or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information - Page 1587

post #47581 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_scott View Post

I don't think anyone TRULY thinks Leno is a bad person. I do think that he is being inconsiderate of Conan though, and should've stepped aside. It's Conan's turn, he has paid his dues. It's Letterman Pt. 2.

That's like saying Farve should have retired because it's someone else's turn, yet he's on the virge of going to another Superbowl. Who's to say how all this is going to play out? As far as I'm concerned, Jay did step aside so Conan could have his shot. Does anyone really think 10:00 was going to work out? Come on, it was a stupid play to begin with and Jay let himself look stupid for going along with it. Of course he got paid a lot, but does anyone really think he didn't know this is the way it was going to go. He simply said, "Ok, I'll play along, but I know I'll be back sooner or later."
post #47582 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post

I'm sure Leno has Conan's personal number. It wouldn't have been a huge reach to ask what the deal was before agreeing to such a radical shift in late night scheduling.

So, how does one know Jay and Conan haven't done exactly that and aren't simply playing NBC for all they can get?
post #47583 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

That's like saying Farve should have retired because it's someone else's turn, yet he's on the virge of going to another Superbowl. Who's to say how all this is going to play out? As far as I'm concerned, Jay did step aside so Conan could have his shot. Does anyone really think 10:00 was going to work out? Come on, it was a stupid play to begin with and Jay let himself look stupid for going along with it. Of course he got paid a lot, but does anyone really think he didn't know this is the way it was going to go. He simply said, "Ok, I'll play along, but I know I'll be back sooner or later."

Actually, that's pretty much what Green Bay did.
post #47584 of 93684
By Tom Shales
Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Back in the late 20th century, when people were getting sick of stories about David Letterman's mistreatment by NBC -- instead of getting sick of stories about Conan O'Brien's mistreatment by NBC -- I managed to get an NBC executive on the phone, which wasn't easy in those days, and he proceeded to give me what he said was the real story about the whole mess.

A creepy sort of guy, who was later one of the NBC executives depicted in the HBO movie "Late Shift," he said the real story, ignored by the media, was that the dispute over who would succeed Johnny Carson as host of "The Tonight Show" had nothing to do with Letterman's hurt feelings or Jay Leno's sneaky ploys to nab the gig. It was, he said, "all about money," and really nothing else.

Imagine my sad surprise when I tuned in to Letterman's "Late Show" on CBS last week and heard the former injured party tell viewers that the fuss involving O'Brien and Leno was "all about money" and really nothing else. What an unhappy irony to hear Dave sounding just like that grubby old executive, regardless of whether he had a dog in the fight or a shoe on the other foot.

It's all about money to the network, yes; networks have no pride -- at least not NBC, any more -- or feelings. But it's too cynical to say it's all about money to someone like O'Brien, who's going to make more money than he probably ever dreamed of regardless of the outcome and especially if the public views him more as martyr than failure. Beyond that, to say hosting "The Tonight Show" is all about money is like saying any sane human would go after the presidency because of the pay scale or so they can tool around in Air Force One.

Hosting "Tonight" is like being president in a way, in that you can't really go higher in that particular field of endeavor. Thus did Letterman put up an infernal agonized fuss when the prize was whisked away from him in the early '90s and thus O'Brien will find himself only partially placated by a big fat $30 million check in 2010. It would behoove him, and it would be like him, to share some of that settlement with staff members who loyally followed him to the West Coast.
ad_icon

O'Brien, the smartest funnyman on television, might in some ways be the least fascinating of the public figures involved in this latest uproar in Latenight Land -- the least fascinating, and the least phony. Leno, whom pop polls show to be the man most widely considered the villain of the piece, proudly boasted of hiding in a closet at NBC in Burbank and listening in on an executive phone conversation when his fate was being decided back in 1992. Now in 2010, he still seems Machiavellian.

But not, definitely not, the sleaziest character in the story. The other day, an NBC executive, otherwise highly respected, let himself be dispatched to the New York Times to assail and personally insult O'Brien in print, a tawdry move typical of the absolute, utter absence of class among current NBC brass -- starting with the widely despised man at the top, Jeff Zucker, who has made a ridiculous mess of NBC's once inviolate franchise, as well as of prime time.

Leno remains disingenuous to an intolerable extreme. He's always playing the injured puppy -- the good-hearted lug in the blue-collar shirt who gets trampled over by the big guys. He uses dyslexia as a badge of honor, referring to it sometimes when he muffs a joke on the air. Remember how funny Johnny Carson was when he'd muffed a joke? Ah, but if we start thinking about Johnny, we'll get too depressed to tolerate any of the Johnnies who've come lately, whether they seem honest or nasty or what.

Helen Kushnick, the famously abrasive manager who guided Leno's career for years and saw to it her boy was placed on the "Tonight Show" throne, used to tell me that I, of all people, helped get Leno the job. Her reasoning was that almost every time Leno came to Washington, I interviewed him and wrote columns praising his prowess as a stand-up comic, especially his nimble ability to handle even the most obdurate of audiences.

It turns out that I was a stop on the Jay Leno Goodwill Tour; Kushnick made sure her boy visited NBC affiliates in many of the cities where he was booked as a way of building support. Finally, she went too far, planting a vicious story in the New York Post about how NBC executives -- that crew again -- couldn't wait for Carson to leave so Leno and his younger demographics could take over. Carson was truly, deeply hurt, and that sure as hell wasn't about money, either.

Leno claimed ignorance -- he said he hadn't known about Kushnick's plot. Hmm. Kushnick is gone now; she lost a nine-year battle with breast cancer in 1996. Her life had been shockingly tragic; she lost her husband to cancer in 1989 and, earlier, her 3-year-old son died after an HIV-tainted blood transfusion. Leno's career arguably became not just her life's work but her life.

(In the "Late Shift" book and movie, Kushnick was so harshly portrayed that she later sued for $30 million, settling out of court for an undisclosed amount. High-powered women in business still have no easy time of it.)

One unhappy result to the current "Tonight Show" troubles is that, heaven help us, we're probably in for yet another book about "Tonight" and the blood baths that its rites of accession have become. It's veritably Shakespearean! But it really is understandable; the late-night shows are a kind of royalty-reality television, because no host can be on the air five nights a week and play a completely faked character. The shows are bound to reflect their stars' lives.

What's important to remember is that as deplorably as he has behaved -- saying yes to a contractual agreement and then changing his mind when it came time to ante up -- Leno is not the bad guy, or at least not the worst guy. The bad guys are the NBC executives who botched things up not just once but now twice, clumsily and foolishly. Their initial mistake was saying "yes" to O'Brien in the first place, to being coldly logical about it, back when O'Brien wrested a contractual guarantee that he would become "Tonight Show" host within five years, no matter how successful Leno might have been in the role.

And as it turns out, he was very successful, and it is absurd that he be asked to take a hike.

The feeble-brained executives should have heeded the "I don't care" rule propounded by the great CBS News President Bill Leonard when he had to decide whether Dan Rather or Roger Mudd would succeed Walter Cronkite in the anchor chair of "The CBS Evening News," another vaunted secular pulpit. Leonard had to deal with the reality that whichever one didn't get the job would go to a competing network.

Leonard thought and considered and decided: He didn't care if Roger Mudd went to another network because the damage to CBS ratings would likely be minimal, at least in comparison with the damage that the more glamorous and telegenic Rather could do. So Rather, you might recall, got the job.

One mystery of the Leno-O'Brien story is how such executives as Zucker keep their jobs and get the kind of fabulous promotions that normally reward not failure but success. In his defense, Zucker could always say, "Hey, it's not like I'm a Wall Street banker" -- though somehow, the difference seems slight.
post #47585 of 93684
Thread Starter 
Overnight Nielsen Notes
Early Ratings: 24 up; Chuck stable;

Life Unexpected Stronger than "One Tree Hill"
By Robert Seidman, TVByTheNumbers.com, January 19, 2009

Mostly I shy away from the preliminary early metered market numbers from Nielsen's 56 largest markets because they wind up being very iffy in terms of predicting how the fast nationals (that will be out ~11:30am ET) look in terms of age demographics and total viewing.

But, I have a feeling this is going to be a slow news day, so

The two-hour second night of the 24 premiere garnered a healthy 7.7/11 (household rating/share) in the from 8-10 p.m in the early metered markets and it was up around 15 percent from the comparable night last year and grew each half hour:

8:00 p.m.: 7.5/11 (#1)
8:30 p.m.: 7.7/11 (#1)
9:00 p.m.: 7.8/11 (#2)
9:30 p.m.: 7.8/11 (#2)

Chuck pulled a 4.8/7 household rating/share. Last week in the same preliminary metered market numbers Chuck garnered a 4.9 rating. Heroes 3.2/5 is tracking in the neighborhood of series lows and again came in behind The Jay Leno Show (3.5/6) in preliminary household ratings.

Life Unexpected's premiere pulled a 2.1/3 in the early metered market numbers. That's up nearly 25% from the last half hour of One Tree Hill which averaged a 1.7/2 - for the full hour OTH pulled a 1.8/3).

Remember, all of the numbers above are preliminary household ratings and not the 18-49 ratings we regularly post. For Chuck, 24 and most every other show on last night it's the 18-49 number that really matters, though the CW will focus on women 18-34.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/01/19...source=twitter
post #47586 of 93684
I am surprised that there is no mentioned of last night's Letterman show where Dave actually defended Leno. He defended Leno after his monologue when he was sitting down at his desk. He told the audience that Leno isn't to blame for the NBC mess. He is just doing what NBC wants of him. He then goes on to say that he is making fun of Leno because it's just 'fun' to do.
post #47587 of 93684
Thread Starter 
Business Notes
Bundles of Cable

By James Surowiecki, The New Yorker, January 25, 2010

It seems like an annual rite: to usher in the new year, cable providers and networks squabble over programming fees. This time around, the tussles involved Time Warner Cable and Fox, and Cablevision and Scripps, which owns the Food Network and HGTV. These fights, unlike most corporate standoffs, are waged in public, with both sides running TV spots and newspaper ads pleading their cause. This might seem like an obvious strategy, but it’s also a dangerous one. These ads may remind some viewers of how much they love Bobby Flay. But they also remind those who’ve never glanced at “Iron Chef” how much of their cable bill goes to channels that they don’t watch.

That’s a problem, because while cable TV has always relied on “bundling”—you have to buy a package of channels rather than picking only those you want—in recent years the practice has come under fire, in no small part because the price of those bundles keeps rising. The bundles do, of course, include many more channels than they did a decade ago. But, as Kevin Martin, the former head of the F.C.C., was fond of pointing out, if you’re watching only sixteen channels why should you pay for eighty-five? So consumer advocates have been pushing for a system of so-called “Ã* la carte” programming, expecting that this would drive down prices for consumers.

In fact, it probably wouldn’t. The simple argument for unbundling is: “If I pay sixty dollars for a hundred channels, I’d pay a fraction of that for sixteen channels.” But that’s not how Ã*-la-carte pricing would work. Instead, the prices for individual channels would soar, and the providers, who wouldn’t be facing any more competition than before, would tweak prices, perhaps on a customer-by-customer basis, to maintain their revenue. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Bravo would suddenly cost fifteen dollars a month, but there’s little evidence to suggest that Ã*-la-carte packages would be generally cheaper than the current bundles. One recent paper on the subject, in fact, estimated the best-case gain to consumers at thirty-five cents a month. But even if it wasn’t a boon to consumers an Ã*-la-carte system would inject huge uncertainty into the cable business, and many cable networks wouldn’t get enough subscribers to survive. That’s a future that the industry would like to avoid.

So far, the task hasn’t been too difficult, in part because consumers haven’t shown much unbundling fervor. If there were sizable demand for Ã* la carte, you’d expect at least one of cable’s competitors, like DirecTV, Dish Network, or Verizon’s FiOS, to offer it, but none do. You’d also think that, as bundles have grown more expensive, and as building your own TV experience has become easier—by watching online, downloading from iTunes, and getting high-definition network broadcasts via antenna—cable and satellite would have got less popular. But subscriptions continue to grow.

Some of this, presumably, is just inertia. But it’s also true that consumers often find bundles appealing. Many popular consumer products, like the iPhone, are bundles, as are newspapers and magazines: you buy the whole thing, not only the articles you want to read. TV networks themselves are bundles: if you subscribe to HBO (a channel that cable systems do offer Ã* la carte), you pay for all its shows. Consumers also seem to like another form of bundling; namely, flat-rate pricing. At Disneyland, people used to pay an admission fee and then buy tickets for individual rides. But in 1982 Disney introduced all-in-one pricing, and attendance rose. Likewise, people buy gym memberships instead of paying by the visit, prefer all-in-one calling plans, and vehemently oppose the idea of metered Internet access.

The appeal of bundling is partly that it reduces transaction costs: instead of having to figure out how much each part of a package is worth to you, you can make a blanket judgment. Bundling eliminates the problem of fretting about small expenditures, which may be one reason that flat-rate pricing is very common in the vacation industry (cruise ships, all-inclusive travel packages, and so on). It also offers what economists call option value: you may never watch those sixty other channels, but the fact that you could if you wanted to is worth something. Many consumers also perceive bundles as bargains; getting a bunch of things for one price feels like a deal, even when it’s not.

This ought to mean that cable providers and TV networks have little to worry about. But their reasonably stable world could easily be upended. Successful bundling depends on the idea that what you’re paying for is “cable television,” rather than merely a collection of channels. Public fights over programming costs disrupt that idea. When HGTV says it wants more money for its programming, it makes people who don’t watch HGTV wonder why they should pay anything for it at all. And, as these fights raise the cost of programming, the bundle looks less like a bargain, and the appeal of Ã* la carte grows.

Both the providers and the networks, then, would benefit from dialling down the volume and the price increases. But, while it’s in the long-term interest of the industry to keep consumers happy with bundling, it’s in the short-term interest of the individual players to maximize profits, even if that means alienating viewers and making alternatives to bundling look better. In the past decade, media businesses, from music to newspapers, have suffered from the impact of unbundling. Civil wars in the cable business make it likely that it’ll be next.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...alk_surowiecki
post #47588 of 93684
Thread Starter 
TV Notes
Jeff Zucker on Conan - Leno


Jeff Zucker appeared last night on Charlie Rose:

See it here:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10824
post #47589 of 93684
Thread Starter 
TV Notes
Fox readying U.S. version of 'Torchwood'

By James Hibberd in his The Hollywood Reporter LiveFeed blog, January 19, 2010

Exclusive: Huge news for sci-fi fans: Fox is developing a stateside version of the U.K. hit series “Torchwood.”

The project is from BBC Worldwide Prods., with original series creator Russell Davies writing the script.

A more straight-faced spinoff of “Doctor Who,” “Torchwood” is about a covert group that investigates and fights alien activity. Two series aired domestically on BBC America as well as last year’s well reviewed stand-alone miniseries, “Children of Earth,” which broke all ratings records for the network. (If you're a fan of serious sci fi such as "Battlestar Galatica" and haven't seen "Children of Earth," rent it. You don't need to know anything about the series. And I know the previews for "Torchwood" can look silly. Trust me, it's terrific. Like "24" with aliens).

Unlike U.S. adaptations that have gone awry, “Torchwood” fans can take comfort that the original producing team is on board. In addition to Davies, exec producers include Davies’ producing partner Julie Gardner (former head of drama at BBC Wales for the show’s first season) and Jane Tranter (another BBC vet, now exec VP programming and production at BBC Worldwide Prods. in the U.S.).

Also, some of the current cast — most likely John Barrowman, who plays the immortal Capt. Jack Harkness — might star if Fox orders “Torchwood” to pilot.

As for the new show’s plot, the U.S. version will contain a global story line compared to the more localized sensibility of the first two BBC seasons.

Tranter might try to reboot “Doctor Who” for U.S. audiences while departing “Doctor Who” star David Tennant stars in NBC’s pilot “Rex Is Not Your Lawyer.” “Torchwood” (which is an anagram of “Doctor Who”) debuted in 2006 on BBC 3 and set ratings records, then was moved to BBC 1. Russell also reinvented “Doctor Who” in 2003 and was writer-creator of the series “Queer as Folk.

http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/fox-r...orchwood-.html
post #47590 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Shales View Post

Remember how funny Johnny Carson was when he'd muffed a joke? Ah, but if we start thinking about Johnny, we'll get too depressed to tolerate any of the Johnnies who've come lately, whether they seem honest or nasty or what.

I wish I could write half-as-good as Shales does. That is such a simple yet cleverly powerful line.
post #47591 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

TV Notes
Jeff Zucker on Conan - Leno


Jeff Zucker appeared last night on Charlie Rose:

See it here:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10824

Shouldn't he of appeared on his own network or does he think he'll get better ratings elsewhere.
post #47592 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by dad1153 View Post

I wish I could write half-as-good as Shales does. That is such a simple yet cleverly powerful line.


That's the truth. I also liked the headline (assuming he wrote it, and not his editor) for his review of the 6th season (1980-81) of Saturday Night Live.
"Vile From New York"
post #47593 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bschneider View Post

I am surprised that there is no mentioned of last night's Letterman show where Dave actually defended Leno.

Spoilers Dude! ... Thanks to the miracle of TiVo (er DVRs,) some of us have fallen a couple of days behind on our Late Night shows.
post #47594 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

TV Notes
Fox readying U.S. version of 'Torchwood'

By James Hibberd in his The Hollywood Reporter LiveFeed blog, January 19, 2010

Exclusive: Huge news for sci-fi fans: Fox is developing a stateside version of the U.K. hit series Torchwood.

Yeah but this is "we will leave no SciFi show un-ruined" FOX? "RTD, Run for your life!"
post #47595 of 93684
Nielsen Overnights (18-49)
Fox's '24' takes a dip on night two
Returning spooker averages a 3.4 in adults 18-49
By Toni Fitzgerald, Media Life Magazine - January 19th, 2010

Jack Bauer clocked in with a smaller audience last night than for "24's" Sunday debut, though the show seemed to take a bite out of the competition on NBC.

"24" averaged a 3.4 adults 18-49 rating from 8 to 10 p.m. last night, according to Nielsen overnights, down 11 percent from Sunday's 3.8.

The dip wasn't unexpected, as most shows fall from their debuts, though Fox did have a chance to promote the very-next-day episode extensively on Sunday's show.

Still, "24" seemed to hurt NBC's "Heroes," which aired at 9 p.m. The show slid to a series-low 1.8 rating, down 14 percent from last week.

The CW's "Life Unexpected" debuted last night as well, building on "One Tree Hill's" lead-in among the network's target women 18-34 demo. "Life" averaged a 2.4 rating in that demo, up 14 percent over "Hill" at 8 p.m.

"Life" also had the CW's biggest audience among total viewers this season on a Monday night, drawing 2.74 million.

Meanwhile, CBS was first for the night among 18-49s with a 4.2 average overnight rating and a 10 share. ABC was second at 3.5/9, Fox third at 3.4/8, NBC fourth at 1.9/5, Univision fifth at 1.5/4 and CW sixth at 1.1/3.

As a reminder, all ratings are based on live-plus-same-day DVR playback. Seven-day DVR data won't be available for several weeks. Thirty-four percent of Nielsen households have DVRs.

At 8 p.m. CBS was first with a 3.7 for How I Met Your Mother (4.0) and Accidentally on Purpose (3.5), followed closely by ABC with a 3.6 for The Bachelor. Fox was third with a 3.3 for the first half of 24, NBC fourth with a 2.5 for Chuck, down 4 percent from last week's timeslot debut. Univision was fifth with a 1.6 for Hasta que el Dinero Nos Separe and CW was sixth with a 1.1 for One Tree Hill.

CBS led again at 9 p.m. with a 5.3 for Two and a Half Men (5.3) and The Big Bang Theory (5.2), the first time this season that "Men" has outdrawn "Bang," while ABC remained second with a 4.1 for more Bachelor. Fox was third with a 3.6 for another hour of 24, NBC fourth with a 1.8 for Heroes, Univision fifth with a 1.7 for Sortilegio and CW sixth with a 1.2 for Life Unexpected.

At 10 p.m. CBS was first with a 3.6 for CSI: Miami, with ABC second with a 2.8 for Castle. NBC was third with a 1.3 for The Jay Leno Show and Univision fourth with a 1.1 for Cristina.

CBS led the night among households as well, finishing with a 7.7 average overnight rating and a 12 share. ABC was second at 6.5/10, Fox third at 6.4/9, NBC fourth at 3.1/5, Univision fifth at 1.9/3 and CW sixth at 1.6/2.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/art..._night_two.asp
post #47596 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

The west coast just can't get any respect, more crap Olympic scheduling from NBC. Time to dial in CBC, or just about any other country's coverage, just to see sporting events live, as they should be.

I saw the rationalization, but I really can't understand NBC's total dissing of the west coast here. They could at least throw the west coast a bone by showing some events that are actually occurring live in west coast prime time. They would have to be creative and it would be extra effort to show a different presentation on the west coast than the east coast, but it could be done.
post #47597 of 93684
Rebooting Doctor Who for US viewers.. yeah, that's going to work. As for Torchwood... perhaps they won't screw it up this time.
post #47598 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

TV Notes
Fox readying U.S. version of 'Torchwood'

By James Hibberd in his The Hollywood Reporter LiveFeed blog, January 19, 2010

Exclusive: Huge news for sci-fi fans: Fox is developing a stateside version of the U.K. hit series Torchwood.

Torchwood is one thing, and with Davies and Gardner being involved, I would be inclined to give a US version a chance... very reluctantly. But if they make a US version of Doctor Who I will be ill....
post #47599 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeEyes View Post

Rebooting Doctor Who for US viewers.. yeah, that's going to work. As for Torchwood... perhaps they won't screw it up this time.

Yeah right. Just look at what happened to Dollhouse to find that answer.
post #47600 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by nottenst View Post

I saw the rationalization, but I really can't understand NBC's total dissing of the west coast here. They could at least throw the west coast a bone by showing some events that are actually occurring live in west coast prime time. They would have to be creative and it would be extra effort to show a different presentation on the west coast than the east coast, but it could be done.

What I find odd is the Olympics will occur in West Coast time, AKA Vancouver time and they still delaying? mmm it doesn't compute..
post #47601 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrLar View Post

What I find odd is the Olympics will occur in West Coast time, AKA Vancouver time and they still delaying? mmm it doesn't compute..

NBC must think the Olympics is a reality show and not a real sport.
post #47602 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder View Post

NBC must think the Olympics is a reality show and not a real sport.

At least, cities on the borders, both Canada and Mexico will have the option of watching them live on foreign channels who will have a lot of coverage..
post #47603 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrLar View Post

At least, cities on the borders, both Canada and Mexico will have the option of watching them live on foreign channels who will have a lot of coverage..

Sadly I live in Las Vegas so I don't have that option and I don't want to buy Canadian Satellite just for the Olympics.
post #47604 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

If you can, find some full shows of "The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson" back in the late 70's or early 80's. They are the best in my opinion. Clips don't do any justice and the last "performance show" on the "Ultimate Collection" DVD really isn't the best representation of an "average show" and that is what you want to see. The biggest difference between Johnny's version of TTS and Leno's is with Johnny is it isn't about him. It is about the people he is with. It was a party. It just happen to be at "Johnny's house" so to speak.

Johnny was a closet comedian, but he knew his limitations and let others shine and that made him better by association. That is not to take one thing from Johnny. He too was good, but stand up was not his thing. Skits were not his thing either, and he know it and so he played it from the boffin side and it worked to now classic proportions. "The Art Fern Tea Time Movie" or "Floyd R. Turbo" or even "Carnac the Magnificent" by themselves do not make great TV. They weren't suppose to be. That was the point. Together they are epic. Johnny knew that so he played them to the hilt and pure absurdity of them made them the TV classics they are today. (This is where Leno gets his ideas for his "bad TV" but it doesn't work the same for him as it did with Johnny). When Johnny put the turban on, hold on to your seat, you knew what you were in store for. And people ate it up. For decades. Not so much with Leno or O'Brien or Letterman.

Johnny said many times how he just LOVED comedians and treated them with great respect. That is why Leno and Letterman and Seinfeld and those comedians of the 70's and 80's kissed the ground Johnny walked on and still hold him in such get reverence today even as they fight over his grave. And he had an eye for comedic talent that Leno and Letterman don't and that is one of the major reasons they can't top him. Johnny surrounded himself with the best and the best wanted to be around him. You don't see that with Leno or Letterman or Conan. Many times they come off just mean spirited. Johnny was never mean. He was mischievous in a little kid kind of way and that is the real difference. Letterman tries to channel Johnny, but it doesn't work. Never has. A good example, Letterman's continued words about Sarah Palin. Johnny would do that with politicians of the day too. He would roast Nixon nightly for months, but he never came off mean and people got it was intended for comic relief, even the Nixon supporters. They didn't like it, but they got the humor. Letterman doesn't come off that way. It just stirs up the factions. In my opinion, that isn't comedy. If you hurt someone because of the comedy, then it isn't funny. That isn't comedy. Johnny knew that and tried not to do that.

That is why you need to find full shows, the 90 minute ones to really see Johnny in action at his best and after that, you will see all the late night hosts of today will shrink in comparison. You will see Johnny Carson's finger prints all over every late night talk show.

Also remember, Johnny had epic fights with NBC through the years too. So what you see here with Leno and O'Brien is nothing new. But Johnny seemed to always win his battles and NBC always seemed to be able to put a good face on it afterward, unlike now. But then Johnny never had to deal with Boy Wonder Zucker. Zucker would have probably fired Johnny for not being talented enough.

One of the funniest (and had me laughing till I ached) episodes with Johnny was a show in the 70s (I think) that involved (the now late) Dom DeLuise, Burt Reynolds, a magic trick with some eggs and a can of whipped cream. Nothing at all naughty, just adults having a major case of the sillies.
post #47605 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

TV Notes
Fox readying U.S. version of 'Torchwood'

By James Hibberd in his The Hollywood Reporter LiveFeed blog, January 19, 2010

You don't need to know anything about the series. And I know the previews for "Torchwood" can look silly. Trust me, it's terrific. Like "24" with aliens).


Silly? What on Earth would give him that idea?

post #47606 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post

Silly? What on Earth would give him that idea?


LOL. Hibberd was specifically referring to "Children of Earth". That image is from "Cyberwoman" which is one of the true low points of the show from an earlier season.
post #47607 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by humdinger70 View Post

One of the funniest (and had me laughing till I ached) episodes with Johnny was a show in the 70s (I think) that involved (the now late) Dom DeLuise, Burt Reynolds, a magic trick with some eggs and a can of whipped cream. Nothing at all naughty, just adults having a major case of the sillies.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNR0V8qjhIY


post #47608 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdkerbow View Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNR0V8qjhIY



Thanks for finding that. And to complete it, here's the other part with Dom Deluise (that preceded Burt's entrance)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfuvfS-5Ljo
post #47609 of 93684
Quote:
Originally Posted by humdinger70 View Post

Thanks. And here's the other part of the show (that preceded Burt's entrance)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfuvfS-5Ljo

Here's a better quality version from the old Carson Comedy Classics show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_6t9e820Uo

Two episodes of Carson Comedy Classics are shown every night on Reelz Channel. Good stuff although I wish they would show the entire broadcast.
post #47610 of 93684
Nielsen Overnights
Monday ratings: '24' slips, 'Bachelor' up, 'Life' solid
From James Hibberd's Hollywood Reporter 'Live Feed' Blog - January 19th, 2010

The CW's new series "Life Unexpected" drew the largest audience to the network's Monday time period in more than a year, while freshly re-launched fan-favorites "Chuck," "The Bachelor" and "24" gave mixed returns.

CBS won the night with "How I Met Your Mother" (10.5 million, 4.0), "Accidentally on Purpose" (9.6 million, 3.5), "Two and a Half Men" (16.2 million, 5.3), "Big Bang Theory" (15 million, 5.2) and "CSI: Miami" (13.2 million, 3.6). "Mother" and "Purpose" hit season highs.

In second place, ABC's "The Bachelor" (10.6 million, 3.8) grew slightly. "Castle" (9.4 million, 2.8) performed well at 10 p.m., climbing 8%.

Fox's two-hour "24" (11 million, 3.4) was down about 11% from its Sunday evening debut, though grew throughout its telecast.

NBC's "Chuck" (6.7 million, 2.5) was down a tenth from last week, while "Heroes" (3.9 million, 1.8) sunk to series low. There's been some rumblings that "Heroes" will return, and Tim Kring is pitching next season, but this is a pretty expensive series to draw the lowest rating on a major broadcast network. "Jay Leno Show" (4.6 million, 1.3) was down 19%.

On The CW, "One Tree Hill" (2.2 million, 1.1) was average. The debut of "Life Unexpected" (2.7 million, 1.2) gained from its lead in with a strong total audience number, but was less impressive for a premiere among younger demos, pretty much in line with recent "Gossip Girl" telecasts in the time period.

http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/monda...e+Live+Feed%29
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information