# Leno out, Fallon in perhaps?



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Just saw this come across twitter, so take it with a grain of salt..

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...es-leno-fallon-tonight-show-article-1.1278101

Thank god, Leno's schtick has gotten so tiring, and Fallon is great...


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I thought it was established that Leno can't be removed. That was only three years ago.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

Does this mean Fallon will replace Conan? Or will he get a late night gig on some other network like Lifetime or TLC after Leno cuts his stones off?


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

I don't know what's more scary; the thought of Jimmy Fallon hosting the Tonight Show, or the fact that I'd be just fine with it.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Sorry, not buying it. Leno's still at the top of the ratings and after the previous messiness, I don't think he's going anywhere until he himself chooses to do so.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

nydailynews posted a very similar story just two months, accept in that story the also reported the well known fact that Leno's contract goes to end of 2014.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...inking-jay-leno-replacement-article-1.1220267

Maybe they think reporting this on a bimonthly basis will make it come true.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

It doesn't matter to me I would rather watch a monkey on a rock before watching Leno.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

2015: Leno gets the Tonight Show back, with NBC having given Fallon 5 days to get ratings. Leno's two remaining living viewers rejoice.
ELSE
Leno blows his brains out (not shooting from the jaw) because he can't live with not being on TV.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I'm not buying it either. Leno will be in until he wants to leave. The idea of "NBC execs" forcing him out after what happened in 2010 is unbelievable.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

scottjf8 said:


> Thank god, Leno's schtick has gotten so tiring, and Fallon is great...


I'm not sure why you're thankful.

If you don't like Leno, fine---don't watch him. But apparently you like Fallon and you can already see him on _Late Night_, so I don't see how this is so much better for you.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Obviously, the whole Conan getting booted off of the Tonight Show" was orchestrated by Fallon.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

This all sounds familiar...


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Obviously, the whole Conan getting booted off of the Tonight Show" was orchestrated by Fallon.


The word is that Fallon planted the "Jay is retiring" story like Leno's Helen Kushnick did to Carson.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

I think NBC is much more desperate for ratings this time around. The network is failing and they have little to lose.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Craig Ferguson blows all of them away!!!!!!!!


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Except in ratings!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ellinj (Feb 26, 2002)

scottjf8 said:


> Thank god, Leno's schtick has gotten so tiring, and Fallon is great...


Leno's standup is getting a bit old, but he doesn't write that stuff anyway. Hiring some new writers could help. What Leno is great at is interviewing. His conversations with guests are much more interesting then his monologue.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

I just thought of something - this might mean Carson Daly at 12:37. Oof.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> Sorry, not buying it. Leno's still at the top of the ratings and after the previous messiness, I don't think he's going anywhere until he himself chooses to do so.


Actually, since Kimmel moved to 11:35, he's been doing pretty well in the ratings, and he's beaten Leno several times. It won't be long before Kimmel is consistently the top-rated late show. 


ellinj said:


> Leno's standup is getting a bit old, but he doesn't write that stuff anyway. Hiring some new writers could help. What Leno is great at is interviewing. His conversations with guests are much more interesting then his monologue.


Really?!?! I like Leno. But his interviewing has always been his weak spot. Good interviewers make it sound like they're having a conversation with the guest, but Leno's style makes it painfully obvious that he's just following the script prepared as a result of the pre-interview.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

I love Fallon. But I don't really watch late night stuff anymore.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

What kept NBC from keeping Conan and letting Leno walk back when that whole "thing" came to pass was Leno's contract. NBC made a decision based on counting the beans. Letting Leno leave meant paying him a lot more than they'd have to pay Conan so they let Conan walk.

If Conan's ratings had been higher, they might have opted to let Leno leave and just take the financial hit, but with sinking ratings, and a lower cost to keep Leno, NBC just let Conan go.

That contract that was in effect when faced with that earlier choice is coming to an end. NBC can extend that contract and lock themselves into more time with Leno (which could mean lower ratings throughout the contract), or they can pay a much smaller fee for kicking Leno to the curb, if they pay anything at all (depending on when they make a change over to someone else).

As noted by others here, Kimmel is giving Leno and Letterman both a good run for the money in the ratings, especially in key demographics and that will likely continue to get worse as the Leno fans are aging quickly.

Leno may not want to leave, but he may find himself without a home, or at least without the old Tonight Show home. It could get very interesting to see him having to go off to another net or cable channel.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> Leno may not want to leave, but he may find himself without a home, or at least without the old Tonight Show home. It could get very interesting to see him having to go off to another net or cable channel.


Maybe TBS will put him on after Conan.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

terpfan1980 said:


> What kept NBC from keeping Conan and letting Leno walk back when that whole "thing" came to pass was Leno's contract. NBC made a decision based on counting the beans. Letting Leno leave meant paying him a lot more than they'd have to pay Conan so they let Conan walk.
> 
> If Conan's ratings had been higher, they might have opted to let Leno leave and just take the financial hit, but with sinking ratings, and a lower cost to keep Leno, NBC just let Conan go.
> 
> ...


The thing is, networks simply aren't going to get the ratings that they used to get, no matter what they put on the air. So NBC is likely unhappy with Leno's ratings, but then they'll replace him with someone and that person will likely get lower ratings, and they'll blame it on the new person, when in fact, it's just a fact of the new media world - there are too many choices and people under 30 aren't really into the standard late-night talk show format.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Leno is adequately inoffensive.

I find Fallon to be equally dull with a handful of shining moments.


Blech.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> The thing is, networks simply aren't going to get the ratings that they used to get, no matter what they put on the air. So NBC is likely unhappy with Leno's ratings, but then they'll replace him with someone and that person will likely get lower ratings, and they'll blame it on the new person, when in fact, it's just a fact of the new media world - there are too many choices and people under 30 aren't really into the standard late-night talk show format.


That's what is so ironic about how the Conan vs. Jay Leno situation went down. NBC wasn't pleased with the ratings that they were getting from Conan but Conan was being handed a dwindling audience thanks to, in large part, Jay Leno and NBC's own dearth or attractive programming earlier in the night.

If Conan had taken over when NBC had a more competitive slate of programming and there wasn't a chance that Leno could be brought back from waiting in the wings, then Conan might have done better and NBC might have better ratings for Tonight at this point. Conan left for another outlet and took some share of the audience with him, some left for Letterman, and some has jumped over to Kimmel, and others still have moved on completely. As you've noted, it's a changed landscape for sure.

Now, a few years later, Leno's numbers continue to dwindle and competition from ABC is getting stronger. It will cost NBC much, much less to kick Leno to the curb and won't cost them much to hand off the Tonight time slot to Fallon (or someone else) if they opt to. They obviously hope that whomever takes over is appealing to young males and others in the key demographics so they can at least keep Tonight profitable for the network.

Again, the ironic thing is that Conan's Tonight show was supposedly profitable. Barely so, but at least it was there. Leno's performance was definitely better and he did bring the numbers back up for a while, but lately he seems to be sliding and Kimmel seems to have a head of steam built up now.

Worse still for NBC is that if they can't get the audience back for Tonight and it's follow-on, and that audience instead goes with Kimmel, then the audience may very well stick with ABC's morning programming which gives Good Morning America a boost while lowering Today's ratings. (Which was absolutely on their mind when looking at the Jay Leno vs. Conan situation)

I don't blame NBC for looking hard at the situation now, but I think it's sad that they lost a talented late night host to a competitor because they couldn't figure out how to phase Leno out in a way that would work for everyone involved.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> What kept NBC from keeping Conan and letting Leno walk back when that whole "thing" came to pass was Leno's contract. NBC made a decision based on counting the beans. Letting Leno leave meant paying him a lot more than they'd have to pay Conan so they let Conan walk.


I really need to read my copy of "The War for Late Night"..

But you're really claiming that they'd've had to pay Leno more than $45 million?



Jesda said:


> I find Fallon to be equally dull with a handful of shining moments.


(Letterman is the only one of them that I watch entire shows of - but even that is VERY backed up, and I watch faster than realtime.. I used to even convert to audio podcast so I could listen at 2x -- I get the vast majority of the comedy just from the audio. But I record the others for various funny bits throughout the week.)

It's actually kind of weird how they talk about Fallon having the young demo, but what I like is the common game show bits he does, and at least some of those (e.g. Password) are homages to a way older demo than me! I think his various games are the entertaining part of the show, and I watch those & some musical guests, and ignore the rest of the show the vast majority of the time.
(He could be a really good game show host.)


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> I'm not sure why you're thankful.
> 
> If you don't like Leno, fine---don't watch him. But apparently you like Fallon and you can already see him on _Late Night_, so I don't see how this is so much better for you.


If anything, Fallon fans will find that an earlier time slot will result in watered down comedy to please a wider audience, just like when Conan briefly took over the Tonight Show.

I say, leave the schedule the way it is until Jay chooses to retire.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

terpfan1980 said:


> That's what is so ironic about how the Conan vs. Jay Leno situation went down. NBC wasn't pleased with the ratings that they were getting from Conan but Conan was being handed a dwindling audience thanks to, in large part, Jay Leno and NBC's own dearth or attractive programming earlier in the night.


Clarification: Before the Jay Leno Show premiered in September, O'Brien had lost a good chunk of Leno's Tonight Show audience in the previous three months, but he was still beating Letterman (most of the time).

Certainly, Leno's show and the NBC execs' "Programming for profit, not ratings" didn't help matters but Leno's lower lead in ratings were affecting the local news broadcast ratings more than O'Brien's ratings.

Between the complaints from the local affiliates about Leno's lead-in and the Letterman Blackmail story suddenly jumping Dave's ratings much higher and beating O'Brien consistently, NBC panicked and pulled O'Brien.



mattack said:


> I really need to read my copy of "The War for Late Night"..
> 
> But you're really claiming that they'd've had to pay Leno more than $45 million?


As I recall, Leno had a "Pay or Play" clause in his contract in that he had a guaranteed two years, otherwise NBC would have to pay him $150 million and he'd be free to go look for a job on another network.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

JYoung said:


> As I recall, Leno had a "Pay or Play" clause in his contract in that he had a guaranteed two years, otherwise NBC would have to pay him $150 million and he'd be free to go look for a job on another network.


That's what I read.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I remember the number being $140 million, but either way, it's significantly more than the $40+ million that it took to buy out Conan.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

mattack said:


> I really need to read my copy of "The War for Late Night"..
> 
> But you're really claiming that they'd've had to pay Leno more than $45 million?





JYoung said:


> ...As I recall, Leno had a "Pay or Play" clause in his contract in that he had a guaranteed two years, otherwise NBC would have to pay him $150 million and he'd be free to go look for a job on another network.


Read it. Leno has a "pay AND play" contract. NBC had to pay him AND they had to keep him on the air. That's why he got the earlier show.

As above, Leno can't stand the thought of not being on TV.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

netringer said:


> Read it. Leno has a "pay AND play" contract. NBC had to pay him AND they had to keep him on the air. That's why he got the earlier show.
> 
> As above, Leno can't stand the thought of not being on TV.


Leno *had* a pay AND play clause in his contract for his prime time show. Giving Leno agreeing to take the Tonight back was the only way to cancel his prime time show.

I have read anything which suggests he currently has such a clause. I've read Leno is making around 15 million, Fallon around 5 million. Moving Falloon up might improve the target demographic ratings and should save a few dollars.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

lew said:


> Leno *had* a pay AND play clause in his contract for his prime time show. Giving Leno agreeing to take the Tonight back was the only way to cancel his prime time show.
> 
> I have read anything which suggests he currently has such a clause. I've read Leno is making around 15 million, Fallon around 5 million. Moving Falloon up might improve the target demographic ratings and should save a few dollars.


I don't see any reason why Leno would agree to give up that clause or the salary he was getting when he moved to prime time. That clause saved his butt before. Why would he give it up? And if he did give it up, what would stop NBC from just canning him right after that?

I'm guessing the terms of the deal he signed before the prime time show are still in place and they all simply agreed that his hosting The Tonight Show in place of the prime time show would fulfill the terms of the agreement.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

netringer said:


> That's why he got the earlier show.


Funny thing is (no pun intended), as much as I pick on Leno's reign on the TS (but he was funnier as a guest host waaaay back when), I somewhat defend his prime time show. It *wasn't* exactly the same as the TS, and had some funny bits that were significantly different (e.g. Adam Carolla bits). I think a few, but not all, have migrated back to TS, but originated on the prime time show.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

netringer said:


> As above, Leno can't stand the thought of not being on TV.


Apparently neither could NBC if they approved such a strange contract.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

There's a rumor Howard Stern will take the Fallon slot. That would be awesome!


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

tiams said:


> Craig Ferguson blows all of them away!!!!!!!!


Regardless of ratings, I prefer Craig as well!!
I record all of the late night shows and watch the ones that look interesting.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> Sorry, not buying it. Leno's still at the top of the ratings and after the previous messiness, I don't think he's going anywhere until he himself chooses to do so.


Don't be too sure on that. Things are starting to heat up at NBC.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...-and-leno-said-to-have-clashed-over-jokes/?hp


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

brianric said:


> Don't be too sure on that. Things are starting to heat up at NBC.
> 
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...-and-leno-said-to-have-clashed-over-jokes/?hp


Relevant bit:

'NBC has aggressively denied recent reports that it plans to replace Jay Leno soon as host of The Tonight Show,'

Irrelevant bit:

"but the networks top entertainment executive, Robert Greenblatt, recently stirred up a bit of a feud with the late-night star over jokes about the network." and the rest of the article.

Mr. Greenblatt may have a thin skin, but it's not going to get Leno fired.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> ..."but the networks top entertainment executive, Robert Greenblatt, recently stirred up a bit of a feud with the late-night star over jokes about the network." and the rest of the article.
> 
> Mr. Greenblatt may have a thin skin, but it's not going to get Leno fired.


Leno's jokes about NBC are a sign that Leno thinks NBC is going to dump him. During the Conan fiasco Leno made many quips about NBC throwing out the show at the top with the highest ratings.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

netringer said:


> During the Conan fiasco Leno made many quips about NBC throwing out the show at the top with the highest ratings.


But he always did that sort of joke, his entire run. Letterman even more so. Ferguson as well. It's... normal.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> But he always did that sort of joke, his entire run. Letterman even more so. Ferguson as well. It's... normal.


Which is what Leno is claiming is normal SOP:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...over-jokes/?smid=tw-mediadecodernyt&seid=auto


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

brianric said:


> Don't be too sure on that. Things are starting to heat up at NBC.
> 
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...-and-leno-said-to-have-clashed-over-jokes/?hp


The article also supplies the relevant reason as to why it's a non-issue at this time.


> So far, Mr. Leno has continued to win consistently in almost every rating category, including among viewers between the ages of 18 and 49, the chief target for late-night advertisers. Mr. Kimmel won his first week against Mr. Leno in that category, but Mr. Leno has won every week since.
> 
> NBC has not provided much help. The network's ratings in prime time have hit record lows in the past two months. NBC now regularly finishes first in the ratings in only three places: the evening newscasts, "Saturday Night Live" and Mr. Leno's "Tonight" show.


Now, if Kimmel starts beating Leno consistently, well.......



netringer said:


> Which is what Leno is claiming is normal SOP:
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...over-jokes/?smid=tw-mediadecodernyt&seid=auto


wmcbrine is right though.
Leno's done it plenty of times over the years, even before 2009. 
Letterman has done it his entire late night career. 
So has Kimmel, Fergusen, and O'Brien.

Even Carson took shots at NBC and it's management in his monologues.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Put Pat Sajak in for Leno!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

netringer said:


> Leno's jokes about NBC are a sign that Leno thinks NBC is going to dump him. During the Conan fiasco Leno made many quips about NBC throwing out the show at the top with the highest ratings.


It's a sign that Leno is doing the something he's always done, plus what every other late-night host has done. That's all it's a sign of.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> There's a rumor Howard Stern will take the Fallon slot. That would be awesome!


That would be awesome, but you also have to remember that Howard is only 4 years younger than Leno.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Rumors are getting stronger Fallon replaces Leno, Fall 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/b...ted-to-return-to-new-york-with-fallon.html?hp


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

brianric said:


> Rumors are getting stronger Fallon replaces Leno, Fall 2014.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/b...ted-to-return-to-new-york-with-fallon.html?hp


Interesting that they are planning to move the show to New York rather than move Fallon out to LA like they did with Conan. I wonder if they might have trouble booking A list guests. Kimmel would be the only 11:30 show out in Hollywood.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

aindik said:


> Interesting that they are planning to move the show to New York rather than move Fallon out to LA like they did with Conan. I wonder if they might have trouble booking A list guests. Kimmel would be the only 11:30 show out in Hollywood.


Moving to NY would allow them to continue their plans to sunset the Burbank Studios, as they had planned to years ago.

The only productions left would be Access Hollywood/Access Hollywood Live, which are produced by KNBC and I would guess would likely move to the new KNBC facility on the Universal lot when it opens next year, and Days of Our Lives, which frankly is on borrowed time (given the current market for daytime soaps).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

And not having an 11:35 pm late show based in LA would be on par with all the other horrible decisions NBC brass has made of late.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> And not having an 11:35 pm late show based in LA would be on par with all the other horrible decisions NBC brass has made of late.


And that matters because?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

it matters because *the actors who are on late night talk shows* are mostly in L.A.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

That's kind of arrogant! Actors go on marketing junkets all over the place. If anything it allows them to hit Letterman, Fallon, the view, daily show, today, gma, actors studio, Kelley and Michael within a day or so. How much does LA have?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mattack said:


> it matters because *the actors who are on late night talk shows* are mostly in L.A.


Exactly. Far more of the talent is based in LA. When most of them appear on Letterman and Fallon and Today and Kelly and Michael, it's within a day or two of each other while they're on a promotional trip to NYC.

Edit: I see you zalusky already realized this point, but it means that the NY shows don't have a lot of flexibility in booking guests. They have to take what they can get based on promo junkets and it's always within days of their appearances on all the other shows, so it minimizes the exclusivity of that appearance.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

zalusky said:


> That's kind of arrogant! Actors go on marketing junkets all over the place. If anything it allows them to hit Letterman, Fallon, the view, daily show, today, gma, actors studio, Kelley and Michael within a day or so. How much does LA have?


Enough where Kimmel can have Matt Damon, Ben Afleck, Sheryl Crow, Andy Garcia, Demi Moore, Robin Williams. Nicole Kidman, Gary Oldman, Reese Witherspoon, and Amy Adams all on the same night, just because.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Enough where Kimmel can have Matt Damon, Ben Afleck, Sheryl Crow, Andy Garcia, Demi Moore, Robin Williams. Nicole Kidman, Gary Oldman, Reese Witherspoon, and Amy Adams all on the same night, just because.


SNL does that now and then as well. Look at the recent Timberlake 5 time celebration.

Kimmel had ABC behind him big time. They want the lead at night big time just like they won it in the morning for GMA and they were willing to pull out all the stops.

I still don't consider LA vs NY a big deal. Actors go where they get the most eyeballs.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

If this is so bad, how are Letterman and Fallon surviving now ?

Add one more show and NY becomes a better market for "talk show appearances".


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Stars on tour to promote a show make a stop in NYC. The same star isn't usually on two different late night, same time slot, shows the same week.

Being in LA gives the show a number of stars (and near stars) available for sketches even if they don't have something to plug and aren't making a publicity tour. Letterman only has Regis. Kimmel uses a number of stars--JYoung already gave us a list. There is a reason why Carson moved the show to LA years ago.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> If this is so bad, how are Letterman and Fallon surviving now ?
> 
> Add one more show and NY becomes a better market for "talk show appearances".


There's a relative balance now because there is one prime late show (Letterman), one sub-prime late show (Fallon) and then a smattering of other cable shows and morning shows. The A-list guests from LA usually go to NYC and do Letterman first, then Fallon and the other shows a night or two later. They do the west coast shows a week before or a week later, so the competing shows don't usually have identical guests on consecutive nights.

Add in another prime late show (Tonight) in NYC and you'll then have bigger competition for the A-list guests on NYC promo tours, and you'll end up with guests being on Letterman one night and Tonight the next, or vice versa. That's not good for either show, if there isn't some separation between the appearances during the same time slot.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

zalusky said:


> SNL does that now and then as well. Look at the recent Timberlake 5 time celebration.
> 
> Kimmel had ABC behind him big time. They want the lead at night big time just like they won it in the morning for GMA and they were willing to pull out all the stops.
> 
> I still don't consider LA vs NY a big deal. Actors go where they get the most eyeballs.


You're missing the point.
While I believe all of the Timberlake 5 walk on guests live in the New York area, more stars live in the LA area so it's easier to get them on the LA based shows.

Plus as DevdogAZ points out, two 11:30 late night shows in New York will be going head to head for a more limited pool of guests.
(Although I'm starting to wonder if that's what Lorne Michaels wants.)

Being in Los Angeles also allows someone like Jim Parsons to pop in for a chat to plug the latest episode of his show while it's in production or Matt Damon to show up just because.

Carson recognized the value of being able to have Don Rickles be able to walk on unannounced.

(sorry for the ad at the beginning for those who have to click the link)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lew said:


> Stars on tour to promote a show make a stop in NYC. The same star isn't usually on two different late night, same time slot, shows the same week.


Wait, what? This happens all the time.

I don't remember who it was, but I swear someone was on two late night talk shows *the same day* in the past few days (Maybe it was the girl who used to go out with Bieber?)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

lew said:


> Stars on tour to promote a show make a stop in NYC. The same star isn't usually on two different late night, same time slot, shows the same week.
> 
> Being in LA gives the show a number of stars (and near stars) available for sketches even if they don't have something to plug and aren't making a publicity tour. Letterman only has Regis. Kimmel uses a number of stars--JYoung already gave us a list. There is a reason why Carson moved the show to LA years ago.


There's a large number of stars moving to NYC these days. Broadway is there, a lot of the music business is in NYC as well. Lots of movies done in NY as well. I don't think there will be too many problems getting guests. This isn't 1972 when Carson moved. Times have changed.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Latest rumor: Seth Meyers to take over Late Night if/when Fallon moves up to the Tonight Show: http://tvline.com/2013/03/22/late-night-with-seth-meyers-replace-jimmy-fallon/


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mattack said:


> Wait, what? This happens all the time.
> 
> I don't remember who it was, but I swear someone was on two late night talk shows *the same day* in the past few days (Maybe it was the girl who used to go out with Bieber?)


I went back through my recordings and I see that Vanessa Hudgens was on Kimmel on Tuesday and Leno on Wednesday. Nobody said it doesn't happen like that. But it's not as common as you would think. Usually their appearances are a couple days apart, at least.

And Vanessa Hudges is (was?) dating Zac Efron, not Justin Bieber.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

mattack said:


> Wait, what? This happens all the time.
> 
> I don't remember who it was, but I swear someone was on two late night talk shows *the same day* in the past few days (Maybe it was the girl who used to go out with Bieber?)


It doesn't happen that often. A list stars might be a few days apart, B list more typically a week (or more) apart.

One reason for a move would be tax credits NY appears to be offering.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...get-jimmy-fallon-tax-credit-article-1.1295513

New policy which is applicable to shows which are returning to NY after at least 5 years after they left NY. A talk or variety show which:


> must be filmed before a studio audience of at least 200 people. And the program must have an annual production budget of at least $30 million or incur at least $10 million a year in capital expenses.


The tax credit is in the tentative state budget.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I went back through my recordings and I see that Vanessa Hudgens was on Kimmel on Tuesday and Leno on Wednesday. Nobody said it doesn't happen like that. But it's not as common as you would think. Usually their appearances are a couple days apart, at least.
> 
> And Vanessa Hudges is (was?) dating Zac Efron, not Justin Bieber.


I believe that Kimmel is in reruns this week.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Latest rumor: Seth Meyers to take over Late Night if/when Fallon moves up to the Tonight Show: http://tvline.com/2013/03/22/late-night-with-seth-meyers-replace-jimmy-fallon/


I wonder if this is all a move by Michaels to take over the entire late night franchise.


----------



## ewolfr (Feb 12, 2001)

JYoung said:


> I believe that Kimmel is in reruns this week.


http://www.interbridge.com/lineups.html

Not according to the guest lineups for this week. Kimmel is only a repeat for tonight.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> And Vanessa Hudges is (was?) dating Zac Efron, not Justin Bieber.


Know your teen idols --

Vanessa Hudgens:










Bieber-dater Selena Gomez:










See, totally different.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> Know your teen idols --
> 
> Vanessa Hudgens:
> 
> ...


I have tween daughters. I definitely know the difference between Vanessa and Selena. Just wasn't sure if Vanessa was still dating Zac.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

ewolfr said:


> http://www.interbridge.com/lineups.html
> 
> Not according to the guest lineups for this week. Kimmel is only a repeat for tonight.


Huh.
I saw that tonight's is a rerun but I thought that earlier this week, I saw a Kimmel for a few minutes and the TiVo info bar stated that it had aired earlier.

Now I admit that I could be wrong but I _think_ this is what happened.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I have tween daughters. I definitely know the difference between Vanessa and Selena.


Yeah, that wasn't really aimed at you.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Huh.
> I saw that tonight's is a rerun but I thought that earlier this week, I saw a Kimmel for a few minutes and the TiVo info bar stated that it had aired earlier.
> 
> Now I admit that I could be wrong but I _think_ this is what happened.


I just went back and watched the first few minutes of my Kimmel recording from Tuesday. It was definitely not a rerun. Same with the Leno recording from Wednesday.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I stand corrected.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I went back through my recordings and I see that Vanessa Hudgens was on Kimmel on Tuesday and Leno on Wednesday.


Yeah, sorry, though I looked at the late show lineups and MAYBE I was *also* confusing Vanessa Hudgens on Kimmel Tuesday & Selena Gomez on Fallon "Tuesday" (really Wed morning)&#8230; or else I might have been FFing through the shows a day later.. not sure. I sure *thought* I saw the same actress on two shows within a short time. (I tivo most of the late night talk shows, for various funny bits each does, a guest once in a while, and band segments&#8230; Letterman's the only one that I semi-regularly watch entire episodes of, but even that gets backed way up.)

Oops: I see others pointed out the same thing, with pictures! I think I'm not being unreasonable in confusing them!


----------



## rosieambles (Jan 22, 2013)

wmcbrine said:


> Know your teen idols --
> 
> Vanessa Hudgens:
> 
> ...


Interchangeable talentless twits. Just part of the machine.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

rosieambles said:


> Interchangeable talentless twits. Just part of the machine.


Change the "i" to an "a" in one word and you have a better description.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

^ Wow.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Jimmy Fallon & Jay Leno Address "Tonight Show" Rumors with Duet

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS0jVU8fLc4[/media]


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Just been confirmed, Fallon replaces Leno February 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/business/media/nbc-confirms-fallon-will-succeed-leno.html?hp&_r=0


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

And I will have even less of a reason to watch The Tonight Show when Faillon takes over.

I wonder when Letterman is going to retire and if Ferguson will get moved up to 11:30, keeping the LA base of operations?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I've read speculation that if Letterman retires, CBS could replace him with Jay Leno.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

aindik said:


> I've read speculation that if Letterman retires, CBS could replace him with Jay Leno.


LOL


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

robojerk said:


> LOL


They could do a lot worse. Especially considering their prime time demographics.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

JYoung said:


> And I will have even less of a reason to watch The Tonight Show when Faillon takes over.
> 
> I wonder when Letterman is going to retire and if Ferguson will get moved up to 11:30, keeping the LA base of operations?


Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression that Ferguson is in this for the long run, nor do I think he's interested in the 11:30 slot. I think that it took some convincing to even get him to accept his most recent contract renewal.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I don't think Craig will play at 11:30.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

JYoung said:


> And I will have even less of a reason to watch The Tonight Show when Faillon takes over.


I can't go less than zero. 

Memo to TBS...prepare time slot for Jimmy Fallon now...


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

NBC really wants to ensure it loses all it's audience


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I really like Jimmy Fallon, and will watch when he takes over for a time. But I'm not a big late night talk show watcher unless they have a guest I'm interested in watching. So I don't anticipate watching for long.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

had no idea so many people disliked Jimmy Fallon so much. I rather like him.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> had no idea so many people disliked Jimmy Fallon so much. I rather like him.


I had no idea people actually liked Fallon as a talk show host.

IMO, he's nothing special as a comedian.
He does a poor monologue and he's a poor interviewer.
He occasionally has a funny skit or bit but that's about it.
He's so bland that Jay Leno is more interesting.

I find every other late night host better than Failon.

The timing of this is interesting as well.
A few months ago, they were saying the Leno would be reupped for a couple of more years.

Is Leno stepping down because he wants to or because Lorne Michaels wants the Tonight Show?


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

I record both Leno and Letterman for the monologue and for any interesting guests. Once Leno and Letterman goes, so will my late night viewing.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

JYoung said:


> I had no idea people actually liked Fallon as a talk show host.
> 
> IMO, he's nothing special as a comedian.
> He does a poor monologue and he's a poor interviewer.
> ...


Well people do like Fallon and he is comfortable. Yes he may not be edgy but the 11:30 slot will never be edgy. Thats what late night is about.
11:30 is about the largest amount of ratings possible and therefore you have to be comfortable.

NBC is worried about Kimmel and wanted to go younger. Leno finally agreed, who's to know how hard he fought but its one thing to go against Dave who is basically a peer then against Kimmel who has more future years in the bank. I expect there to be pressure on Dave at some point and I don't think he would care if he retired at this point.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I'm not fond of Fallon. He sort of bugs me the way he delivers his jokes rather awkwardly, and he always seems to be more amused by them himself than anyone else.

That said, there are bits here and there that I can see that help to explain why I've seen him called the next Johnny Carson.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I really like Jimmy Fallon. I find him entertaining and refreshing. I like that he breaks all the time, I laugh with him.

In the past I have had season passes for Jay, Dave, Conan, and Jimmy. Jimmy is the only one I record now.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I record basically all of the late night shows (2 NBC, 2 CBS, Conan, Kimmel). The only one I watch entire episodes of (at faster than realtime) is Letterman, but even that I end up with a ton saved up and then watch a bunch in a short period of time. (I should turn it into podcasts again and listen to just the audio -- that gives me the vast majority of the entertainment value, even faster.)

I think Fallon has the most interesting skits -- most of his weird game show skits. Leno with headlines & Jaywalking & _sometimes_ the go spoof movies/songs with apartment dwellers.
Conan with pretty much only "fan corrections". Kimmel with some of his Jaywalking-ish ask people questions they won't know the answer to, and the various YouTube videos (some are mean, some are mean BUT still funny, e.g. telling kids the parents ate the Halloween candy).

&#8230;and musical performances from most of the shows.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

zalusky said:


> Well people do like Fallon and he is comfortable. Yes he may not be edgy but the 11:30 slot will never be edgy. Thats what late night is about.
> 11:30 is about the largest amount of ratings possible and therefore you have to be comfortable.


There's comfortable and then there's bad.
I think that Fallon's just a bad talk show host.



zalusky said:


> NBC is worried about Kimmel and wanted to go younger. Leno finally agreed, who's to know how hard he fought but its one thing to go against Dave who is basically a peer then against Kimmel who has more future years in the bank. I expect there to be pressure on Dave at some point and I don't think he would care if he retired at this point.


Letterman turns 66 this month (Leno turns 63 this month as well) so I have to think he's got be thinking of retiring shortly.
The question is, who moves into Letterman's slot if Ferguson doesn't want to.

Leno is still beating Letterman and Kimmel in demo (most of the time) but his share has eroded over the past couple of years (primarily due to the 2009 debacle).

So it may be time to change hosts if NBC wants to retain the demo lead but I wonder if Fallon will do as well against Kimmel at 11:30.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JYoung said:


> There's comfortable and then there's bad.
> I think that Fallon's just a bad talk show host.
> 
> Letterman turns 66 this month (Leno turns 63 this month as well) so I have to think he's got be thinking of retiring shortly.
> ...


Tim Goodman of The Hollywood Reporter wrote a piece a couple weeks ago about how he thinks Stephen Colbert should drop his right-wing persona and replace Dave as himself. Colbert would do a great job.


----------



## dfergie (Aug 27, 2006)

DavidTigerFan said:


> NBC really wants to ensure it loses all it's audience


They didn't learn from the Conan fiasco... I've watched the Tonight Show since the black and white days, no more when Jimmy takes over... (didn't watch when Conan had it either). I do watch Fallon occasionally for his musical guests.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens. Personally, I like Fallon better than Conan, but there's no doubt that Conan was much more polished and had a much bigger following when he took over. So I can't imagine that NBC will be expecting Fallon's ratings to be any better than Conan's were.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

I think Fallon is ok, but he's definitely still somewhat in the awkward stage, where he doesn't seem to be completely comfortable in his job, and I do kinda wonder how that will work out when he's moved to the earlier show. Now, I honestly feel the Roots are a far better band than what's currently on the tonight show though.

I've gotten to the point where I don't watch much much of the nightly talk shows anymore. Used to watch both Leno and Dave, then I found Dave starting to get more and more annoying. Conan I've never liked.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Letterman gets the last laugh, as he'll have outlasted Leno, which I love; rumors swirl he might retire in 2014 & Jon Stewart would get offered the spot. But Letterman controls his timeslot and the one after his, plus he gets to pick his successor - it's in his contract. Letterman likes Stewart, but I think he will wait until Conan's recently renewed (through November 2015) tbs contract expires, then offer him "Late Night". Letterman's relationship with Conan is very much like Dave's was with Johnny Carson. 

Anyway, just a theory of mine.


----------



## Roadblock (Apr 5, 2006)

dfergie said:


> They didn't learn from the Conan fiasco... I've watched the Tonight Show since the black and white days, no more when Jimmy takes over... (didn't watch when Conan had it either). I do watch Fallon occasionally for his musical guests.


You refuse to watch these young hooligans and their shenanigans?

I guess your sense of humor never made it out of the '80s.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> Anyway, just a theory of mine.


I would LOVE for that to come true. Conan got jobbed.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> Letterman gets the last laugh, as he'll have outlasted Leno, which I love; rumors swirl he might retire in 2014 & Jon Stewart would get offered the spot. But Letterman controls his timeslot and the one after his, plus he gets to pick his successor - it's in his contract. Letterman likes Stewart, but I think he will wait until Conan's recently renewed (through November 2015) tbs contract expires, then offer him "Late Night". Letterman's relationship with Conan is very much like Dave's was with Johnny Carson.
> 
> Anyway, just a theory of mine.


What would CBS' motivation be for doing this? They've now seen what kinds of ratings Conan gets at 11:35 on a broadcast network and at 11:00 on a cable network. I guarantee they would not be happy with the numbers Conan is pulling.

The networks really have two options: fresh talent or new formats. I don't think Conan satisfies either if those.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

GoPackGo said:


> I would LOVE for that to come true. Conan got jobbed.


You'll get to see Leno's side on 60 Minutes tonight.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jay-leno-on-losing-the-tonight-show-twice/


----------



## dfergie (Aug 27, 2006)

Roadblock said:


> You refuse to watch these young hooligans and their shenanigans?
> 
> I guess your sense of humor never made it out of the '80s.


I've watched Jimmy's late night and my sense of humor is just fine, I hope NBC goes down in flames again like the Coco fiasco... nothing against Jimmy but after having timers only interrupted by the Conan days of the Tonight Show with first Johnny, then Jay the tonight show will die for me when Jay leaves.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

I don't like Ferguson. I can't stand to watch him except if his guest is interesting. That skull persona that he has on his show is middle school humor. 

I like Colbert, Fallon and Kimmel, but don't watch any of them as much as I use to watch Jay or John Carson.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I like Fallon. Much funnier than Jay. His stuff is so stale.

Was at a restaurant last night and they had the Leno interview on 60 Minutes showing on one of the monitors. I couldn't hear it, but just looking at Jay, he looks like he could have been on the Sopranos. He reminds me of a cross between Johnny Sack and Paulie.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Good interview on Today this morning with both Jay and jimmy (and Matt Lauer.). Part 2 next week.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I havn't really kept up with Fallon's show, but we watched that "Best of Jimmy Fallon" thing that was on a week or two ago and I was suprised how funny it was from start to end.

I forgot how talented Fallon is as a performer and entertainer. Well I guess I really didn't know at all before. despite seeing him in SNL years ago.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

vertigo235 said:


> I havn't really kept up with Fallon's show, but we watched that "Best of Jimmy Fallon" thing that was on a week or two ago and I was suprised how funny it was from start to end.


I saw that too and thought it was howlingly funny. But also had to keep in mind it's the best parts of several years of his show narrowed down to 2 hours minus commercials.

I do like a lot of Fallon's bits (thank you notes, slow jamming the news, to name a couple) but don't watch his interviews so can't say if he is or isn't an interesting interviewer. To me an interviewer doesn't have to be hard hitting but their conversations should be interesting. Of the bigs -- Letterman, Leno, Conan, Kimmel -- none of them strike me as great conversationalists. It's primarily softball questions to celebs plugging their latest work. I kinda wish the format would change to something more like a variety show where the guests can just intro a clip so we don't have to sacrifice precious entertainment minutes enduring awkward chitchat.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

brianric said:


> You'll get to see Leno's side on 60 Minutes tonight.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jay-leno-on-losing-the-tonight-show-twice/


It was interesting to see Mavis talking to the reporter.
I can't recall ever seeing her interviewed.

Leno said that this wasn't his idea so it makes think more so that Lorne Michaels is pushing for Leno to step down.

I'm guessing that NBC will pay off the last year(s?) of Leno's contract.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

JYoung said:


> It was interesting to see Mavis talking to the reporter.
> I can't recall ever seeing her interviewed.
> 
> Leno said that this wasn't his idea so it makes think more so that Lorne Michaels is pushing for Leno to step down.
> ...


Leno said he was asked this time to step down, versus being told he was being replaced by Cowan.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Jay Leno, misused employee?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Jay Leno, misused employee?


I'm not getting why we're supposed to find him sympathetic.



> Leno's wife, Mavis, helped put the exit in perspective by venting about the notion that he is a villain.
> 
> "It made me angry because there was this perception that for some reason Jay had decided to give up the show," she told "60 Minutes. "It was like he gave the show to Conan [O'Brien], and then he took it back. That was not what happened, OK? That was not what happened."


Uh, yeah, we know that's not what happened. Leno never wanted to quit. So what? How does that make him _not_ the villain? He still got his damn prime-time show, undermining Conan, and ultimately showing that he only cared about himself, and not the institution that was "The Tonight Show".


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> How does that make him _not_ the villain? He still got his damn prime-time show, undermining Conan, and ultimately showing that he only cared about himself (...)


Wait a minute...he's a villain because he wanted to keep working? Now if he took the 10pm show *in order* to "undermine" Conan", then yes, that would be villainous, but surely even you don't think that's what happened. And Conan's failure in any account was hardly due to Jay's show. His humor just didn't have the broad appeal of Jay's.



wmcbrine said:


> (...) he only cared about himself, and not the institution that was "The Tonight Show".


One could certainly argue that anyone who cared about the "institution" of _The Tonight Show_ would not have wanted Leno to have been pushed out for Conan (nor even now to be pushed out for Fallon). After all, he's still #1...

If *any*one didn't care about the "institution" of _The Tonight Show_, it was Conan's people who forced NBC to kick Jay out and the NBC execs who caved.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

Chris Rock made a good point on Jerry Seinfeld's Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee. 

He said that if Conan had a background in standup, he never would have let Leno get that 10 pm show. Every standup knows that if the guy before you is a bigger star, then no one will stay to see your set.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

GoPackGo said:


> Chris Rock made a good point on Jerry Seinfeld's Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee.
> 
> He said that if Conan had a background in standup, he never would have let Leno get that 10 pm show. Every standup knows that if the guy before you is a bigger star, then no one will stay to see your set.


But he was fairly successful in the 12:30 slot


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

vertigo235 said:


> But he was fairly successful in the 12:30 slot


True, but Rock's point was that a comedian would have never agreed to the deal in the first place.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> I'm not getting why we're supposed to find him sympathetic.
> 
> Uh, yeah, we know that's not what happened. Leno never wanted to quit. So what? How does that make him _not_ the villain? He still got his damn prime-time show, undermining Conan, and ultimately showing that he only cared about himself, and not the institution that was "The Tonight Show".


As Amnesia says, why is Leno the villain here?
O'Brien's ratings dropped like a stone months before Leno's primetime show premiered.
How did Leno engineer that?



GoPackGo said:


> Chris Rock made a good point on Jerry Seinfeld's Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee.
> 
> He said that if Conan had a background in standup, he never would have let Leno get that 10 pm show. Every standup knows that if the guy before you is a bigger star, then no one will stay to see your set.


Technically, O'Brien's lead in was the local news.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I guess the point being there weren't enough true Conan fans to sustain his 11:30 bid.

I do think Fallon will have no problem with 11:30 because he is more approachable to the traditional Tonight audience. It will be interesting to see what happens to Letterman.
He seems to be phoning it in lately.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

I think Letterman will be revitalized with new competition in his slot, new competition broadcasting out of NY at that.


----------

