# NBC reportedly ready to retire Jay Leno



## fluffybear

From Hollywood reporter:



> Is NBC preparing to announce Jay Leno's departure from The Tonight Show?
> 
> The network says categorically no, but two high-level industry sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that NBC is moving toward a May announcement that the 2013-14 television season will be the last for Leno as host of the long-running late-night show. Sources expect the network to move Jimmy Fallon from his Late Night spot into the coveted 11:35 time slot with a soft launch during the summer of 2014 before a formal fall kickoff.


----------



## Galaxie6411

I think Fallon is far better, been pretty obvious after Jay "came back" that he has been trying to get some of those younger viewers. Of course I liked Kilbourne and think Ferguson blows Letterman out of the water as well. Even though I am in the target demo I still don't think any of the late night shows are even worth keeping on. Same with SNL don't know anyone my age or younger that has watched since late '90's early '00's when we were all in High School/College.


----------



## dpeters11

Haven't we seen this movie before?


----------



## RunnerFL

Deja Vu


----------



## longrider

dpeters11 said:


> Haven't we seen this movie before?





RunnerFL said:


> Deja Vu


+2

I do not watch the late night talk shows so maybe Jimmy Fallon can succeed where Conan O'Brien failed but it sounds like a big gamble


----------



## gov

Do we really even now need Jimmy Kimmel, Jay Leno, and David Letterman all on at the same time?


Of course, what do I know, I thought both Chevy Chase and Joan Rivers were great, LOL.

(but not Arsenio Hall)


----------



## dpeters11

Don't forget Pat Sajak!


----------



## Hoosier205

Good. Jay deserves anything bad (professionally) that comes his way.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I think that talk show format has ran its course.

I was a Carson fan... and an early Letterman fan. I liked Conan for a while... but now the whole genre seems a bit old and cliched to me.

That said, I echo the notion that Jay deserves a fall from grace. He has been involved too many times in poor passing-of-torch scenarios... to the point where I make a point not to be anywhere near NBC anytime before or after Leno so that no way do I accidentally get counted as a viewer of his show.


----------



## Drucifer

fluffybear said:


> From Hollywood reporter:


Here they go again!


----------



## phrelin

The three networks are not going to give up the live ratings for the 11:35 pm -12:35 am slot. Nightly in the demo Leno, Letterman and Kimmel divide up 2.5± million plus 7± million in the 50+ crowd. The shows are relatively cheap to produce though Leno did get a bit pricy. But don't look for these shows to go away as they not only make money but they represent a means by the media companies to promote their other products while making money.

We record them and watch interviews we want to see plus Headllines on Leno.


----------



## James Long

I watched Jay before he was retired ... and Conan (even though he seemed to be childish and focused on a less mature audience). After the move to 10pm I watched both ... but with the "politics" attached to Leno's move back to 11:35 I left both of them. I tried watching Conan on TBS but have only watched a few episodes (The Daily Show and Colbert own that hour on my DVR). The only network late night I bother with now is Craig ... but not every night.

Back in the day I watched Carson and Letterman but when Letterman moved to CBS I started going back and forth between Leno and Letterman. Then I stopped watching both due to other changes in my life.

Leno gone again? I'm OK with that.


----------



## Maruuk

Letterman has seemed really old and passe for years. He has seemed bored with the gig for at least 10 years. His gags have been falling flat since the 90's. Why is he still around?

Leno gone? Fine. Stale and middle of the road. But Kimmel?? Yuck. His only funny bit was sex with Matt Damon. Fallon is the best of the lot, but he's kind of cold and off-putting. No sincerity or warmth to speak of. Has a frantic, nervous vibe. He could burn out in the early slot pretty quickly. 

No Louie C.K., THERE'S a guy I'd watch at 11:30! But he's far, far too edgy for network.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

I guess that the (desparate?) move to 1 min earlier (from :35 to :34) must not've helped enough, either. Seemed to have happened about the time Kimmel changed timeslots.

Although in this market Kimmel makes no difference (to me), since he's still delayed and replayed in sucky standard-def. Actually, the delay doesn't bother me (never did) but the low def thing has got to stop. KSTP must be about the only station still using pre-millenium tech to time shift ABC programming. Maybe it's getting about time to "have a talk with The Mouse!"


----------



## SayWhat?

gov said:


> Do we really even now need Jimmy Kimmel, Jay Leno, and David Letterman ...


... on at all?

I haven't watched anything in that time slot since Carson left.


----------



## RunnerFL

I record Jimmy Fallon and Craig Ferguson but only watch if the guests appeal to me or I've heard of something that I "must see" happening on either show.


----------



## Laxguy

I record the Tonight Show, and very seldom fail to get a great laugh or two or three from the opening monologue. Stick for guests I might like, or new comedians, or musical talent. I imagine Jay himself might want to get out now. Who knows? 

Letterman was fine years and years ago on the Late Show, but I don't like his persona at all. Kimmel doesn't even merit these seven words.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

I like the Tonght Show too. I really like Leno and have paid to see himlive. It was no surprise when Conan failed because he's not funny and acted like a little kid with his own show. When Leno is no longer on late night I will probably look at his replacement or some of the other shows but as far as I am concerned he's the best and will be hard to replace.


----------



## Nick

There are other channels -- several of them. H2 is one I like around the witching hour.


----------



## dpeters11

I'm not a fan of Kimmel, but do like Jimmy Fallon. One thing I do like about Leno, he still goes out there and does live standup. 

Plus his tour to Wilmington Ohio (and other cities like Detroit I believe) was quite well received there.


----------



## Drucifer

Laxguy said:


> I record the Tonight Show, and very seldom fail to get a great laugh or two or three from the opening monologue. Stick for guests I might like, or new comedians, or musical talent. *I imagine Jay himself might want to get out now. Who knows?*
> 
> Letterman was fine years and years ago on the Late Show, but I don't like his persona at all. Kimmel doesn't even merit these seven words.


Leno is the biggest attacker of NBC ineptness and I can't imagine the constant attacks go over too well, when the big wigs get together in the conference room.

Instead of trying to improve their programs, they rather get rid of Leno.


----------



## Laxguy

Drucifer said:


> Leno is the biggest attacker of NBC ineptness and I can't imagine the constant attacks go over too well, when the big wigs get together in the conference room.
> 
> Instead of trying to improve their programs, they rather get rid of Leno.


Er, maybe. But ratings are pretty much indisputable... money talks, nobody walks. It seems almost everyone on NBC is knocking the network.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> Er, maybe. But ratings are pretty much indisputable... money talks, nobody walks. It seems almost everyone on NBC is knocking the network.


For sure.

Leno has said for many years how much more he enjoys doing standup (he sitll does Vegas gigs regularly) even more than the Tonight Show.

I suspect this is a favorable 2-way street to bring things to an end.


----------



## SamC

If Carson was a "100" no current performer is more than a 45. 

IMHO,

Leno - He is just not a very bright person. I really think he does not really get many of the jokes he tells. If they wrote a joke on the cue cards about Secretary of State Fred Thompson, he would read it with the same delivery as now. 

Letterman - Used to be really good, but has grown in the last five to eight years into a one-sided political cheapshot artist. He should understand that Carson did political humor equally at both sides, all in fun, and without an agenda.

O'Brien - One of those Harvard types that thinks he is oh, so, funny. Isn't.

Stewert - See Letterman, above, but without the residual talent.

Kimmel - The next generation's lead guy. Broader appeal than Fallon.

Fallon - Will do well at 11:30, but not as well as Kimmel. Very urban.


----------



## SayWhat?

Nick said:


> There are other channels -- several of them. H2 is one I like around the witching hour.


Been a very, very long time since I watched broadcast TV at all, let alone late night talk shows. I'm not sure what I'm going to do when I have to shut Dish down at the end of this year.


----------



## phrelin

From Forbes Numbers Don't Lie: NBC Should Replace Jay Leno With Jimmy Fallon Now:


> ...That's important because the value of moving Fallon to 11:35 in 2014 is it would help NBC hold the line against ABC, which has made inroads with viewers age 18 to 49 since moving Jimmy Kimmel into that slot. Like Fallon -- and unlike Leno -- Kimmel has a footprint that goes well beyond his television audience, with a knack for producing videos that go viral on YouTube. (Kimmel's video of parents telling their children they ate all their Halloween candy has gotten more than 25 million views; Fallon's "Evolution of Mom Dancing" video with Michelle Obama has racked up more than 14 million plays in a few days.)
> 
> And Kimmel's Q scores are better than either NBC host's: positive Q of 16, negative Q of 22. Could we be looking at the new king of late night?


The issue not being addressed is will the younger audience watch late night broadcast TV? Or will they find other distractions?


----------



## Laxguy

Lordy! Where is taste? It's hard to be pleased with the trend towards crassness in late night TV. It's been downhill since Jack Paar, and accelerating as we near (hopefully we are nearing) the bottom of the pit of boorishness.


----------



## mreposter

Maruuk said:


> But Kimmel?? Yuck. His only funny bit was sex with Matt Damon.


What host was it that had a running joke about David Duchovny having a mancrush on him? Those were some crazy bits!


----------



## spartanstew

I never liked Leno, and have never watched Kimmel or OBrien.

I've been watching Letterman though since 1982. I'll admit, however, that even though I still record them all, I typically only watch about 1 per week (good guest, Jack Hannah, stupid pet/human tricks).


----------



## Maruuk

phrelin makes a good point--how does all this play with the Millennials? This is a creaky and ancient format from 3 generations ago. It comes off like blackface and baggy pants comedians to Millennials. It's overkill on a grand scale, too many guys doing the exact same thing. It's really just a sleeping pill for the over 50 crowd. Millennials are online or texting or doing the nasty or all 3 after 11pm.


----------



## Nick

Maruuk said:


> ...Millennials are online or texting or doing the nasty or all 3 after 11pm.


*txt* *txt* *txt*

*"oh baby"*

*txt* *txt*

*"ooh ooooh" *

*txt* *txt*

*"aaaarrrrrrgh**

*txt* *txt**txt* *txt* *txt* *txt* *txt* *txt* *txt* *txt* ...


----------



## mreposter

phrelin said:


> The issue not being addressed is will the younger audience watch late night broadcast TV? Or will they find other distractions?


Yeah, they're all pretty much recycling the Tonight Show format that's been around for, what, 50 years? I was a bit surprised that Conan didn't try to do something more outside the box when he moved to TBS, but it's just the same old same old.

Maybe John Stewart is the true alternative.


----------



## Maruuk

I actually know lots of folks who are busy DVRing The Daily Show and Colbert after the 11:00 news. They wouldn't watch one of those lame-ass formulaic talk shows if you stuck a gun to their head.


----------



## thirteen

As I think Mark Evanier pointed out on his blog, whoever is spreading this rumor waited until Leno went on vacation (for a week?) and so couldn't address it right away on his show. The timing suggests this is a negotiation ploy regarding Leno's next contract. I don't watch these shows anymore, and haven't in years; they're just not interesting anymore. Maybe they should bring back the overnight movie.


----------



## mreposter

At 11:30 most viewers want something safe, simple and predictable. They just want to turn off their brains, have a laugh or two and then go to sleep. 

Leno addresses all of those points very well, and increasingly so does David Letterman.


----------



## dpeters11

Further in the rumor mill, replacement for Fallon when he moves to Tonight Show, Howard Stern.


----------



## Laxguy

dpeters11 said:


> Further in the rumor mill, replacement for Fallon when he moves to Tonight Show, Howard Stern.


OMG! The slide into the abyss continues....... I hope the mill is wrong.


----------



## dpeters11

Me as well, though if I close my eyes while hearing him talk, I can pretend its Alan Alda.


----------



## fluffybear

dpeters11 said:


> Me as well, though if I close my eyes while hearing him talk, I can pretend its Alan Alda.


and that's an improvement??


----------



## Maruuk

They do sound alike, don't they?


----------



## dpeters11

fluffybear said:


> and that's an improvement??


I like Alan Alda more than Howard Stern. Not saying he'd be a good late night show host.


----------



## makaiguy

mreposter said:


> At 11:30 most viewers want something safe, simple and predictable. They just want to turn off their brains, have a laugh or two and then go to sleep.
> 
> Leno addresses all of those points very well, *and increasingly so does David Letterman*.


Not for me. Letterman doesn't lull me to sleep, he increasingly p*sses me off.


----------



## Maruuk

Letterman for well over ten years just seems tired of HIMSELF. He projects boredom and even some hostility about having to do the same old crap endlessly, night after tedious night. Take the pension, Dave!


----------



## Nick

Maruuk said:


> Letterman for well over ten years just seems tired of HIMSELF. He projects boredom and even some hostility about having to do the same old crap endlessly, night after tedious night. Take the pension, Dave!


It's too late for letterman to go out on top. Let's hope he has the decency to retire before he hits rock bottom.


----------



## James Long

Winning a Kennedy Center Honor is a good point.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> Winning a Kennedy Center Honor is a good point.


Yes, that was significant recognition. Carson got one in 1993.

On the other hand, my better half gave up on Letterman a few years ago.


----------



## Maruuk

I loved Letterman when he started out. I met him at a friend's comedy club, he asked me how his set went. Very nice, slightly insecure guy. His early stuff was fresh and edgy and he was a big fave of the college crowd. But that was like...a million years ago!


----------



## TomCat

Maruuk said:


> Letterman has seemed really old and passe for years. He has seemed bored with the gig for at least 10 years. His gags have been falling flat since the 90's. Why is he still around?...


 I agree completely with every point here, but there is a good reason that Letterman is still around, and that is that his show is a money machine for CBS. $200 mil in pure profit times 30+ years is not an insignificant number; only a handful of top movie stars have starred in films over their careers that have cumulatively topped 6 billion-with-a-B dollars. And there seems to be no falloff in that number attributable to Dave.

Many forget that there is a _*very sharp distinction between Leno and Letterman*_; people tune into Jay for the monologue and the guests; they are not there to see Jay be Jay, *they are there to see what the guests have to say to him*. Jay's numbers reflect that; up for good guests, down for not-so-good guests, and severe tuneout after the monologue.

Letterman is different; people do not tune into Letterman to see what the guests say, _*they tune in to see what Dave says to the guests*_. Leno is just the emcee, while Letterman is a true unique talent with a point of view that people find interesting. He is naturally funny, while Jay is good at telling scripted jokes as a standup. Dave is not everyone's cup of tea (and the lower but steadier numbers prove that as well), but then neither are you, and neither am I. If he were, he would only be less interesting.

My personal opinion is that while possibly more bored and jaded, Dave is still Dave, and is still the same exact fascinating character he was in 1982. The show was better in 1982, but a lot of that is that Dave was the anti-Carson then, and since 1993 he has been mainstream, and that is because what is new and fresh and different eventually becomes mainstream if it is successful and has longevity. He invented that form of hosting, let's not forget, and no one has been able to host from the anti-Carson position more effectively than him for over 30 years.

What has deteriorated is the quality of the writing, the bits, and the musical guests (99 times out of a hundred I delete the show 12 bars into the musical guest). Maybe that says something about Dave no longer driving that. Nothing has been as funny as the monkey cam or the trampoline jump onto a velcro wall since coming to CBS, sadly. He is obviously phoning it in, but even in that mode he still runs rings around Jay as far as an interviewer and as a totally unique and interesting talent. I think he is a national treasure, and so does the Kennedy Center, apparently.

Here is the most ironic thing: The unquestionably best guest on _Late Night with David Letterman _back in the 80's? Jay Leno. Whatever happened to that guy?


----------



## TomCat

SamC said:


> ...Letterman - Used to be really good, but has grown in the last five to eight years into a one-sided political cheapshot artist. He should understand that Carson did political humor equally at both sides, all in fun, and without an agenda...
> 
> Stewert - See Letterman, above, but without the residual talent...


 I think 30+ years as a top network talent might have earned him the right to an agenda. At least he is finally passionate about something, and that was a quality missing even back in the NBC years.

Do you remember the old joke "The definition of an a**hole is anyone on the freeway that wants to drive faster than you do, or slower than you do." Maybe the underlying principle there applies here; point of view is everything.

Sam, I hope you will forgive me for attempting to read between the lines, but just because someone does not agree with your personal political views (which you are entitled to) does not make that something to judge their level of talent on. To me, Letterman and Stewart are two of the three funniest people on earth (and don't even get me started on Howard), but they probably seem funnier to me because I often agree with their political opinions. That said, they are still just as funny to me when I don't.

Dennis Miller is a great example; one that I may be as guilty of judging as anyone. I though he was the most-talented comic ever, back in the day of him having a show on HBO (first show I ever saw in HD). Then 911 happened, and something about that changed him, and greatly changed his political views. Now I don't find him funny at all; he just seems like that tired old man yelling at kids to get off of his lawn. It's like someone let go of the baloon and all the funny leaked out.

But I will admit, Dennis is probably still a very talented guy; I just can't see that anymore. And maybe part of that is that my views no longer coincide with his.

So I am not condemning you or your opinions; I just think that viewing things in this way is due to human nature, and we all probably have an inclination to react the same way to that.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jay Leno has been talking to the media for years about ending his Tonight Show gig...so I suspect this is a mutual decision that "the time has come". Not really any surprise.

I also don't believe ANY replacement or schedule change will return late night TV viewing to where it once was...the audiences and viewing habits have changed over the years, and the overall late night TV viewing numbers in total have diminished. 

Had DVRs not come along to allow folks to watch these late night shows at viewer convenient times...things may even be lower in terms of folks following them.


----------



## TomCat

One more...

Those interested in this thread should read "The War For Late Night" by Bill Carter, which details the entire Leno/Conan fiasco from top to bottom. Carter apparently had unprecedented access to the real deets of this misadventure; it is as if he were in the room during every meeting. It is the best non-fiction book I have read other than the Walter Isaacson biography of Steve Jobs.

And, I believe the late night show is going to be around for a while, and will certainly outlast Leno and Letterman. Who should they get to replace Letterman, or Fallon if he jumps up to _The Tonight Show_?

Daniel Tosh.


----------



## Lord Vader

SamC said:


> If Carson was a "100" no current performer is more than a 45.
> 
> IMHO,
> 
> Leno - He is just not a very bright person. I really think he does not really get many of the jokes he tells. If they wrote a joke on the cue cards about Secretary of State Fred Thompson, he would read it with the same delivery as now.
> 
> *Letterman - Used to be really good, but has grown in the last five to eight years into a one-sided political cheapshot artist. He should understand that Carson did political humor equally at both sides, all in fun, and without an agenda.*
> 
> O'Brien - One of those Harvard types that thinks he is oh, so, funny. Isn't.
> 
> Stewert - See Letterman, above, but without the residual talent.
> 
> Kimmel - The next generation's lead guy. Broader appeal than Fallon.
> 
> Fallon - Will do well at 11:30, but not as well as Kimmel. Very urban.


Emphasis added.

I agree 100% with your comment about Letterman. He has turned into a partisan, bitter, left-wing hack, and this pushed me away. I can take making fun of the Right or the Left, but when it's completely one-sided like Letterman has become, and in a bitter manner, then I no longer find it funny or entertaining. (Never mind the fact that Letterman is just plain ignorant when it comes to political facts.)

I tune in to Letterman once per year, and that's the annual Christmas show where Darlene Love performs. It's a simple tradition that I enjoy.


----------



## Lord Vader

TomCat said:


> Sam, I hope you will forgive me for attempting to read between the lines, but just because someone does not agree with your personal political views (which you are entitled to) does not make that something to judge their level of talent on. To me, Letterman and Stewart are two of the three funniest people on earth (and don't even get me started on Howard), but they probably seem funnier to me because I often agree with their political opinions.


It's a known fact that Jon Stewart is a liberal, yet I find him funny and his show entertaining. I don't find Letterman that funny anymore or entertaining, yet he's liberal. There is a difference between the two. Stewart doesn't hesitate to rip those on the Left, while Letterman rarely, if ever, does. Dave's just a bitter, old coot now.


----------



## Sixto

Letterman vs Leno ... Letterman for me, though lately I'm liking Kimmel. Also record Conan. Gotta give those Genie tuners a workout each night. It's nice to pick and choose from the 4 shows at the end of the week and catch the highlights. Can't say that I've ever paid any attention to any political aspects of it, just looking for a good laugh and interesting guests.


----------



## TomCat

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Jay Leno has been talking to the media for years about ending his Tonight Show gig...so I suspect this is a mutual decision that "the time has come". Not really any surprise...


That may indeed be the case now, but in 2004 when they announced that Conan would take over in 2009, he did not make a public stink about it, but the reports are that he saw that as a full-on slap in the face from NBC. He felt that NBC tried to push him out, and I see no reason why he should not continue to feel that way after recent events. For him to change that view in the last 4 years is what would be surprising.

But then Jay should not have been surprised, either; Johnny did not want out; he was pushed out by NBC to make room for...who again? Jay. Johnny wanted 30 years, but got only 29. If you count the daytime show, Letterman has 32.

I know that the infamous biting "Carsenio" routine from SNL, which Johnny got excised from all repeats and syndicated repeats of SNL, really hit home. It also probably helped kill Dana Carvey's career just from how pissed Johnny was. I wonder if that is even on YouTube?


----------



## James Long

TomCat said:


> I know that the infamous biting "Carsenio" routine from SNL, which Johnny got excised from all repeats and syndicated repeats of SNL, really hit home. It also probably helped kill Dana Carvey's career just from how pissed Johnny was. I wonder if that is even on YouTube?


It is on NBC's SNL site:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-carsenio-hall-show/n10088/


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

Guess I'm done with Dave after last night. (And I would think maybe too maybe a few [food and/or beverage producing] sponsors.)

As far as Jay goes, I haven't watched much in the last few years, but will tune in usually based on a personality or musical guest (not very often).

It became more evident to me (after he got the TBS gig) that the _Tonight Show _was simply too big for Conan, and that where he is now seems a much better "fit" for him.


----------



## Lord Vader

Since I don't watch Letterman anymore, I didn't see last night's show. What happened that made you post your above comments?


----------



## James Long

Lord Vader said:


> Since I don't watch Letterman anymore, I didn't see last night's show. What happened that made you post your above comments?


The large beverage hating mayor of NY was a guest.


----------



## Lord Vader

Don't tell me. Dave was praising him and agreeing with the mayor's attempt to run people's lives.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

Yup. After incessantly making fun of the guy for years, he’s suddenly (and pathetically) trying to suck up to him, now?

That and he’s just not funny anymore. Even just a few years back you could count on getting at least a laugh or two. I could even respect him somewhat for not sucking up to celebrities (unlike Jay) while they come on to plug their “wares,” especially when played for comic effect. Isn’t the main reason people watch these late-time shows is to get a laugh? One thing I would say about the guy is that he can be generous toward comics (both veterans promoting something, and newer ones making 1st and 2nd network appearances).

It’s just unfortunate that he seems to be unable to keep from making an a** of himself when it comes to political issues. By far Dave’s not the only one, but lately seems the worst.

I was already “on the fence” but last night just pushed (and put) me off.


----------



## James Long

That is where I like Jon Stewart ... Jon pushes the politics aside when it comes to getting a laugh. The Daily Show is about getting laughs - and although politics enters in he'll go after anyone for the laugh.

On the large drink issue Jon has had a field day. Jon and his writers love irony.

Most of the late night people are in the same rut formula ... and while Jon's show has it's own rut there is a uniqueness to it. And while guests come on his show to push their latest product/project Jon often turns the interview into anything but a plug.


----------



## phrelin

Interesting. For years now, I've recorded both Leno and Letterman and watched only the few interviews I wanted to see. Bloomberg was not one we wanted to see.

On the other hand, if he were on Stewart's show I'd watch it.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> On the other hand, if he were on Stewart's show I'd watch it.


If Bloomberg were on Stewart's show the first thing Jon would do is pull out a 32 oz drink ... or two. (He pulled one out on NY Police Commissioner Ray Kelly on the February 15th show.)


----------



## Lord Vader

I doubt he'd go on Stewart's show, because Jon would rip into him. With Letterman, the mayor is among friends.


----------



## dpeters11

Looks like it's closer to a done deal, and moving back to New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/b...d-to-return-to-new-york-with-fallon.html?_r=0


----------



## Lord Vader

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find Fallon that funny at all. In fact, of all the current night show hosts, I think he's the least funniest.


----------



## SamC

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nbcu-debates-timing-jimmy-fallons-430079

Apparently decision in now one of when. NBC wants February, during or after the Winter Olympics (time zones would mean it is 7 hours later in Russia, so no live events in late night).

Cannot happen soon enough.


----------



## armophob

as a kid I liked Johnny
As a teenager I liked Letterman
As an Adult I enjoy Stewart/Colbert and tolerate Letterman and Ferguson
But I have never found any fondness for Leno or the others.
I have never made it through an entire Leno show.


----------



## Chris Blount

For me, Jimmy Fallon is out of his league as a talk show host. He was funny on Saturday Night Live but his talk show host skills have a lot to be desired. When I watch his show, I cringe. Unfunny to say the least. I don't think he is even close to be the "best of the lot". If he takes over the tonight show, it will tank.

I would rather have Craig Furguson. He's a bit silly but at least shows a commanding presence on the stage. Fallon is weak and needs to crawl back into his SNL hole.


----------



## Laxguy

armophob said:


> as a kid I liked Johnny
> As a teenager I liked Letterman
> As an Adult I enjoy Stewart/Colbert and tolerate Letterman and Ferguson
> But I have never found any fondness for Leno or the others.
> I have never made it through an entire Leno show.


You're not supposed to! The opening monologue is well written, well delivered, and yes, a few tank, but mostly a bunch of real laughs.

I liked Jack, Johnny, and Letterman on Late Night. Can't stand him today.

Fallon is likeable, and his takes on singers is great, but not much else. Ferguson is maybe too goofy for the staid Tonight Show.


----------



## RunnerFL

I'd rather watch paint dry than Leno.


----------



## Nick

Chris Blount said:


> For me, Jimmy Fallon is out of his league as a talk show host. He was funny on Saturday Night Live but his talk show host skills have a lot to be desired. When I watch his show, I cringe. Unfunny to say the least. I don't think he is even close to be the "best of the lot". If he takes over the tonight show, it will tank.
> 
> I would rather have Craig Furguson. He's a bit silly but at least shows a commanding presence on the stage. Fallon is weak and needs to crawl back into his SNL hole.


Ouch! That is pretty harsh, Chris.

I am not a big fan of any of the late night shows*, but of the lot, Fallon is, by far, the most talented. He is a very funny guy who demonstrates a balance of physical comedy, shtick and cerebral reparté. Given time to mature, I think Jimmy easily has the potential to develop into a late night host approaching Carson's caliber.

*I usually rely on the monotone narrations of an H2, ID or PBS to put me to sleep. Now, especially for member *Rich*: all of my BR displays have built-in sleep timers. I can't imagine leaving a 55" plasma on all night.


----------



## SayWhat?

RunnerFL said:


> I'd rather watch paint dry than Leno.


I don't want to watch Leno dry either.


----------



## Geronimo

James Long said:


> It is on NBC's SNL site:
> http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-carsenio-hall-show/n10088/


I have seen it on reruns as well. I have to admit that Carvey's career took a nosedive but I don't think this had much to do with it.


----------



## Lord Vader

I DO miss the Church Lady, though. I sure wish he'd "resurrect" it.


----------



## Chris Blount

Well, after today's news I will never watch the Tonight Show again. Still think Fallon is not a good pick.


----------



## Lord Vader

I don't like him either. In fact, I find him boring and rather unfunny.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Well now that it's a done deal....folks will just have to adjust (deal with it) accordingly.

Some folks will like the change, others won't.

Based on the changing demographics in the TV audiences...I suspect Mr. Fallon will do just fine. I'm not personally a big fan of his, but understand and acknowledge he has a solid (and growing) audience.

We'll just have to wait and see how things all turn out next Spring after the Olympics hoopla/hype that they'll predictably have for this change in Tonight Show hosting.


----------



## tsmacro

If NBC was smart they'd bring back Jay's 10 pm show. As much as they b!tched about it's poor ratings as a lead in for the local news as far as I can tell it got better ratings than just about anything they've got on most nights at 10 now and I'm sure it's cheaper to produce!


----------



## Lord Vader

I'm not predicting Fallon will totally bomb, but who wants to bet that his show's ratings won't be as good as Jay's?


----------



## txtommy

Lord Vader said:


> I'm not predicting Fallon will totally bomb, but who wants to bet that his show's ratings won't be as good as Jay's?


I suspect that his ratings will be better than Jay's. I personally never did like Jay so it was a no brainer to watch Letterman. Didn't matter who the guests were, I caught Letterman for the monologue as I never found Leno the least bit funny. Now that there will be competition in that time slot, I'll probably go with whoever has the most interesting guests on any particular evening.


----------



## Chris Blount

txtommy said:


> I suspect that his ratings will be better than Jay's.


 I suspect maybe at first but Fallon will lose the older demographic very quickly. The younger audience will need to hold him up if he wants to survive.


----------



## Lord Vader

txtommy said:


> I suspect that his ratings will be better than Jay's. I personally never did like Jay so it was a no brainer to watch Letterman. Didn't matter who the guests were, I caught Letterman for the monologue as I never found Leno the least bit funny. Now that there will be competition in that time slot, I'll probably go with whoever has the most interesting guests on any particular evening.


I used to prefer Letterman over all the others, but Dave isn't even that funny anymore. The last couple years he has turned into an extremely partisan, bitter left-wing coot who does nothing but constantly rip on anyone right of center. I like political humor, but I do NOT like it when it's completely and consistently lopsided.



Chris Blount said:


> I suspect maybe at first but Fallon will lose the older demographic very quickly. The younger audience will need to hold him up if he wants to survive.


Considering that Leno's ratings are fairly high, and that he pulls in viewers from their 20s through senior citizens, there's no way Fallon will come close. Just because txtommy likes Fallon and not Leno doesn't mean Fallon's ratings will be better. I am still willing to bet they'll be far worse than Jay's.


----------



## txtommy

Lord Vader said:


> I used to prefer Letterman over all the others, but Dave isn't even that funny anymore. The last couple years he has turned into *an extremely partisan, bitter left-wing coot* who does nothing but constantly rip on anyone right of center. I like political humor, but I do NOT like it when it's completely and consistently lopsided.
> 
> Considering that Leno's ratings are fairly high, and that he pulls in viewers from their 20s through senior citizens, there's no way Fallon will come close. Just because txtommy likes Fallon and not Leno doesn't mean Fallon's ratings will be better. I am still willing to bet they'll be far worse than Jay's.


And as an extremely partisan, bitter left-wing coot myself, I'd be willing to take that bet. I haven't watched a lot of Fallon due to the time slot, but going by the clips that I see replayed everyday on cable news shows, I see Fallon as far funnier than Leno ever was. I think he will outdo Leno in all age groups and talking with many others in my age group, I'm not the only one as you apparently think.


----------



## Lord Vader

Leno has consistently pulled high ratings in the younger age group. He has consistently had a LOT of young people in his audience. Fallon is (a) not nearly as funny, (b) not nearly as popular, and (c) not nearly as broadly appealing. 

NBC screwed up once before with this same mindset when they pushed Jay out and replaced him with Conan O'Brien, figuring Conan would pull in the younger demographic. Guess what? Conan tanked in the ratings after an initial spike. NBC just doesn't learn. No wonder it's in the toilet ratings-wise.


----------



## sigma1914

I'm 35 and don't know anyone around my age who prefers or even likes Leno over Falon.

The reason Leno has better ratings is obviously due to air time.


----------



## Lord Vader

I personally know a LOT of people in their 30s and early 40s who think Leno is better than Fallon. Most of the umpires whom I assign are under 50, with the bulk of those in their late 20s to early 40s. They're predominantly more familiar with Jay because of his fame, and they also like him more than Fallon. Several, however, like Letterman and Kimmel.


----------



## Chris Blount

sigma1914 said:


> I'm 35 and don't know anyone around my age who prefers or even likes Leno over Falon.
> 
> The reason Leno has better ratings is obviously due to air time.


 You are actually in the young age group. Fallon is going to have a hard time pulling anyone over 50.


----------



## donalddickerson2005

I hope fox can get him, that would be great news.
Leno would clean all there clocks and then NBC would be 3rd to FOX and CBS.


----------



## James Long

I figured there would be an announcement soon when I saw this ...




(Youtube)

It might be a good idea for NBC to pay Leno NOT to be on the air for a few years. Then again, it's NBC. They have managed to tank their prime time and now they throw out (again) their top rated late night. I wonder what they will mess up next.


----------



## xmguy

sigma1914 said:


> I'm 35 and don't know anyone around my age who prefers or even likes Leno over Falon.
> 
> The reason Leno has better ratings is obviously due to air time.


I'm 28 and like Leno ok. His headlines bit is funny. I like Fallon too. That's mostly because he's a musician (singer and guitar player). I like Letterman also, I think out of the 3 Letterman is more refined. Trusted by most people because of his run. Leno is the odd man out. NBC tried to replace him once already now. See how that worked out. Honestly I'd rather see Letterman because unlike most of the people my age (25-30). I HATE the new SNL, don't care for stupid jokes. Letterman is stable and is smarter than that. Leno is too because he's a car guy. But NBC is the REAL problem. So if anyone fails there NBC is the reason.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Never liked Leno as a host. In his early days I liked him as a guest, but never as a host.

I used to like Letterman, but he grew old (literally, but also figuratively) over time.

I like Conan, but not enough to watch.

There was a time when the only way to see and get info about people was on these talk shows... but during my lifetime there have evolved all kinds of different (and often better) ways to get the same info... and I think that is as much a cause of drift from late night as the hosts.

I still prefer Carson.. but I don't know if even he would do well in the current climate which just doesn't foster that type of program well.


----------



## Lord Vader

One person whom I never stopped liking, even when he got old, was Johnny Carson. I never could tire of him, even if some of his bits might have grown a bit stale. 

I'm not Leno's biggest fan. I admit that I watched Letterman religiously for years--decades, actually. Hell, when he used to do Viewer Mail, I actually had one of my letters read on the air! They did a bit using my letter, saying my name and all. That was way back when--a long time ago. However, over the last 5 years, he has grown not so much "old," which I can tolerate, of course, but old and bitter, cranky, and totally left-wing. 

As I've aged, I have become more cynical politically, but I can't stomach total one-sidedness, especially if it's born of ignorance and stupidity. That's the biggest reason why I just don't find his show as funny as it used to be. I don't hate Dave at all; rather, I just believe he's worn out. 

Back to Leno, though--the one show I love is the weekly one featuring "Headlines". I have always found it very humorous to laugh at everyday stuff like that. Makes me appreciate our humanity and our flaws.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

I (and most of my "peers") were also big Johnny Carson fans. Liked him since we were little kids and able to stay up a few lucky nights. No one in this format even comes (or ever did come) anywhere near wanting to stick around after the monolog and comedy "bits" to watch the "talk" part. Not even close. (When we were _really_ little, the show used to run 90mins! Granted, all of TV was pretty much off going the air by that time of night, and there probably wasn't much else to watch.)

But even through the 1980s, Johnny was the king. You could stick around for Dave if you wanted, and he seemed pretty "cool and edgy" by those-days standards (as someone pointed out, the "anti-Carson"). Many of us did stay up to watch as we got older.

I love these discussions about all of the late night idiots.


----------



## dpeters11

Dang it, just saw that Doc Severinsen is performing a few hours from me this month. Good to see he's still touring and still has the wind at 85.


----------



## txtommy

Chris Blount said:


> You are actually in the young age group. Fallon is going to have a hard time pulling anyone over 50.


I've been over 50 for quite some time. Most of my friends are over 50. I know no one who prefers Leno. Most are glad to see him finally going off the air and moving Fallon into a better time slot where he is very likely to outdraw what Leno has done.


----------



## Lord Vader

Looking at their ratings now, I highly doubt he will outdraw what Leno has done. I bet you said the same thing about Conan, and we all know what happened to him.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

Not that Conan was all that great at the _Tonight Show_, but there's no doubt that Leno's prime time show helped to kill-off what might've been left of that audience.

Viewers were tuning out Jay's prime time show and not even sticking around for late local news. By then many NBC viewers were gone, and Conan wasn't even given any real chance to make the _Tonight Show _work.

Personally, I think any or all of that "talent" just should've taken a hike from NBC and walked if they couldn't get what they wanted, instead of just hanging around and being at the "mercy" of that network and its ratings. Can't really feel sorry for any of 'em, though.

It'll be interesting to see if Fallon can make a real go of it. Probably a good thing if he keeps it in NYC, and sticks w/Loren. It just might work.


----------



## Lord Vader

Ah, who really cares anymore? :shrug:


----------



## djlong

Sure, "The Jay Leno Show" was cheaper to produce but local affiliates were talking about dropping NBC entirely because of how it was killing their 11PM news ratings.

So, yeah, they might have made a few dollars from the 10PM slot, but lost affiliates could have built into something that would have basically obliterated the network.

I know the local Boston station was openly talking about pulling the NBC plug. Shortly thereafter, the whole NBC-ousts-Conan-for-Leno drama happened.


----------



## RunnerFL

My parents are in their 70's and prefer Fallon over Leno "any day". Age has nothing to do with it.


----------



## txtommy

Lord Vader said:


> Looking at their ratings now, I highly doubt he will outdraw what Leno has done. I bet you said the same thing about Conan, and we all know what happened to him.


Nope. Never did like Conan at all. Fallon is funny, Leno less so, Conan only to a certain age segment. Even with that Conan might have succeeded if he had not been screwed by Leno. Leno and Letterman each have had their own fan base. Fallon will steal some of Letterman's and retain most of Leno's.


----------



## Laxguy

How did Leno "screw" O'Brien?


----------



## txtommy

Laxguy said:


> How did Leno "screw" O'Brien?


Leno gave up his late night spot to Conan but then when Jay's early time slot was a total flop he booted Conan out of the deal. Because of contracts, Conan couldn't appear anywhere for a year or two.


----------



## trdrjeff

Jay's consistently pulled the ratings against more and more competition. The network has been in the cellar for years while he still manages to pull #1 in the segment. I can't imagine affiliates leaving over Leno while the Prime Time schedule is so dismal. 

Letterman himself recently acknowledged Jay's comedic prowess, telling Oprah he thinks Leno is "the funniest guy I've ever known."


----------



## tsmacro

djlong said:


> Sure, "The Jay Leno Show" was cheaper to produce but local affiliates were talking about dropping NBC entirely because of how it was killing their 11PM news ratings.
> 
> So, yeah, they might have made a few dollars from the 10PM slot, but lost affiliates could have built into something that would have basically obliterated the network.
> 
> I know the local Boston station was openly talking about pulling the NBC plug. Shortly thereafter, the whole NBC-ousts-Conan-for-Leno drama happened.


Of course now days those affiliates would probably love to have Leno back at 10 pm! He got higher ratings than just about anything NBC has put on at 10 pm since. Guess it's a case careful what you ask for.


----------



## Laxguy

txtommy said:


> Leno gave up his late night spot to Conan but then when Jay's early time slot was a total flop he booted Conan out of the deal. Because of contracts, Conan couldn't appear anywhere for a year or two.


Jay did? Really?? If he had that much power, what were the suits at NBC doing recently to him?

Management moved O'Brien out of The Tonight Show, and Leno back in. Yes, no doubt what Leno wanted, but he didn't screw O'Brien, who really didn't fit NBC or The Tonight Show. And it was management's contract that prohibited O'Brien from competing for a set period.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

O'Brien failed because the show SUCKED with him as host, not because Leno wanted him to or forced him to fail.


----------



## Lord Vader

Leno never had and still doesn't have that kind of power. The only person who had near as much power was Johnny Carson. When Johnny told NBC executives to jump, they asked, "How high?"


----------



## Laxguy

Scott Kocourek said:


> O'Brien failed because the show SUCKED with him as host, not because Leno wanted him to or forced him to fail.


Oh, yeah, that, too! :eek2::sure:

And several very important locals wanted O'Brien gone, gone, gone....

Another thought: I rather think that Leno didn't fight real hard on contract renewal. Last few months he's been phoning it in, in subtle and not so subtle ways, as well as stepping up his attacks on NBC management and ratings failures. It's time for a long vacation for him.


----------



## Lord Vader

Did you ever stop and think that he didn't fight hard because either he didn't want to, or because he thought it futile, or because he realized it would be a futile effort to fight the NBC execs? I'm not trying to be argumentative with you; rather, I'm just throwing it out there that I wouldn't doubt Leno personally thought to himself that while he would make NBC the butt of many of his jokes, he wasn't going to fight the whole thing, especially since Jay has always liked doing stand-up, and leaving NBC lets him get back into that.


----------



## Laxguy

Lord Vader said:


> Did you ever stop and think .....


Yes, I do just that on occasion.

My premise, unstated as I thought it obvious, was as you've detailed. He was ready to leave that particular stage.


----------



## txtommy

Laxguy said:


> Jay did? Really?? If he had that much power, what were the suits at NBC doing recently to him?
> 
> Management moved O'Brien out of The Tonight Show, and Leno back in. Yes, no doubt what Leno wanted, but he didn't screw O'Brien, who really didn't fit NBC or The Tonight Show. And it was management's contract that prohibited O'Brien from competing for a set period.


And it was Jay's contract that allowed him to move back to the late night job when his ratings were zero for the earlier time slot. It was a joint effort between NBC and Jay.


----------



## Laxguy

txtommy said:


> And it was Jay's contract that allowed him to move back to the late night job when his ratings were zero for the earlier time slot. It was a joint effort between NBC and Jay.


Effort! To collude, in order to screw O'Brien, huh? No, again you cannot back off from your original statement far enough to touch on the truth.

Jay's ratings at ten were good for ten P.M.; O'Brien's sucked for 11:30.


----------



## James Long

One fault I can find with Jay was that when he took the 10pm slot he said "I can still say stay tuned for Conan". I do not recall that happening on his 10pm show.

Jay played innocent through most of the shuffle. Doing the network's bidding when pushed to 10pm. When that didn't work letting others push for a 11:35 show (Conan at midnight?). The mess was finally resolved with Jay returning home to Tonight, Conan out the door and George Lopez the loser.

Jimmy Fallon is the winner. Who would have thunk that after four years on the goofball show after Tonight he would be offered the prime slot? Kids these days don't have to work as hard as the generations before them. 

How many years did Dave prepare for his Tonight Show slot? The natural successor ended up elsewhere ... and while Jay was not a nobody off of the street he was not "next in line". Perhaps NBC thought they could have it all - update the Tonight Show with a permanent guest host (Jay) and keep the popular aftershow (Dave). But they got it wrong.

It probably was not the first thing NBC got wrong but it seems that NBC has been declining ever since. The joke about "not slipping in to sixth place" is closer to reality than it should be.

NBC needs to turn the trend around. Dropping popular hosts is not the way to do it.


----------



## Lord Vader

IIRC, I believe that Letterman was Carson's preferred choice to replace him. If true, it would seem that as he was nearing the end of his tenure with NBC, Johnny's power waned considerably.


----------



## Laxguy

Lord Vader said:


> IIRC, I believe that Letterman was Carson's preferred choice to replace him. If true, it would seem that as he was nearing the end of his tenure with NBC, Johnny's power waned considerably.


That rings a bell. I recall seeing a docu-drama on the whole succession thing quite a while ago, but don't recall any details.


----------



## RunnerFL

Lord Vader said:


> IIRC, I believe that Letterman was Carson's preferred choice to replace him. If true, it would seem that as he was nearing the end of his tenure with NBC, Johnny's power waned considerably.


Yes, he was Johnny Carson's choice.

http://www.popeater.com/2010/01/27/why-jay-leno-and-david-letterman-hate-each-other/


----------



## Drucifer

The best night host, was Steve Allen. 

Everyone else, at best, have been a distant second.


----------



## SamC

In two years, when the dust settles:

Kimmel will be #1 on ABC
Fallon will be #2, but draw enough of a crowd to make money for NBC
Letterman will have retired, and be replaced by, nobody, with CBS returning to its "Crimetime after Primetime" format of showing reruns of its owned popular crime drama shows about three weeks behind current, a pure profit format.
O'Brien's contract will have been allowed to quietly expire.
All of the smug political commetators on all of the cable channels will have fallen from fashion as the nation tires of all the condensentaion from above.


----------



## Sixto

SamC;3206129 said:


> In two years, when the dust settles:
> 
> Kimmel will be #1 on ABC
> Fallon will be #2, but draw enough of a crowd to make money for NBC
> Letterman will have retired, and be replaced by, nobody, with CBS returning to its "Crimetime after Primetime" format of showing reruns of its owned popular crime drama shows about three weeks behind current, a pure profit format.
> O'Brien's contract will have been allowed to quietly expire.
> All of the smug political commetators on all of the cable channels will have fallen from fashion as the nation tires of all the condensentaion from above.


Yep, interesting ... I do think that Kimmel is the best now of all of them, he's really come into his own, he's learned from Dave and Howard and interviews well, and he's quick with his comments. If you really listen to him he's really good with his responses to all guest comments. I'm also still a big Letterman guy as well but Dave probably only has a few more years. Fallon while a good guy just never seems comfortable when he's interviewing, it always seems like he has a nervous laugh, and Leno drives me nuts with his "I just gotta ask you something" in every interview over and over and over again. I also record Conan and he's ok when he has a good guest. I usually record all of them on the Genie and then catch the highlights during the week when I have a chance. And I usually ignore all politics in general anyway so not sure I ever notice any of the political items that have been mentioned here.


----------



## James Long

SamC said:


> Letterman will have retired, and be replaced by, nobody ...


No love for Craig?

One of the biggest issues I see is asking people to do a show that is different than the one that made them popular. The Tonight Show is the professional place to go for a late night TV appearance. Late Night is an aftershow with a less formal format. There may be some tweaks to the format as a host changes show but the hosts change format to match their new show.

Telling Conan he could have The Tonight Show but "you can't do _THAT_ on The Tonight Show" makes the show different. And even if the networks do not interfere with the format there are different expectations of the 11:35 slot than the 12:37 slot. Perhaps Fallon will be not change - but I doubt it. He will end up doing someone else's show.



> All of the smug political commetators on all of the cable channels will have fallen from fashion as the nation tires of all the condensentaion from above.


That is a completely different issue ... but don't expect the cable commentators to ever go away. They will change over time but it seems that the trend is to have more commentators at a time shouting over issues than to get away from commentary and get back to "just the facts" reporting.


----------



## Maruuk

Drucifer said:


> The best night host, was Steve Allen.
> 
> Everyone else, at best, have been a distant second.


+1! Used to watch his Westinghouse syndicated show instead of doing my homework. Smock smock!


----------



## SamC

James Long said:


> No love for Craig?


Love him. I just don't think he will work at 11:30 and not against two younger guys, both with a head start at building an audience. The Market really has not yet spoken in regard to 3, or 4 if you count O'Brien, idntical format shows in the same time slot.

CBS can think outside the box, and, with the #1 primetime lineup and no profit on the backside (it does not own USA Network, the eventual destination of most of these shows) it can do a pure profit squeze of a few more $$ out of its shows and pick up a different demographic, and pick up the vaunted "cord cutters".


----------



## James Long

I would not bet on "crimetime after primetime" working again. As DVR penetration and online viewing increases the need for additional plays of first run shows is limited. I understand that some networks have turned Saturdays into a rerun festival (or dumping ground for shows that didn't make it during the week) so it is not impossible to have a "second run" schedule but it is less needed.

I would also not refer to it as pure profit. Each network airing of the show costs money. CBS may be willing to pay for the reruns but I would not consider them free. (Even for CBS produced shows they are paying royalties for each airing. And if they own the show they are being paid for the USA airings. Nobody rides for free.)


----------



## Hoosier205

Ferguson is already the replacement for Letterman.


----------



## Laxguy

Hoosier205 said:


> Ferguson is already the replacement for Letterman.


Source, please.


----------



## Hoosier205

Laxguy;3206871 said:


> Source, please.


www.google.com


----------



## yosoyellobo

Hoosier205 said:


> www.google.com


Also the source for the meaning of life


----------



## Laxguy

Hoosier205 said:


> www.google.com


You cannot be serious. I asked in a polite way for your particular source.


----------



## trh

I don't think he has a source.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Ferguson is already the replacement for Letterman.





Laxguy said:


> Source, please.





Hoosier205 said:


> www.google.com


Not a done deal ... both Dave and Craig are renewed through 2014 but Craig has not been tagged as a replacement for Dave.

"News out of CBS is that Craig Ferguson's "Late Late Show" is nearing a deal that would keep him on the show at least through 2014."
"With Ferguson closing in on the deal, and Letterman also in negotiations to re-up for a couple more years, however, there is still an open question about who might replace Dave in 2014 or 2016 or 2018."
source


----------



## RunnerFL

Ferguson has said many times he does not want to replace Dave.

My money would be on Colbert or Stewart to replace Dave.


----------



## Hoosier205

RunnerFL;3206950 said:


> Ferguson has said many times he does not want to replace Dave.
> 
> My money would be on Colbert or Stewart to replace Dave.


No he has not.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> RunnerFL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ferguson has said many times he does not want to replace Dave.
> 
> My money would be on Colbert or Stewart to replace Dave.
> 
> 
> 
> No he has not.
Click to expand...

Yes, he has ...

*Late, Late Show host Craig Ferguson says that he would like to see Jon Stewart take over for David Letterman if and when Letterman retires.* Ferguson hints strongly that if Letterman stays, he'll stay, but if Letterman does indeed retire, he'll probably retire too.
source

"It's not been my lifelong ambition to host The Tonight Show or something like it," he says. "Jimmy [Kimmel] and Conan [O'Brien], that's what they want and have always wanted. I think I'm pretty good at it, but it's not necessary for me to feel complete as a human being."
source

Now, how about a source on your claim that Craig has been selected as the replacement for Dave? All signs point it "no".


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long;3206969 said:


> Yes, he has ...
> 
> Late, Late Show host Craig Ferguson says that he would like to see Jon Stewart take over for David Letterman if and when Letterman retires. Ferguson hints strongly that if Letterman stays, he'll stay, but if Letterman does indeed retire, he'll probably retire too.
> source
> 
> "It's not been my lifelong ambition to host The Tonight Show or something like it," he says. "Jimmy [Kimmel] and Conan [O'Brien], that's what they want and have always wanted. I think I'm pretty good at it, but it's not necessary for me to feel complete as a human being."
> source
> 
> Now, how about a source on your claim that Craig has been selected as the replacement for Dave? All signs point it "no".


If you are going to post a source, you may want to post something that actually says what you claim.


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> No he has not.


Yes, he has...

http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/craig-ferguson-david-letterman-14194/


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> If you are going to post a source, you may want to post something that actually says what you claim.


He did.


----------



## studechip

*OOPS!*


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> www.google.com


How about a link to your claim?


----------



## Laxguy

studechip said:


> How about a link to your claim?


Kinda looks like Mr. Indiana can't come through with the goods, though he's able to chuck objects* at other's claims.

*Such as barbs with sharp ends, or soft brown stuff.


----------



## RunnerFL

studechip said:


> How about a link to your claim?


He can't provide links to things in his head.


----------



## Hoosier205

Once again, people are not reading what they post links to. Ferguson already has a deal. I've never been wrong before and I'm not about to start now. You kiddos have fun debating your own silly falsehoods.


----------



## studechip

Apparently he doesn't think he needs to reply any further: check post #41
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3207289&posted=1#post3207289


----------



## Lord Vader

Hoosier205 said:


> I've never been wrong before and I'm not about to start now.


Spoken like a true politician. :lol:


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> If you are going to post a source, you may want to post something that actually says what you claim.





RunnerFL said:


> Yes, he has...
> 
> http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/craig-ferguson-david-letterman-14194/





Hoosier205 said:


> Once again, people are not reading what they post links to. Ferguson already has a deal. I've never been wrong before and I'm not about to start now. You kiddos have fun debating your own silly falsehoods.


Troll.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Once again, people are not reading what they post links to. Ferguson already has a deal. I've never been wrong before and I'm not about to start now. You kiddos have fun debating your own silly falsehoods.


The only deal that Ferguson has is the one that I and others have clearly linked to ... renewal of contract to match Dave's contract. When Dave's contract ends Craig's contract ends.

You have provided absolutely no proof that Craig has a contract beyond Dave's last day. You have provided absolutely no proof that Craig will be taking over for Dave. And as for your claim that you have never been wrong ... well this thread isn't about you so I won't waste time proving that beyond the proof already offered.

Craig is not the replacement for Dave. I wish he was ... and if the facts ever change to support Craig replacing Dave I will be happy. But at this point in time there is no truth in the claim that Craig is the replacement for Dave.


----------



## phrelin

When it comes to Letterman retiring, I kinda liked this speculation:


> Letterman is the last man in front of the camera who carries the whole history of the genre in his head; he ... honors ... the tradition on a nightly basis. Conversely, his CBS nightly following act, Craig Ferguson, is the odd man out in any speculation about talk-show succession because the Scottish anarchist is least connected to the tradition, and as a novelist/actor/screenwriter, he's the lesser of the neurotics in his trade and the only host assured of a viable post-talk career. Thus, even though his contract reportedly stipulates he gets right of first refusal should Letterman exit, Ferguson's eccentric, devil-may-care attitude probably inclines him to take a well-compensated pass.


 Personally, I'm not sure that Letterman will retire before Les Moonves, but they're close to the same age.


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> Once again, people are not reading what they post links to. Ferguson already has a deal. I've never been wrong before and I'm not about to start now. You kiddos have fun debating your own silly falsehoods.


If you actually took the time to read the articles at the links posted you'd see that he does NOT want Letterman's spot at all. Oh but wait, if you read then you'd have to admit you're wrong, something you could never do.


----------



## James Long

I enjoy Craig's on air comments about his live appearances ... warning people that he actually swears and that in concert the little flags don't appear in front of his mouth and the words are not replaced.

He does the show as if he wouldn't mind losing it ... not worried about the network or advancing his position. He is the true anti-host. Constant bleeped words, profane puppets and baudy humor. Not what one would expect at 11:35 but fine for the after show. And while Conan and others walk on the wild side a little it seems Craig is all in.

Craig says and does what he wants and if the network doesn't like it the network can bleep him -and they do. And it all works well.


----------



## Lord Vader

I agree with you. I find myself laughing at him and his show more than at any of the other late night shows. I also like his sidekick Geoff. I don't know what it is about that skeleton, but I think he's better than any of the other late show sidekicks.


----------



## RunnerFL

Lord Vader said:


> I agree with you. I find myself laughing at him and his show more than at any of the other late night shows. I also like his sidekick Geoff. I don't know what it is about that skeleton, but I think he's better than any of the other late show sidekicks.


He has more personality than they do. :lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I like Craig Ferguson, and I have watched his show from time to time... but I also agree his style works better in the later hours where he can get away more with being his wacky self.


----------



## trh

First there was an imaginary girlfriend. 

Now an imaginary source. 

Lots of imagination in Indiana.


----------



## phrelin

I debated about posting this interview, but it is one example of why I think John Stewart would be the best replacement for Letterman:


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> I debated about posting this interview, but it is one example of why I think John Stewart would be the best replacement for Letterman:


I saw that Tuesday and thought about posting it too. 

I'm not sure his current show is "safe" for broadcast TV ... and I would not want to see Stewart / Colbert changed from their current shows to "safe". It would be nice to see Stewart get more exposure and a longer show but there are nights where 22 minutes is enough.


----------



## Nick

phrelin said:


> I debated about posting this interview...


I'm glad you did -- I've not seen that before. IMO, Georgia Carlin was a national treasure.


----------



## Laxguy

Nick said:


> I'm glad you did -- I've not seen that before. IMO, Georgia Carlin was a national treasure.


Carlin was brilliant, insightful, droll, but I'd stop there! Miss his wit.


----------



## James Long

Step 2: *Seth Meyers gets 'Late Night' host gig*
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/12/showbiz/seth-meyers-late-night/index.html

(CNN) -- "Saturday Night Live" writer-performer Seth Meyers will take over NBC's "Late Night" show next year when current host Jimmy Fallon moves to "The Tonight Show," NBC announced Sunday.

SNL executive producer Lorne Michaels will also be the executive producer of "Late Night with Seth Meyers." He was also named executive producer of "The Tonight Show" earlier this year when the network announced Fallon would replace Jay Leno.

No premiere date has been announced, but NBC has said Leno's exit and Fallon's debut will coincide with the Winter Olympics coverage in 2014.


----------



## RunnerFL

James Long said:


> Step 2: *Seth Meyers gets 'Late Night' host gig*
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/12/showbiz/seth-meyers-late-night/index.html
> 
> (CNN) -- "Saturday Night Live" writer-performer Seth Meyers will take over NBC's "Late Night" show next year when current host Jimmy Fallon moves to "The Tonight Show," NBC announced Sunday.
> 
> SNL executive producer Lorne Michaels will also be the executive producer of "Late Night with Seth Meyers." He was also named executive producer of "The Tonight Show" earlier this year when the network announced Fallon would replace Jay Leno.
> 
> No premiere date has been announced, but NBC has said Leno's exit and Fallon's debut will coincide with the Winter Olympics coverage in 2014.


Hopefully this means SNL will be watchable again with Seth gone.


----------



## Lord Vader

Leno rises as others fall.

I used to watch Letterman religiously, loving his sardonic wit, his "grumpy old man" sarcasm. However, all that changed. I don't remember when--perhaps it was during the 2008 presidential campaign of Obama. The date's not that important. What matters is that this once very funny guy has turned into nothing less than a left-wing partisan hack, totally one-sided. Bush has been out of office for 4 1/2 years now, and Letterman still makes him the butt of his jokes, blaming him for the country's ills. 

Example: I was flipping channels last night and caught Dave's monologue. In it, he was making fun of Bush, showing Bush in Africa with the natives (W. has been there with wife Laura the last several days doing charity work), mocking Bush's attempt to do native dances. Letterman labeled the bit "This day in a presidential moment". Uh, Dave, Bush isn't president anymore, so how could it be a "presidential moment"? Besides, who gives a rat's patootie? 

Really, Dave, these jokes, all of them slamming Republicans, have gotten sooooo old. If you're going to be political, something I do not mind at all, at least be bipartisan and go after both sides, something your competitors do on a more frequent basis. 

Honestly, Letterman used to be the funniest night talk show host. (He was actually Johnny's personal choice to replace him, but NBC decided otherwise back then.) I watched his show regularly over all the others. I haven't done that now in 4 or 5 years, except for one, single show of his--his last show before Christmas, when he has Darlene Love on to sing her famous rendition of "Christmas". That annual show is one to which I look forward every year.


----------



## dpeters11

Well, when I see a former President doing an interview, they are still called "Mr. President." Heck, Newt Gingrich is still called "Mr. Speaker".


----------



## Lord Vader

This is something I've never been able to understand. If you're no longer president or speaker, why be referred to as one? I'm sure it's just me, but I've always found it to be stupid.


----------



## James Long

Lord Vader said:


> This is something I've never been able to understand. If you're no longer president or speaker, why be referred to as one? I'm sure it's just me, but I've always found it to be stupid.


The position (if not the person) is respected enough that once the position is obtained the person is honored with the title beyond their time of service. You see this with military ranks for example "general" or even "sergeant" is a respected title. You see this in politics where governors keep the title. With the presidency being both a military and high political role it makes perfect sense to have the title outlive the time of service.

It happens in the private sector too ... people are called "coach" long after their coaching days are over - although keeping the title of president, speaker, general or governor is a professional courtesy more than a nickname or casual honor.


----------



## Lord Vader

With a general or sergeant or similar military person, though, they're still considered of that rank after they retire, assuming they hadn't been stripped of it. Newt Gingrich should still be referred to as "former Speaker of the House".

But back to Leno et. al.


----------



## James Long

You are forgetting that the president is the leader of the country's military? Why wouldn't THAT rank be kept?
Speaker of the house is third in line to the presidency ... it is an important role in our country.


Most of the time the "former" part is dealt with in introductions and then the conversation continues using the title without emphasizing the "former" part. It is what our society does. At least the polite part of society. (And it doesn't matter if the president is 39, 41, 42 or 43 ... or the other honored person is someone you like or not ... the honor is for life.)


----------



## Lord Vader

James Long said:


> You are forgetting that the president is the leader of the country's military? Why wouldn't THAT rank be kept?
> 
> 
> 
> The president is the Commander-in-Chief and has no rank because he's a _civilian_. The Framers wanted to make sure that a civilian, elected for a period of time, would be the superior authority over the military. Once a president leaves office, is he still considered Commander-in-Chief? No.
> 
> Speaker of the house is third in line to the presidency ... it is an important role in our country.
Click to expand...

And next is President Pro Tempore of the Senate, but do we refer to him when he is no longer a senator as President Pro Tempore? No



> Most of the time the "former" part is dealt with in introductions and then the conversation continues using the title without emphasizing the "former" part. It is what our society does. At least the polite part of society. (And it doesn't matter if the president is 39, 41, 42 or 43 ... or the other honored person is someone you like or not ... the honor is for life.)


Then call him President Emeritus.


----------



## James Long

Lord Vader said:


> And next is President Pro Tempore of the Senate, but do we refer to him when he is no longer a senator as President Pro Tempore? No


He's just not as important. Gotta make the podium. (We could call him senator, even after he ceases being one.)



Lord Vader said:


> Then call him President Emeritus.


He has a title. We call him president.


----------



## Lord Vader

But he's *not *president anymore. That's my point.


----------



## James Long

Lord Vader said:


> But he's *not *president anymore. That's my point.


The point is, nobody else cares. The title survives the job - whether you like the practice or not.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Lord Vader said:


> But he's *not *president anymore. That's my point.


You also aren't Lord Vader... I'm not Ralph Wiggum, and I'm pretty sure James isn't Dug from Up!


----------



## trh

We're not the only country to do this either.


----------



## Lord Vader

Stewart Vernon said:


> You also aren't Lord Vader... I'm not Ralph Wiggum, and I'm pretty sure James isn't Dug from Up!


That's debatable.


----------



## djlong

I've heard so many retire veterans introduced by their rank, just like interviewers talking to retired politicians and saying "Mr. Mayor/Goveror/Senator/President/etc" that it doesn't raise an eyebrow.


----------



## Lord Vader

I'm sure it doesn't raise an eyebrow. For *politicians*, however, it's just stupid. They're *elected *to a *term* of office. Military persons are not. They retain their ranks until and unless stripped of them or demoted by a superior.


----------



## RunnerFL

This is supposedly the "official" document on how to address a former President. It is incorrect to call him President.

http://www.formsofaddress.info/FOA_president_US_former.html


----------



## trh

RunnerFL said:


> This is supposedly the "official" document on how to address a former President. It is incorrect to call him President.
> 
> http://www.formsofaddress.info/FOA_president_US_former.html


Why is this the "official" guide? Doesn't the State Deapartment or the White House Protocol office have any guidance?


----------



## Lord Vader

RunnerFL said:


> This is supposedly the "official" document on how to address a former President. It is incorrect to call him President.
> 
> http://www.formsofaddress.info/FOA_president_US_former.html


From the referenced article:



> The former office holder is no longer due the precedence and courtesies we extend to the current office holder. He or she speaks with the authority of a private citizen. We honor former office holder's service, but the 'form of address' -- which acknowledges the responsibilities and duties of office -- belongs only to current office holder.


I win!


----------



## RunnerFL

trh said:


> Why is this the "official" guide? Doesn't the State Deapartment or the White House Protocol office have any guidance?


It's "The Official Guide to Names, Titles, and Forms of Address" by "The Protocol School of Washington".

Here's Emily Post saying the same thing:

http://www.emilypost.com/forms-of-address/titles/118-addressing-a-former-us-president


----------



## dpeters11

Actually, even the gray lady herself, the New York Times refers to a sitting President as Mr, at least after the first reference.


----------



## Lord Vader

The NYT has the credibility and quality of used cat litter nowadays.


----------



## trh

RunnerFL said:


> It's "The Official Guide to Names, Titles, and Forms of Address" by "The Protocol School of Washington".


Which has it's HQ in Columbia SC.

It is about as official as the French male model in the State Farm TV commercial.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

trh said:


> Which has it's HQ in Columbua SC.
> 
> It is about as official as the French male model in the State Farm TV commercial.


Bone Joooor


----------



## RunnerFL

trh said:


> Which has it's HQ in Columbia SC.
> 
> It is about as official as the French male model in the State Farm TV commercial.


Ok, then if basing whether they are "Official" or not depends on their geographic location that eliminates you as an authority too.


----------



## trh

I'm just interested in a real source. I found one in Britian dealing with how to address former Prime Ministers, but nothing related to US Presidents.


----------



## RunnerFL

trh said:


> I'm just interested in a real source. I found one in Britian dealing with how to address former Prime Ministers, but nothing related to US Presidents.


You were given 2 sources...

Here's more however I have a feeling no matter how many are given you still won't be satisfied.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4762093_address-letter-former-president.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2340220

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-21/opinions/36870711_1_board-president-newest-president-wife


----------



## trh

As I said before, isn't there an official guide on this?

And it isn't that I disagree with how to address a former President. I'm just curious as to a bona fide source and why (although the Miss Manners link you posted has the best indication I've read so far -- dealing when President Washington left office).


----------



## RunnerFL

trh said:


> As I said before, isn't there an official guide on this?
> 
> And it isn't that I disagree with how to address a former President. I'm just curious as to a bona fide source and why (although the Miss Manners link you posted has the best indication I've read so far -- dealing when President Washington left office).


I gave you Miss Manners/Washington Post, Emily Post (The authority on etiquette) and "The Official Guide to Names, Titles, and Forms of Address". If you don't believe them you're not going to believe anyone.


----------



## James Long

So ... is this thread about Jay Leno's retirement anymore?


----------



## longrider

James Long said:


> So ... is this thread about Jay Leno's retirement anymore?


----------



## Laxguy

Long before it was announced that he was leaving—perhaps not entirely of his own volition :smoking: — he was knocking the NBC brass at every turn. Kinda asking for it. Now he's taken the gloves off and put on the brass knuckles.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> Long before it was announced that he was leaving-perhaps not entirely of his own volition :smoking: - he was knocking the NBC brass at every turn. Kinda asking for it. Now he's taken the gloves off and put on the brass knuckles.


Which time? There was some animosity when Leno left for Conan the first time ... being a top rated show where the host does not want to go and the viewers do not want the host to go backed up Leno's side of the argument. Now it seems to be a better orchestrated handoff - a decision made based on today's marketplace not a promise made five years ago to the younger comedian.

If Leno wasn't punching at NBC he might be the only comedian not doing so ... and poking at your network is a staple of late night comedians. Even ones who are happy at the network where they are (Craig Ferguson).


----------

