Jump to content

Jay Leno moving back to the Tonight Show?


JaneAusten

Recommended Posts

  • Members

No, I don't think it's a condemnation at all.

It's a matter-of-fact: people just having a zillion choices and being not really all that interested in any of them.

I also didn't see them putting down viewers. If anything, their thiking follows a straight line: hosts are dull, thus people are switching channels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

The "attention span of a hummingbird" seemed like a putdown to me.

I don't think that people fleeing late night talk shows is the problem. I actually think viewers have been relatively patient, considering some of the poor quality of that genre over the past 15 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's "free" (advertiser-supported) TV that relies on HUGE numbers of eyeballs to make it profitable without subscriber fees and access to spinoff revenues (e.g., if you buy the show--don't own the show).

This'll all be fixed when (as Fox began to claw with Time-Warner over the holidays) the networks begin to lose the affiliates (the most retrogressive, outdated, horrible distribution system known to man...every affiliate gets a "voice" that detracts from the relationship between the audience and the network), and become (like TBS and USANetwork, etc.) a subscriber-subsidized service that also runs ads. When that happens, the tyranny of the "largest number of eyeballs" goes away...voters vote with their cable/satellite subscriptions, rather than their (often poorly sampled) "ratings".

There is still jeopardy. The big cable networks do fine, but the majority seem to struggle for viewers (hence, the constant shifts in brand identity--Cartoon Network not showing cartoons, TVLand not showing classic TV, Soapnet not showing soaps)...so it remains essential to stay one of the "big few" that show premium content.

They also need to figure out how to plug the hole of online streaming, bittorrenting, etc. Maybe said better: Find a way to effectively monetize them while not cannibalizing the mothership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't know if they "cannibalize" the mothership. The networks and the showrunners do that. Tim Kring has done more to "cannibalize" Heroes than fans ever could.

My guess is they are a very small fraction of viewers. I would also guess many of them watch online because they can't watch the TV version, for one reason or another. And I think some of these people, at least the ones who watch the online streaming on the official websites, and some of those who watch through torrents, might still buy DVDs and things like that. If they are cut off that way, they are less likely to buy anything related to the show.

I think these types of viewers are just a scapegoat for the real lack of quality and the desperate need to cater to viewers who aren't interested in watching a lot of TV. Ratings for shows can go up, and often do, when the show makes an effort to improve, as long as it's done in time. Or ratings for a new, quality show can be good, at least some of the time.

These networks struggle in part because they are so generic. Lifetime lost most of what people wanted to see on their network and thus they are falling fast. Soapnet still struggles to break even because all they can come up with is D-list knockoffs of reality shows that don't even get a million viewers. Yet this is seen as great because it does better than soap reruns from decades ago. They're also half-assed. If they had guts and just changed their network names, like TNN did when it became Spike, they would be better off in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No. They didn't say Carl D., you're a stupid id!ot with the attention span of a hummingbird. They said people are flooded with TV-viewing choices, tonnes of job-related issues and problems in real life. All that considered, people today don't really have patience for a lot of stuff on TV. Especially when it's bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IMO this and NBC actions with LateNight over the past so many years has now damaged the Tonight Show franchise/brand almost beyond repair. Can they get it back? It's been such a clusterfeck. I'm not sure how much that brand even meant anymore with Carson gone.

What was impressive about Conan's statement was he really didn't make it about him. He showed respect maybe not to NBC(they don't deserve it) but to the legacy Carson left with the Tonight Show. That's something not one person at NBC or Leno have mentioned at all. I wonder if anyone at NBC or Leno even get it or even care. It exemplifies almost an era gone past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Conan Tonight(per TWoP and other sources): "Hosting “The Tonight Show” has been the fulfillment of a lifelong dream for me – and I just want to say to the kids out there watching: You can do anything you want in life. Unless Jay Leno wants to do it too."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was reading a Reuters article and it seems like we're already getting the media spin about how this will all turn out to be a success for NBC.

No matter what happens with the ratings, it was all so pointless and so ugly playing out in the public eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Did Denise give any interviews where she talked about her first few years on GH... '73-75? I wonder if she had any regrets leaving Days for GH, as from what I've read, the show was in the dumps writing-wise, so am thinking she didn't have great story? Any Leslie story highlights I've seen always start with '76, after Gloria Monty took charge.
    • I know! It's like second verse, here we go again!  Agreed. Certainly there was concern maybe even fear at the highest levels for the very good reason that what they had was so economically successful, so of course this risk was scary but if anyone was brave she was. Yes, he was. I have seen her associated with getting it on the air one other place but no details nor official title. Not the writer or creator so it made me wonder if she functioned as a kind of uncredited ad hoc producer, but then maybe she just supported it. At any rate that is nothing but supposition on my part. No data! Yes, not a surprise anymore but still so frustrating! On one hand I am appreciative that she is included in this book, but scholarship where are you?!
    • that wasnt her point. She wanted to further demonize Ted; that was the main focus of their talk. She wants to ensure that Nicole leaves him so that he's free and single to be with her. At this point, I dont think she really cares what Nicole thinks of her; she just wants her out of the way Eva is Nicole's stepdaughter and is a Dupree by association. If Nicole takes Ted back then its reasonable that she would accept his daughter and i that happens, Eva will have welcomed to their country club, be invited to their parties, have access to their resources, etc....much like Andre whom also isnt a blood Dupree but is accepted by them via Nicole. Eva got what she got from Anita bc of Hayley. I think its important to remember that context bc they just dealt with an interloper that infiltrated their ranks and hurt her daughter in the worse way. Now you have another unfortunate girl positioned to do the same to her other daughter. The feelings are still too fresh and she doesnt want Eva to get the idea that she would ever be allowed the opportunity to play them again
    • Oh I've seem this! That's part of why I'm curious! The show could put EastEnders to shame on the gangster Aspect! Oh I've seem this! That's part of why I'm curious! The show could put EastEnders to shame on the gangster Aspect!
    • Eve was one of those characters that had the "Jessie Brewer"role. They had heavy storyline, they burned through it and now they are there for support and a touchstone in the community (Marland wanted to give Jessie story, but I agree with Monty...she best served in her connecting role, and keeping that damn Amy Vining busy so she keeps her nose out of things) So charcters are important and why they should have kept characters like Bridget around (even as she is more volatiles then Eve) who didnt need a big storyline but could have been behind the bar making connections and expostion, but Rauch wanted JEVA/JEVA/JEVA and DRAMA (which to him meant a lot of yelling and stupidity.)
    • Why do I feel like (or remember possible

      Please register in order to view this content

      ) Mark Dante operated on Jeff? Also, I was under the impression that Jeff shot himself accidentally. In his drunken stupor he saw Rick and Monica together and he thought hevwas shooting at them.
    • A number of errors in the above article. You wonder how with all that research,how  they slipped through. I think they are conflating Women Alone with Lonely Women. I have never read anything of a serial called Women Alone. However,I am prepared to be proven wrong.   It seems Irna actually WAS interested in TV soaps as witnessed by These Are My Children airing in 1949 on NBC in the early days of TV.   I don't believe that was reluctance, rather simply good business sense as radio's dominance began to wane.   Inferring that was somehow connected to Irna who was off that show 10 years prior.   Again inferring that Phillips leaving 6 years prior had some connection to the eventual cancellation.     Again these two events are in fact one. Irna left ATWT only once in 1970 and returned in 72. She was not working on another P&G show at the time. So either she brought the ratings up or they dipped, depending on which above account you believe   Untrue. A World Apart debuted 5 years after she left AW. And AWA aired longer than a few months. Over a year in fact.   I believe Orin Tovrov was the writer. Irna was not involved in the creation of this show. And no mention of Masquerade an Irna serial  which was on air around this time.   TBD finished in 1962. As we see over and over, these inaccuracies are published and accepted as fact.
    • YES! While I objectively found the writing on RH (particularly during its first few years and then again in its final days) to be excellent, so many of the principle characters were unpleasant, and totally turned me off. I could never settle down and become emotionally involved with a group of people who grated on my nerves.
    • Ugh now we get a Emmerdale and Corrie crossover soon. ugh.. How desperate 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy