for book publishers) get a manuscript, they go into reading it looking for a reason to reject it. You know, just no. That's a horrible mindset. Then these editors go on to show examples of how writers who took their advice were published (by them) and writers who didn't weren't published (by them). Then - THEN! - they take excerpts from The Great Gatsby and rewrite it to show how following their advice could make even a classic all the better. I think I may have written about this before, but it's a really sore subject with me.
Anyway, I just think it was unfair of basically the entire television and media world to be waiting for Leno to fail. And then he did, and I'm not saying I don't agree that he did, but part of me wonders if the media might not have poisoned a few viewer's minds. I just feel like it's hard to succeed when what seems like the entire world is rooting against you.
Showing posts with label late night. Show all posts
Showing posts with label late night. Show all posts
December 30, 2010
November 9, 2010
Conan's Ratings
Last night, Conan O'Brien's new show debuted on TBS. It drew 4.2 million viewers, beating both Jay Leno and David Letterman. Um, but not by much and, worse, that's no spectacular debut even for cable. Where are all the fans who promised to follow him and support him? His ratings might go up, but by most accounts that will probably drop and he'll eventually be even with Leno and Letterman. So, what did this get him other than a martyr card? A good deal of the reviews I've seen are all about the ratings because when it is about the content it's mediocre at best, especially the interviewing. So he's just going to do another damn talk show? Like the one he failed with at NBC? Like all of the ones that are failing on all the networks right now?
January 29, 2010
And I've Come to a Conclusion...
...that I'm just going to do what Conan's fans didn't - watch Jay Leno on the Tonight Show and support him that way. I like Jay, and I'll follow him wherever he goes. I watched the interview with Oprah yesterday and I watched the little after-show on her website. There are a few important facts many journalists are not including:
1) Craig Ferguson had nearly equal ratings to Conan O'Brien at the end of 2008. Which means that most likely Late Night with Conan O'Brien would have been #2 had he still been there through 2009. There are other things of interest in the link, including how much Jay Leno was beating his competition while still host of the Tonight Show. Aaron Barnhart, the author of the blog in the link, is usually more coherent than he is in a few lines, so cut him some slack. He's been a reporter about television of for a long time and is respected by many.
One thing I find hilarious in the link, and it might not be there when (if) you click on it, is the little tweet at the side that mentions the integrity of TMZ being tarnished. Um...TMZ is really just the Enquirer of the internet. It has never been a reputable source. It is a sensational gossip magazine.
2) CONAN O'BRIEN WAS LOSING TO DAVID LETTERMAN BEFORE THE JAY LENO SHOW CAME ON. Yep, I'm shouting it, because in every freaking news article the Jay Leno Show gets blamed for being a poor lead-in, which would be fine if Conan had been winning and then after September was losing. But you know what? That is false.
3) Leno's sample audience for 2008 = between 3.9 (this statistic is in a link below) to 5.1 million viewers (you have to understand ratings and kind of poke around the link to find this).
Letterman's sample audience for 2009 when he was against Conan for seven months = 3.27 million viewers. And that - THAT - is in second place behind Nightline for that week at 3.36 million and Conan at around three million. These are statistics for one particular week, but the truth is they do represent an average.
4) Leno's finale rating for the Tonight Show = 8.8. Conan's? 7.0.
1 rating point = 1,128,000 viewers approximately. Therefore, Conan's 7 = 7,896,000. I'm not sure then where they are getting the 10.3 million from. Jay's 8.8 = 9,926,400.
Anyway, the point is that Conan's fans couldn't even be bothered to tune in to show NBC why they were making a mistake - they couldn't even give him a bigger sendoff than Jay Leno's fans gave him. Why would NBC be rethinking anything? Conan fans: you couldn't even be loyal for one night! You couldn't even be bothered to help him out in his one hour of need. You know what? That was the point where I began shouting "Shut up, Team CoCo!"
1) Craig Ferguson had nearly equal ratings to Conan O'Brien at the end of 2008. Which means that most likely Late Night with Conan O'Brien would have been #2 had he still been there through 2009. There are other things of interest in the link, including how much Jay Leno was beating his competition while still host of the Tonight Show. Aaron Barnhart, the author of the blog in the link, is usually more coherent than he is in a few lines, so cut him some slack. He's been a reporter about television of for a long time and is respected by many.
One thing I find hilarious in the link, and it might not be there when (if) you click on it, is the little tweet at the side that mentions the integrity of TMZ being tarnished. Um...TMZ is really just the Enquirer of the internet. It has never been a reputable source. It is a sensational gossip magazine.
2) CONAN O'BRIEN WAS LOSING TO DAVID LETTERMAN BEFORE THE JAY LENO SHOW CAME ON. Yep, I'm shouting it, because in every freaking news article the Jay Leno Show gets blamed for being a poor lead-in, which would be fine if Conan had been winning and then after September was losing. But you know what? That is false.
3) Leno's sample audience for 2008 = between 3.9 (this statistic is in a link below) to 5.1 million viewers (you have to understand ratings and kind of poke around the link to find this).
Letterman's sample audience for 2009 when he was against Conan for seven months = 3.27 million viewers. And that - THAT - is in second place behind Nightline for that week at 3.36 million and Conan at around three million. These are statistics for one particular week, but the truth is they do represent an average.
4) Leno's finale rating for the Tonight Show = 8.8. Conan's? 7.0.
1 rating point = 1,128,000 viewers approximately. Therefore, Conan's 7 = 7,896,000. I'm not sure then where they are getting the 10.3 million from. Jay's 8.8 = 9,926,400.
Anyway, the point is that Conan's fans couldn't even be bothered to tune in to show NBC why they were making a mistake - they couldn't even give him a bigger sendoff than Jay Leno's fans gave him. Why would NBC be rethinking anything? Conan fans: you couldn't even be loyal for one night! You couldn't even be bothered to help him out in his one hour of need. You know what? That was the point where I began shouting "Shut up, Team CoCo!"
January 27, 2010
Many Things
Combining many topics into one. If I get around to talking about late night television, I'll put it last and give a warning so anyone who is tired of it can stop reading at the point.
1) One more movie. Today I finished watching a movie called The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes's Smarter Brother (I cannot not put an 's). I loved it. Of course I did, Gene Wilder is crazy sexy. That man cannot look stupid; he has the most intelligent eyes. And speaking of eyes, Marty Feldman! Also Madeline Kahn and Dom Deluise are so brilliant. I disagree with the reviews I see of this movie as a poor attempt to mimic Mel Brooks. Yeah, I can see that, but there is singing, dancing, word-play, sword-play, and a Gene Wilder. Johnny Depp has nothing on that man.
2) I finished reading Theresa Williams's (there it is again) The Secret of Hurricanes. I enjoyed it very much, and I'm not just saying that because she is my former professor. Even though I don't care much for first-person narrative, the "I" was the only appropriate narrator for this story. I also don't care for revealing plot points before they actually happen, but I overlooked it since the style was easy-going and I found myself reading so quickly I forgot to care about my preferences. I would give it a B. It definitely rose above most slice-of-life fictions, which aren't my favorite kind of story. (Warning: themes of incest, rape, and murder.)
3) I realized today that I can't eat outside of designated times anymore because my body has acclimated itself to eating at either 8:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m., or 10:00 p.m. Today I was trying to eat a shrimp dinner at 5:30 p.m. and even though it was really, really tasty I just couldn't eat it. But I was starving at around 10:00. This...sucks. The times I eat correspond to time periods of my various shifts at work. Screwing with my life when I leave it behind.
*****DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON*****
4)Late night television. Please, please, people, read something other than Bill Carter's book The Late Shift to get a more well-rounded perspective on what happened in 1992. Carter's book is admittedly biased in favor of Letterman and therefore does not give a fair shake to Leno. It also doesn't paint Letterman in a favorable light, anyway, as I feel it makes him look like a child who waited for the world to fall into his lap, then brooded when it didn't. The scenes that are supposed to make me feel bad about him, such as the one where he passes the note to Teri Garr (or Sandra Bernhardt, depending on the source) saying he hates himself seems to me like a person who self-deprecates in order to hear everyone praise him. He is the ultimate passive-agressive.
1) One more movie. Today I finished watching a movie called The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes's Smarter Brother (I cannot not put an 's). I loved it. Of course I did, Gene Wilder is crazy sexy. That man cannot look stupid; he has the most intelligent eyes. And speaking of eyes, Marty Feldman! Also Madeline Kahn and Dom Deluise are so brilliant. I disagree with the reviews I see of this movie as a poor attempt to mimic Mel Brooks. Yeah, I can see that, but there is singing, dancing, word-play, sword-play, and a Gene Wilder. Johnny Depp has nothing on that man.
2) I finished reading Theresa Williams's (there it is again) The Secret of Hurricanes. I enjoyed it very much, and I'm not just saying that because she is my former professor. Even though I don't care much for first-person narrative, the "I" was the only appropriate narrator for this story. I also don't care for revealing plot points before they actually happen, but I overlooked it since the style was easy-going and I found myself reading so quickly I forgot to care about my preferences. I would give it a B. It definitely rose above most slice-of-life fictions, which aren't my favorite kind of story. (Warning: themes of incest, rape, and murder.)
3) I realized today that I can't eat outside of designated times anymore because my body has acclimated itself to eating at either 8:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m., or 10:00 p.m. Today I was trying to eat a shrimp dinner at 5:30 p.m. and even though it was really, really tasty I just couldn't eat it. But I was starving at around 10:00. This...sucks. The times I eat correspond to time periods of my various shifts at work. Screwing with my life when I leave it behind.
*****DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON*****
4)Late night television. Please, please, people, read something other than Bill Carter's book The Late Shift to get a more well-rounded perspective on what happened in 1992. Carter's book is admittedly biased in favor of Letterman and therefore does not give a fair shake to Leno. It also doesn't paint Letterman in a favorable light, anyway, as I feel it makes him look like a child who waited for the world to fall into his lap, then brooded when it didn't. The scenes that are supposed to make me feel bad about him, such as the one where he passes the note to Teri Garr (or Sandra Bernhardt, depending on the source) saying he hates himself seems to me like a person who self-deprecates in order to hear everyone praise him. He is the ultimate passive-agressive.
January 25, 2010
January 22, 2010
Because I'm Like a Dog...
...with a chew toy. Sigghhhhhhh.
No one will ever read this who cares, but I have to say it somewhere. Another thing no one ever thinks about in the whole Jay/Dave (because ultimately, it will now always be about the two of them an no one else) mess is what would have happened had Letterman actually been given the Tonight Show. Let's envision an alternate universe where this happens:
Jay Leno is guest hosting for Johnny Carson, somewhere around 40% of the episodes. He is hot among the younger demographic and is sustaining and/or beating the ratings when he guest hosts. He needs some job security so he isn't permanently stuck in neutral, plus he's been getting offers from other networks to host his own late night talk show, particularly at CBS. He asks NBC what they can offer him. They do not offer him the Tonight Show, instead promising it to David Letterman, who Carson prefers. Leno then chooses to leave NBC for his own show on CBS. Let's call this show Late Show with Jay Leno.
Now, let's give Jay Leno about two years before David Letterman takes over the Tonight Show when Carson retires. In this time Jay Leno stumbles around, fires his manager, retools a bit. His ratings slowly rise though at first he doesn't quite beat Carson but instead gains on him. David Letterman then takes over the Tonight Show.
Letterman creams Leno for about eighteen months. Leno plugs along, never falling in his ratings from the #2 spot and still slowly gaining more viewers. Letterman remains Letterman and so he begins losing viewers. Leno overtakes him (which he was trending toward doing even without Hugh Grant's infamous interview, you know, the one where viewers were tricked into staying with Leno because they didn't know how to change the channel the next night). Now, the great Tonight Show is #2 and Late Show with Jay Leno is #1. Leno remains #1 on CBS for fifteen years while the Tonight Show falls behind Nightline at times to #3 (which happened to Letterman quite a few times). Now, Letterman has the reputation of being the man who ruined the Tonight Show.
Now, here are what I think critics would argue: the Tonight Show name would have carried David Letterman to #1 because that is the only reason people watched Jay Leno, not because of Leno himself. So Leno would have never won against David Letterman. Counterargument: So are you saying that David Letterman is equally not as capable of carrying his own show to #1 unless he has the Tonight Show name behind him? Because he wasn't #1 without that name until Conan O'Brien took over.
What if Leno had never fired his manager or realized his show needed to be different than what it was in the beginning? Good point. That is totally valid. That would have changed the outcome. I can't really aruge that other than to say I think most of that was inevitable. CBS might not have had the leverage to force Leno to fire Kushnick, but I think Leno, who has publicly acknowledged fear of losing what he's gained, would have fired her to keep his show, Tonight Show or not.
Letterman would not have been as cranky and would have had more appeal. Maybe. But he really isn't much different now than he was on Late Night, so most likely not.
Anyway, what happened in real life cannot be ignored for people who wish it had turned out differently. If we look at the facts of the matter, Leno beat Letterman. That is history. The truth is that Jay Leno kept the Tonight Show #1 for a long time and whether one set of viewers thinks he's lame, another set of viewers thought he was funny, and one is not less valid than the other.
I don't understand the people who get upset when they are told to watch something else if they don't like what's on station #1. Turn to station #2, then. You don't like to read the Twilight books? Read Doris Lessing, then. You don't want to be a Buddhist? Then practice Hinduism. Period.
I'll express it again - I don't know why this sticks in my craw so much. These are millionaires and I don't know why I care what's fair to say about them. Whatever, I'm going to Youtube to watch some Craig Ferguson.
(P.S.) I would like to thank Mark Evanier for a lot of these ideas. He is really brilliant. You can blame him, if you wish, for enabling my obsession.
No one will ever read this who cares, but I have to say it somewhere. Another thing no one ever thinks about in the whole Jay/Dave (because ultimately, it will now always be about the two of them an no one else) mess is what would have happened had Letterman actually been given the Tonight Show. Let's envision an alternate universe where this happens:
Jay Leno is guest hosting for Johnny Carson, somewhere around 40% of the episodes. He is hot among the younger demographic and is sustaining and/or beating the ratings when he guest hosts. He needs some job security so he isn't permanently stuck in neutral, plus he's been getting offers from other networks to host his own late night talk show, particularly at CBS. He asks NBC what they can offer him. They do not offer him the Tonight Show, instead promising it to David Letterman, who Carson prefers. Leno then chooses to leave NBC for his own show on CBS. Let's call this show Late Show with Jay Leno.
Now, let's give Jay Leno about two years before David Letterman takes over the Tonight Show when Carson retires. In this time Jay Leno stumbles around, fires his manager, retools a bit. His ratings slowly rise though at first he doesn't quite beat Carson but instead gains on him. David Letterman then takes over the Tonight Show.
Letterman creams Leno for about eighteen months. Leno plugs along, never falling in his ratings from the #2 spot and still slowly gaining more viewers. Letterman remains Letterman and so he begins losing viewers. Leno overtakes him (which he was trending toward doing even without Hugh Grant's infamous interview, you know, the one where viewers were tricked into staying with Leno because they didn't know how to change the channel the next night). Now, the great Tonight Show is #2 and Late Show with Jay Leno is #1. Leno remains #1 on CBS for fifteen years while the Tonight Show falls behind Nightline at times to #3 (which happened to Letterman quite a few times). Now, Letterman has the reputation of being the man who ruined the Tonight Show.
Now, here are what I think critics would argue: the Tonight Show name would have carried David Letterman to #1 because that is the only reason people watched Jay Leno, not because of Leno himself. So Leno would have never won against David Letterman. Counterargument: So are you saying that David Letterman is equally not as capable of carrying his own show to #1 unless he has the Tonight Show name behind him? Because he wasn't #1 without that name until Conan O'Brien took over.
What if Leno had never fired his manager or realized his show needed to be different than what it was in the beginning? Good point. That is totally valid. That would have changed the outcome. I can't really aruge that other than to say I think most of that was inevitable. CBS might not have had the leverage to force Leno to fire Kushnick, but I think Leno, who has publicly acknowledged fear of losing what he's gained, would have fired her to keep his show, Tonight Show or not.
Letterman would not have been as cranky and would have had more appeal. Maybe. But he really isn't much different now than he was on Late Night, so most likely not.
Anyway, what happened in real life cannot be ignored for people who wish it had turned out differently. If we look at the facts of the matter, Leno beat Letterman. That is history. The truth is that Jay Leno kept the Tonight Show #1 for a long time and whether one set of viewers thinks he's lame, another set of viewers thought he was funny, and one is not less valid than the other.
I don't understand the people who get upset when they are told to watch something else if they don't like what's on station #1. Turn to station #2, then. You don't like to read the Twilight books? Read Doris Lessing, then. You don't want to be a Buddhist? Then practice Hinduism. Period.
I'll express it again - I don't know why this sticks in my craw so much. These are millionaires and I don't know why I care what's fair to say about them. Whatever, I'm going to Youtube to watch some Craig Ferguson.
(P.S.) I would like to thank Mark Evanier for a lot of these ideas. He is really brilliant. You can blame him, if you wish, for enabling my obsession.
January 21, 2010
Using Awesome Knowledge for Stupid Purposes
Best College Class of All Time: Philosophy of Punishment
Professor of Said Class: The Amazing Dr. James Stuart
Lesson: Philosophical Arguments
So, a backstory. My best friend and I were in a class together called the Philosophy of Punishment (which was about the penal system in our capitalist society) taught by an extremely funny, intelligent man named Dr. Stuart. Dr. Stuart referred to himself in the third person when lecturing about articles he had written (i.e. "Stuart says in paragraph four...." "You're Stuart!" we would quietly say. Then we would smile, and thus we became "The Smiling Girls.") We were the only ones who understood his jokes because everyone else in the class was clueless. What I remember most: the difference between systematic and abberational errors, with the classic example of Lee Iacocca taking over GM and expunging it of its systematic errors. Anyway, one day Dr. Stuart taught us about philosophical arguments. Basically, they go as thus:
John F. Kennedy was murdered.
People who are murdered are dead.
________________________________
Therefore, John F. Kennedy is dead.
Two or more premises lead to a conclusion and to make a logical argument, the conclusion must follow the logic of the premises. Simple, no? Well, I'm going to use this awesome ability Dr. Stuart has bestowed upon me to make an inane, unimportant-to-anyone-but-apparently-me argument. Of course, it's about late night TV. Surprised? Have you read this blog?
The logic according to the critics:
Jay Leno threatened to leave NBC if they didn't give him the Tonight Show.
Threatening to leave if you don't get a show makes you a douchebag.
________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Jay Leno is a douchebag.
Okay, using their own logic:
Conan O'Brien threatened to leave NBC if they didn't give him the Tonight Show.
Threatening to leave if you don't get a show makes you a doucebag.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Conan O'Brien is a douchebag.
See the double standard there?
I don't think Conan is a douchebag. I enjoy Conan on occasion. I just wanted to point out how the critics skew their own logic because they've made a decision on who is "cool" and must spin every story to support their opinions.
There will be more arguments to come (I hear that groan). I had a few in mind but of course, they aren't coming to mind right now. They will, though. They will.
Professor of Said Class: The Amazing Dr. James Stuart
Lesson: Philosophical Arguments
So, a backstory. My best friend and I were in a class together called the Philosophy of Punishment (which was about the penal system in our capitalist society) taught by an extremely funny, intelligent man named Dr. Stuart. Dr. Stuart referred to himself in the third person when lecturing about articles he had written (i.e. "Stuart says in paragraph four...." "You're Stuart!" we would quietly say. Then we would smile, and thus we became "The Smiling Girls.") We were the only ones who understood his jokes because everyone else in the class was clueless. What I remember most: the difference between systematic and abberational errors, with the classic example of Lee Iacocca taking over GM and expunging it of its systematic errors. Anyway, one day Dr. Stuart taught us about philosophical arguments. Basically, they go as thus:
John F. Kennedy was murdered.
People who are murdered are dead.
________________________________
Therefore, John F. Kennedy is dead.
Two or more premises lead to a conclusion and to make a logical argument, the conclusion must follow the logic of the premises. Simple, no? Well, I'm going to use this awesome ability Dr. Stuart has bestowed upon me to make an inane, unimportant-to-anyone-but-apparently-me argument. Of course, it's about late night TV. Surprised? Have you read this blog?
The logic according to the critics:
Jay Leno threatened to leave NBC if they didn't give him the Tonight Show.
Threatening to leave if you don't get a show makes you a douchebag.
________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Jay Leno is a douchebag.
Okay, using their own logic:
Conan O'Brien threatened to leave NBC if they didn't give him the Tonight Show.
Threatening to leave if you don't get a show makes you a doucebag.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Conan O'Brien is a douchebag.
See the double standard there?
I don't think Conan is a douchebag. I enjoy Conan on occasion. I just wanted to point out how the critics skew their own logic because they've made a decision on who is "cool" and must spin every story to support their opinions.
There will be more arguments to come (I hear that groan). I had a few in mind but of course, they aren't coming to mind right now. They will, though. They will.
More Ranting, More Ranting
Feel free to skip this post if you're tired of hearing me harp about this issue. Issue? Iowa? It's not even an issue worth anything (not that Iowa isn't worth anything either - it's a fine state, I'm sure). I don't even understand my own obsession with this late night thing. I don't even watch Jay or Conan or Dave or Jon Stewart or Craig Ferguson (who is the person I actually watch the most - on Youtube).
1) Hahahahaha.
2) Hollywood is saying they won't go on the Tonight Show when Jay Leno takes it over again. Great! Thank God! Jay, talk to the janitor from your show, or the gas station attendant, or your wife. All of those people are most likely far more interesting than the majority of celebrities.
3) Be more like you used to be. Be more like you were during the strike when a good deal of critics said you seemed spontaneous and acidic. Reinvent yourself.
4) Conan seems to have stopped making fun of Jay Leno himself and is sticking to jokes about NBC.
5) How is a masturbating bear more intelligent than Jay Leno? Please, someone, explain this logic to me. I must be really, really stupid.
6) I'm still mad at you, Jay. You should not have agreed to 11:35 in any of the capacities NBC offered it to you again. You are to blame there. You could have just waited out your contract or told them you would be a correspondent for the Today Show or something. You have a major obstacle of your own construction to overcome here. I'm rooting for you, nonetheless, and I don't understand why.
7) I'm pretty certain Jay Leno knew what Jimmy Kimmel was going to do on his show. I don't think he was blindsided at all. I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote some of those barbs Jimmy threw at him. However, Jimmy Kimmel's comment that he had kids to take care of and Jay Leno doesn't was really a lame argument - you're a millionaire and if you feel you need any more money than you have then you haven't been smart with your money. Plus, Jay has said his Tonight Show money is tied up in scholarships and charity donations. So, while Jimmy is arguing about money for his own kids Jay is giving his money to...other...people's...kids. He is EVIL!
8) Leno did not cross a line simply because he made fun of Letterman's affairs (which he claims are private but unfortunately are very public). Letterman crossed a line when he insinuated Leno should drop dead. That is far more personal - it is a wish of death on another person. Why is Letterman always praised for being "ascerbic" while Leno is criticized for being "low?" And I can't repeat it enough: Letterman cheated on his then live-in girlfriend. So, according to the media, feel free to cheat on your boyfriends and girlfriends because those relationsips do not matter.
More later, I'm sure.
1) Hahahahaha.
2) Hollywood is saying they won't go on the Tonight Show when Jay Leno takes it over again. Great! Thank God! Jay, talk to the janitor from your show, or the gas station attendant, or your wife. All of those people are most likely far more interesting than the majority of celebrities.
3) Be more like you used to be. Be more like you were during the strike when a good deal of critics said you seemed spontaneous and acidic. Reinvent yourself.
4) Conan seems to have stopped making fun of Jay Leno himself and is sticking to jokes about NBC.
5) How is a masturbating bear more intelligent than Jay Leno? Please, someone, explain this logic to me. I must be really, really stupid.
6) I'm still mad at you, Jay. You should not have agreed to 11:35 in any of the capacities NBC offered it to you again. You are to blame there. You could have just waited out your contract or told them you would be a correspondent for the Today Show or something. You have a major obstacle of your own construction to overcome here. I'm rooting for you, nonetheless, and I don't understand why.
7) I'm pretty certain Jay Leno knew what Jimmy Kimmel was going to do on his show. I don't think he was blindsided at all. I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote some of those barbs Jimmy threw at him. However, Jimmy Kimmel's comment that he had kids to take care of and Jay Leno doesn't was really a lame argument - you're a millionaire and if you feel you need any more money than you have then you haven't been smart with your money. Plus, Jay has said his Tonight Show money is tied up in scholarships and charity donations. So, while Jimmy is arguing about money for his own kids Jay is giving his money to...other...people's...kids. He is EVIL!
8) Leno did not cross a line simply because he made fun of Letterman's affairs (which he claims are private but unfortunately are very public). Letterman crossed a line when he insinuated Leno should drop dead. That is far more personal - it is a wish of death on another person. Why is Letterman always praised for being "ascerbic" while Leno is criticized for being "low?" And I can't repeat it enough: Letterman cheated on his then live-in girlfriend. So, according to the media, feel free to cheat on your boyfriends and girlfriends because those relationsips do not matter.
More later, I'm sure.
January 17, 2010
Favorite Blog
A man named Mark Evanier writes a blog that I think is incredibly smart, funny, and knowledgeable. He has been in the television, comedy, and comics (like DC/Marvel kind of comics) business for a long, long time. He knows the ins and outs of the industry. He is also fairly unbiased when he writes about this industry. He gives great insight into the sides of show-biz that we don't often know about so the public can understand decisions we usually only see one side of. Anyway, he wrote a long essay that I think is, quite simply, fair and honest about the latest bruhaha in late night.
January 16, 2010
Helping Me Not Care
This article says exactly what I think, deep down, I believe as well. Most of the late night shows aren't anything special anymore. None of them are innovative and each of them has its pros and cons. I am upset that Conan is off the Tonight Show even though I seem to have an unnatural attachment to Jay Leno. I hope one of my favorite bloggers is right when he says Jay will redeem himself if he brings the Tonight Show back to number one in the ratings.
January 14, 2010
And One More Whine
Scenario:
If David Letterman had been wooed back to NBC and was kicking Conan off the air and Jay Leno had made the joke about "Law and Order: Letterman Victims Unit" the critics would say it was lame and low. This is my problem with it all because, truth be told, I thought the "Law and Order: Lenos Victim Unit" joke was clever but my enjoyment was tainted with the knowledge that Jay Leno would never have been allowed to make that joke and be called clever. It's not that I think Jay does no wrong ("Are you going to let this bitch outbid you?" Really, Jay?), but that I think most of the media thinks he can do no right.
P.S. I don't have the will right now to link to all of these things but will eventually, including articles that call Jay the "Heir-aparent" and the one where he royally screws up (the "bitch" comment).
If David Letterman had been wooed back to NBC and was kicking Conan off the air and Jay Leno had made the joke about "Law and Order: Letterman Victims Unit" the critics would say it was lame and low. This is my problem with it all because, truth be told, I thought the "Law and Order: Lenos Victim Unit" joke was clever but my enjoyment was tainted with the knowledge that Jay Leno would never have been allowed to make that joke and be called clever. It's not that I think Jay does no wrong ("Are you going to let this bitch outbid you?" Really, Jay?), but that I think most of the media thinks he can do no right.
P.S. I don't have the will right now to link to all of these things but will eventually, including articles that call Jay the "Heir-aparent" and the one where he royally screws up (the "bitch" comment).
Venting about Late Night
Le sigh....
This will be a constant subject during the whole NBC debacle so just be ready for me to whine. Anyway, as many people know, I have tried to like David Letterman but can't. There's a part of me completely willing to admit that maybe it isn't Letterman himself I hate but the media's boot-licking admiration for him despite any wrongdoings. Let me make this clear: sleeping with half of his staff was dispicable. Disrespectful toward his wife, sending bad messages to his kid (the one thing people should be saying but aren't), creating a hostile work environment for both the women he slept with and the women he didn't, and, so frustrating it bears repeating twice - DISRESPECTFUL TOWARD HIS WIFE. Even though she wasn't his wife at the time, what part of "longtime girlfriend since 1986" does the public not understand?
What does this have to do with the current NBC drama? My man (who will be vehemently defended so just be aware) Jay (who will be called by his first name as I've given up being a professional) made a joke earlier this week about sleeping with his staff for nothing. And the critics say this is low, unfair, out of nowhere, and mean. Dave has been doing jokes about Jay for the past two weeks and, according to the critics, they are hilarious with bite. Now, months ago when Dave got into his little mess Jay did a few jokes then and people said they were...low and mean and played to the lowest common denominator. Other late night hosts did jokes about Dave, all with similar punchlines to Jay's, and those were sarcastic and showed those hosts were not going to play favorites just because Dave is one of them. A scandal's a scandal, right?
I guess my feelings are that Jay can never win and every decision he makes is the wrong decision. Even when he gives to charity I read countless articles about how the manner he chooses is shameless and egotistical. I hate to tell them this, but I'm sure he does a lot of private donations but sometimes raising money needs to be...public. And loud. And I never understood why him getting the original Tonight Show was horrible on his part. I can and have shown a lot of Jay-haters articles from before 1992 that pointed out NBC's interest in him as the future host. "Heir-aparent" and "Anointed-one" are words describing him in hundreds of articles (yes, I'm aware you have inferred I have too much time and not enough of a life). I think the whole thing started because a guy (Jay) who worked hard got a job that some people felt another guy with a lot of talent (Dave) should have gotten. So, Jay deserved the job but Dave deserved it more based on the fact that Johnny Carson liked Dave better. Fair enough, but please, critics, stop saying Jay didn't deserve it AT ALL. That is untrue.
That being said a message to Jay he will never read: LET THE RUMORS THAT YOU WILL LEAVE NBC WITH CONAN BE TRUE. Staying is a bad decision. The media will not be putting their own spin on it this time. Staying = bad. Leaving = only choice. I wish it hadn't come to Conan leaving, too. But let me make this just as clear: NBC screwed the pooch. NBC slapped Conan in the face. Jay is a "yes man" who would have done whatever they asked of him and so the decision to put him at 11:35 and move the freaking TONIGHT SHOW back to 12:05 was stupid ON THEIR PART. What were they thinking?
I think it's a little unfair to Jay to say that NBC believing in him is somehow his fault. I'm sorry if others see it as NBC being blind and that Jay is lame so why do they believe in him? It's got to hurt his feelings that people say he doesn't deserve anything he has because someone else deserved it, too. Maybe he clings to NBC because they are the only people left who praise him in their strange, screwed-up manner?
But they also liked Conan, which in a way, makes Conan a little like Jay. They said, now is the time where we will believe in you, Conan. And then...didn't. I think that is incredibly crappy on their part. Conan is the biggest victim here but I just feel there are a lot of people defending him and so it doesn't need to be said here.
Let the tomatoes fly.
This will be a constant subject during the whole NBC debacle so just be ready for me to whine. Anyway, as many people know, I have tried to like David Letterman but can't. There's a part of me completely willing to admit that maybe it isn't Letterman himself I hate but the media's boot-licking admiration for him despite any wrongdoings. Let me make this clear: sleeping with half of his staff was dispicable. Disrespectful toward his wife, sending bad messages to his kid (the one thing people should be saying but aren't), creating a hostile work environment for both the women he slept with and the women he didn't, and, so frustrating it bears repeating twice - DISRESPECTFUL TOWARD HIS WIFE. Even though she wasn't his wife at the time, what part of "longtime girlfriend since 1986" does the public not understand?
What does this have to do with the current NBC drama? My man (who will be vehemently defended so just be aware) Jay (who will be called by his first name as I've given up being a professional) made a joke earlier this week about sleeping with his staff for nothing. And the critics say this is low, unfair, out of nowhere, and mean. Dave has been doing jokes about Jay for the past two weeks and, according to the critics, they are hilarious with bite. Now, months ago when Dave got into his little mess Jay did a few jokes then and people said they were...low and mean and played to the lowest common denominator. Other late night hosts did jokes about Dave, all with similar punchlines to Jay's, and those were sarcastic and showed those hosts were not going to play favorites just because Dave is one of them. A scandal's a scandal, right?
I guess my feelings are that Jay can never win and every decision he makes is the wrong decision. Even when he gives to charity I read countless articles about how the manner he chooses is shameless and egotistical. I hate to tell them this, but I'm sure he does a lot of private donations but sometimes raising money needs to be...public. And loud. And I never understood why him getting the original Tonight Show was horrible on his part. I can and have shown a lot of Jay-haters articles from before 1992 that pointed out NBC's interest in him as the future host. "Heir-aparent" and "Anointed-one" are words describing him in hundreds of articles (yes, I'm aware you have inferred I have too much time and not enough of a life). I think the whole thing started because a guy (Jay) who worked hard got a job that some people felt another guy with a lot of talent (Dave) should have gotten. So, Jay deserved the job but Dave deserved it more based on the fact that Johnny Carson liked Dave better. Fair enough, but please, critics, stop saying Jay didn't deserve it AT ALL. That is untrue.
That being said a message to Jay he will never read: LET THE RUMORS THAT YOU WILL LEAVE NBC WITH CONAN BE TRUE. Staying is a bad decision. The media will not be putting their own spin on it this time. Staying = bad. Leaving = only choice. I wish it hadn't come to Conan leaving, too. But let me make this just as clear: NBC screwed the pooch. NBC slapped Conan in the face. Jay is a "yes man" who would have done whatever they asked of him and so the decision to put him at 11:35 and move the freaking TONIGHT SHOW back to 12:05 was stupid ON THEIR PART. What were they thinking?
I think it's a little unfair to Jay to say that NBC believing in him is somehow his fault. I'm sorry if others see it as NBC being blind and that Jay is lame so why do they believe in him? It's got to hurt his feelings that people say he doesn't deserve anything he has because someone else deserved it, too. Maybe he clings to NBC because they are the only people left who praise him in their strange, screwed-up manner?
But they also liked Conan, which in a way, makes Conan a little like Jay. They said, now is the time where we will believe in you, Conan. And then...didn't. I think that is incredibly crappy on their part. Conan is the biggest victim here but I just feel there are a lot of people defending him and so it doesn't need to be said here.
Let the tomatoes fly.
January 12, 2010
Late Night
Those who know me and know who I am are most likely (not) wondering how I feel about late night TV and the big shakeup at NBC. Why would they wonder this? Because I have a strange, secret, not-so-secret crush on Jay Leno for god knows what reasons that I don't dare to try to explain. Anyway, was I sad he left the Tonight Show? No. I never watched it as of late, to be frank, mainly because I don't watch much TV at all anymore. Do I care that his 10:00 p.m. show has been cancelled? No. It was a little cheesy and an hour was too long. I really wished he hadn't started it in the first place. The rumored contract in Vegas with him performing a la Wayne Newton would have been a better choice for him based mainly on his strength as a stand-up vs. his weakness as an interviewer. Do I think he should go back to 11:35 and that this will solve NBC's problems? No.
My suggestion would be to keep Conan O'Brien and the Tonight Show name at 11:35 and sandwich Jay, if he's got to be in there at all, in at 12:35 for a half-hour program (a monologue and an interview would be about it, and on some nights maybe a short monologue, a skit, and an interview). To me, if Jay's show as a lead-in is to blame for Conan's falling ratings, NBC would have to admit this and Conan would get the time and attention needed to find his footing a little better. If Conan still slips in the ratings and continues to underperform across from David Letterman (why would anyone, though?) then Conan and all the Jay-haters will have to realize that Jay's show was not the cause for Conan's poor ratings.
Anyway, I love Jay and am extremely fascinated by his choices, personality, and legendary good-nature. I wish, however, he would retire from television. He can go back on the road or book himself in Vegas or whatever he has to do to fuel his need to work, but he should stop subjecting himself to the critics who hate him so much. All of these talk shows are hit-or-miss anymore but it just seems like his misses get more attention than other shows' misses, and vice versa, other shows' hits get more attention than his hits. He is, without a doubt, some kind of masochist.
I guess all comedians are?
(I'm disgusted that I call them Jay and Conan, by the way, as I would yell at my students if they used the first name of a celebrity or politician, but I suppose Jay and Conan are so familiar it's different?)
My suggestion would be to keep Conan O'Brien and the Tonight Show name at 11:35 and sandwich Jay, if he's got to be in there at all, in at 12:35 for a half-hour program (a monologue and an interview would be about it, and on some nights maybe a short monologue, a skit, and an interview). To me, if Jay's show as a lead-in is to blame for Conan's falling ratings, NBC would have to admit this and Conan would get the time and attention needed to find his footing a little better. If Conan still slips in the ratings and continues to underperform across from David Letterman (why would anyone, though?) then Conan and all the Jay-haters will have to realize that Jay's show was not the cause for Conan's poor ratings.
Anyway, I love Jay and am extremely fascinated by his choices, personality, and legendary good-nature. I wish, however, he would retire from television. He can go back on the road or book himself in Vegas or whatever he has to do to fuel his need to work, but he should stop subjecting himself to the critics who hate him so much. All of these talk shows are hit-or-miss anymore but it just seems like his misses get more attention than other shows' misses, and vice versa, other shows' hits get more attention than his hits. He is, without a doubt, some kind of masochist.
I guess all comedians are?
(I'm disgusted that I call them Jay and Conan, by the way, as I would yell at my students if they used the first name of a celebrity or politician, but I suppose Jay and Conan are so familiar it's different?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
