Jump to content

"The Tonight Show" (1954-), NBC's Late-Night Talk Show, Currently Hosted by Jimmy Fallon


DonRocks

Recommended Posts

I'm hoping someone unbiased and reasonable can help me sort out "The Tonight Show" fiasco involving Conan O'Brien and Jay Leno.

I've seen mostly four people (all four of whom openly make fun of Jay Leno's physical attributes - his high voice, his chin, etc.), and three out of the four - in my opinion - seem like they walked out of a circus freak show: David Letterman, Howard Stern, and Conan O'Brien. 

The fourth, Jimmy Kimmel, doesn't have any physical characteristics to mock, but he comes across as very mean.

Of the four, I see net worths, respectively, of $400 million, $600 million, $85 million, and $35 million.

Of the four, I see absolutely no talent, and absolutely no likability.

If you ask me, "Then why are they so rich and popular," I will direct you to a certain someone who got 40 million votes.

All four accuse - viciously accuse - Jay Leno of being predatory, and hatefully mock his physical features. 

There's one thing about both Jay Leno and Jimmy Fallon that none of the four can claim: a gentle, audience likability factor.

Maybe Leno aggressively tried to get his show back instead of (as Howard Stern or David Letterman would put it) "being a man and moving to another network." How on earth does that make you a man? Leno didn't want to relinquish that job, and NBC gave it back to him. So what?

None of these four people have any credibility (or talent) in my eyes, and they are all despicable to me. So, would someone here - someone reasonable and objective - please explain to me why Jay Leno is so hated ... or is he, outside of just a small handful of multi-millionaire would-be Tonight Show hosts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, DonRocks said:

None of these four people have any credibility (or talent) in my eyes, and they are all despicable to me. So, would someone here - someone reasonable and objective - please explain to me why Jay Leno is so hated ... or is he, outside of just a small handful of multi-millionaire would-be Tonight Show hosts?

How about hiding in a closet to eavesdrop on conversations he could use to save his Tonight Show gig against Letterman.  Most would not describe that as honorable conduct.

How about his manager trying to undercut Carson by planting stories in the paper?  I know Jay claims to have known nothing of it at the time, but could he really be that blissfully ignorant?  What other camp had an incentive to make that play?

BEHIND THE HEADLINES IN THE LENO -- LETTERMAN WAR, by BILL CARTER;  Published: January 30, 1994, now on nytimes.com

The reason Letterman and O'Brien don't like Leno is obvious.  Stern and Kimmel are Letterman acolytes which I think is the root cause of their venom.  They are also close friends which I think allows them to stew on this together and egg each other on.

In my opinion, every personality you mention in your post is an extremely talented performer, albeit in different ways and personal failings notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, dcs said:

How about hiding in a closet to eavesdrop information he could use to save his Tonight Show gig against Letterman.  Most would not describe that as honorable conduct.

How about his manager trying to undercut Carson by planting stories in the paper?  I know Jay claims to have known nothing of it at the time, but could he really be that blissfully ignorant?  What other camp had an incentive to make that play?

Jan 30, 1994 - "Behind the Headlines in the Leno -- Letterman War" by Bill Carter on nytimes.com

The reason Letterman and O'Brien don't like Leno is obvious.  Stern and Kimmel are Letterman acolytes which I think is the root cause of their venom.  They are also close friends which I think allows them to stew on this together.

I'll read this (long!) article today. The only place I've heard those two accusations (closet, story plant) is from those four people - do you know for a fact that both accusations are true?

Even if they are, hiding in a closet doesn't strike me as being that big a deal - it would depend on the circumstances (it seems risky as *hell*). Planting the story, if true (and it may well be), is a much greater accusation, if it can be shown that Leno knew about it.

Regarding the story plant, wouldn't NBC executives deny it? Also, both of these stories involve Carson, not O'Brien. I remember Leno being a guest host a *lot* before he got the position full-time - wasn't the writing on the wall, given all his guest appearances?

Thanks for posting that link.

Just for the record, for all I know, Leno is Satan - it's just that I haven't seen *any* credible evidence of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DonRocks said:

The only place I've heard those two accusations (closet, story plant) is from those four people - do you know for a fact that both accusations are true?

I wasn't there, so the short answer is no.  The New York Times typically does not report items without extensive fact checking.  Leno admits to hiding in a closet.  You can say that hiding in a closet to elicit information to protect your gig from your former friend is no big deal, but that type of behavior will not endear you to the larger community of comics, which counts among its members everyone you identified above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dcs said:

I wasn't there, so the short answer is no.  The New York Times typically does not report items without extensive fact checking.  Leno admits to hiding in a closet.  You can say that hiding in a closet to elicit information to protect your gig from your former friend is no big deal, but that type of behavior will not endear you to the larger community of comics, which counts among its members everyone you identified above.

Oh, okay, it's in the article you linked - I haven't read it yet (but I will this afternoon.)

This isn't the article that was planted, right?

The closet thing ... would anyone even know about it, if Leno didn't originate the story?

The article thing ... could be libel; could be PR.

Note that in the link you just gave, it says Leno has been married 33 years; Letterman "took control of his adultery" by aggressively admitting his affair on TV - because he had no other choice. I think cheating on your wife is a bigger transgression than either of the two things Leno is accused of (well, maybe not planting a fake article - that's some pretty serious stuff, depending on what it said, and who knew about it).

Now, for all I know, Leno has cheated a thousand times, but at least he hasn't been caught. :)

8 hours ago, dcs said:

In my opinion, every personality you mention in your post is an extremely talented performer, albeit in different ways and personal failings notwithstanding.

Hmm ... I can't think of a single time I've ever laughed at something *any* of the six people I listed have ever done before (including Leno and Fallon). That doesn't mean I've seen everything; it just means I've never laughed at them, not even once.

Maybe it's me and not them, I don't know - I just don't find any of them to be "ha-ha funny."

I keep hearing about what a "genius" Leno was as a stand-up comedian, and I've never seen anything that makes me agree. I think the same about Seinfeld, FWIW - I just don't get how these people can sit there and compare themselves with Chris Rock, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Dave Chappelle, etc. - not a single one of them. Russell Peters makes me laugh, too, so I'm not a total sourpuss; I do like dirty jokes, observational humor (as long as it isn't Seinfeld-esque) and slapstick, FWIW - I find Seinfeld to be a great conversationalist; he just doesn't make me laugh (Mulva did, The Contest did).

*But*, you are an unbiased and reasonable person, and this is exactly the type of thing I want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnny Carson's monologues were among the most brilliant things ever shown on American television, just for the record. I think David Letterman was occasionally funny. I don't recall Jay Leno being funny, no not once. Fallon and Kimmel I haven't seen enough to get any sense of them or whether they're funny. Remember before Jay Leno became the future host of the Tonight Show, that position was long held by Joan Rivers, till she stabbed Carson in the back and set up shop in competition with him, without even mentioning to him, a supposedly close friend, what she was doing. They never spoke again, I hear. I never thought she was funny either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, Letterman and Conan are not great joke-tellers but are more hilarious absurdists, Letterman being the alpha there.  Watching Letterman in college was a cult-like thing among my crowd.  He made me laugh uncontrollably on occasions beyond counting.  His sarcastic take on everything was like a pressure relief valve on the tension (for me) of the Reagan/Bush era.  For all I know he might be a miserable human being.  The full length book that Bill Carter did (The Late Shift was definitely more sympathetic to Letterman over Leno and probably helped set the backdrop to your original post.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a Letterman fan, and love Colbert. Loved Carson, could not STAND Leno. Can't stand Fallon. Kimmel is ok.

And yes, absurdist is exact the right way to describe it. I am also a huge fan of Albert Brooks, and see many similarities.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, saf said:

I was a Letterman fan, and love Colbert. Loved Carson, could not STAND Leno. Can't stand Fallon. Kimmel is ok.

And yes, absurdist is exact the right way to describe it. I am also a huge fan of Albert Brooks, and see many similarities.

My guess is that you also like Howard Stern.

I understand what you're saying, but Albert Brooks could act, in his own, neurotic way.

I honestly don't see what's so hard about making people laugh by standing up and being funny.

Once I get over my injury, I'll do a dr.com Aristocrats dinner.

Who knows? Maybe one day I'll have The Tonight Show!

Or not.

Andy Kaufman was a good absurdist.

But so were the Fojol Brothers. The good thing about their shtick was that nobody knew what they really looked like, so they could get away with failure and be no worse for the wear (didn't some food writer once say that they were to be taken seriously?) - PR can get you a *l-o-n-g* way in this superficial, easily conned world, but eventually, the truth catches up with you (well, maybe).

People wondering about whether or not they should stay in the restaurant industry: There's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.

On 2/28/2012 at 7:23 PM, mdt said:

Unfortunately just another example of style over substance and the masses will come running with his PR machine running at full steam.

Huh? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Hersch said:

I'm not sure what's so hard about it, but judging by how few people can do it, there must be something pretty hard about it.

It's the duration of time - almost anyone can make someone else double over with laughter for a couple of minutes; but for an hour, every single night? Impossible. This is why the "comedy-news" shows (Last Week Tonight, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report) work - they don't have to be consistently funny, since they interleave their jokes with genuinely interesting current events. I prefer all of these to any of the late-night network shows I've ever seen, with the possible exception of Saturday Night Live - and even that show requires a troupe.

In all honesty, I've never seen anyone "do it" - not Carson, not anyone. The Tonight show was really just The Merv Griffin Show or The Mike Douglas show with an opening monologue and a more bawdy tone (I barely remember either of those, but they had guests on to pass the time). This is back when the genre was still referred to as a "variety show." Or maybe The Ed Sullivan Show was a variety show, and Griffin and Douglas were "talk shows."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DonRocks said:

My guess is that you also like Howard Stern.

I understand what you're saying, but Albert Brooks could act, in his own, neurotic way.

Oh, good lord, no. Howard Stern is FAR too vulgar for me.

Letterman and slapstick - velcro suit. Alka-seltzer suit. Chris Elliot as a regular contributor. (I love Chris Elliot. I was a big fan of "Get a Life!" That's my Dad's fault though. He is a big Bob and Ray fan.) Throwing stuff off the roof. There was plenty of it.

And yes, Albert Brooks can act. But I appreciate him for his sideways view of the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, saf said:

Oh, good lord, no. Howard Stern is FAR too vulgar for me.

Got it. I guessed wrong. :)

As long as Howard Stern is famous, there will be a disconnect between me and the rest of the world - I'd rather stare at a goldfish.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2017 at 4:04 PM, saf said:

Letterman and slapstick - velcro suit. Alka-seltzer suit. Chris Elliot as a regular contributor. (I love Chris Elliot. I was a big fan of "Get a Life!" That's my Dad's fault though. He is a big Bob and Ray fan.) Throwing stuff off the roof. There was plenty of it.

Top Ten lists, Will It Float?, Is This Anything?, Hello Deli, Stupid Pet Tricks, Larry "Bud" Melman, Letterman's mother, etc. The absurdist comedy of Letterman was fucking genius. 

Here's an insightful interview with a Letterman biographer on NPR.

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/17/524393134/-the-epitome-of-new-york-cool-letterman-biographer-on-late-night-icon

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, saxdrop said:

Having no info outside that article, I'm struck by his assumption of culpability and how contrite he comes off.

The appearance of Humility and Taking Responsibility, accompanied by Glimpses of Understanding and Future Growth, can make up for a lot of past transgressions (I'm not saying he had transgressions; I'm just speaking in the general case).

Even when it's just a load of BS to save your ass. Oct 6, 2009:

And then this unmitigated gall on Jan 20, 2010, just three months later:

Dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2017 at 6:33 AM, DonRocks said:

It's the duration of time - almost anyone can make someone else double over with laughter for a couple of minutes; but for an hour, every single night? Impossible. This is why the "comedy-news" shows (Last Week Tonight, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report) work - they don't have to be consistently funny, since they interleave their jokes with genuinely interesting current events. I prefer all of these to any of the late-night network shows I've ever seen, with the possible exception of Saturday Night Live - and even that show requires a troupe.

In all honesty, I've never seen anyone "do it" - not Carson, not anyone. The Tonight show was really just The Merv Griffin Show or The Mike Douglas show with an opening monologue and a more bawdy tone (I barely remember either of those, but they had guests on to pass the time). This is back when the genre was still referred to as a "variety show." Or maybe The Ed Sullivan Show was a variety show, and Griffin and Douglas were "talk shows."

I've left this unanswerd far too long. Merv Griffin and Mike Douglas were 2nd- and 3rd- rate crooners, respectively, who managed to stumble into TV careers, Griffen achieving  astonishing financial (but not artistic) success. Between them, they left a legacy of "I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts" and "The Man in My Little Girl's Life", for which they should pobably share a cell in Hell.

Johnny Carson was one of the great American comedians of the 20th Century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Hersch said:

I've left this unanswerd far too long. Merv Griffin and Mike Douglas were 2nd- and 3rd- rate crooners, respectively, who managed to stumble into TV careers, Griffen achieving  astonishing financial (but not artistic) success. Between them, they left a legacy of "I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts" and "The Man in My Little Girl's Life", for which they should pobably share a cell in Hell.

Johnny Carson was one of the great American comedians of the 20th Century.

In truth, I'm too young to really remember Carson, and I was colored (checkered) by the guffaws of the extremely tiresome Ed McMahon. My father (a great man, but no judge of great art) was annoyed by Carson (this, despite being buried in a Johnny Carson suit!), so my memories of his annoyance are much more vivid.

(I'm curious what you think about Jonathan Winters, who probably should have his own thread.)

Don't forget, Griffin (flawed man though he was) created Jeopardy! (as well as the much less interesting Wheel of Fortune). I *love* watching reruns of Griffin's and Douglas' talk shows, mainly because of their fascinating guests - I'm too young to really remember, but it seems like they made their guests feel comfortable, and gave them the lion's share of the spotlight as well. That said, calling them "second-rate crooners" is an insult to second-rate crooners everywhere. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...