Late Night Television

[beamish14]

The FCC has always sucked ass but that's a new level of bootlicking on their part. I hope Kimmel sues.

I thought it couldn’t get worse with Colin Powell’s moron son. It’s an utterly irrelevant relic of a time when ham radios were popular

[bdsweeney]

I know we don’t have a politics thread anymore. But to a foreigner, can I get a sense of how all this chilling of free speech (and everything in general) is registering with a typical American on the street (esp. the sort who voted for Trump last time likely just based on economic concerns and wasn’t necessarily concerned/aware of his larger agenda)? Am I misguided to think this is all developing a broader negative view towards Trump?

If this isn’t the right question to ask here (and I know that’s likely), can anyone suggest a source for a reasoned view on this? My thanks.

[soundchaser]

If only there were a late-night host that would go on the street and ask questions of pedestrians, we might be able to find out.

[Grand Wazoo]

A Fox News' Brian Kilmeade just this week literally said homeless people should be murdered via lethal injections and and he just apologized the next day and kept his job.

Cool country!

[Murdoch]

Disney has a track record of being very punitive over comments that inflame one side or the other of the political spectrum (e.g. James Gunn and Gina Carabo, the latter of which made incredibly stupid comments comparing Republicans to victims of the Holocaust). I have some friends comparing this to a deep breach of the First Amendment, but to me it's more Disney doing its normal idiocy to try to appear impartial politically.

[hearthesilence]

I know we don’t have a politics thread anymore. But to a foreigner, can I get a sense of how all this chilling of free speech (and everything in general) is registering with a typical American on the street (esp. the sort who voted for Trump last time likely just based on economic concerns and wasn’t necessarily concerned/aware of his larger agenda)? Am I misguided to think this is all developing a broader negative view towards Trump?

If this isn’t the right question to ask here (and I know that’s likely), can anyone suggest a source for a reasoned view on this? My thanks.

None of this is a surprise, there were warnings a thousand times over, but if people are too stupid to vote accordingly when they should know better or simply go into denial, well, so much for democracy.

[dx23]

Disney has a track record of being very punitive over comments that inflame one side or the other of the political spectrum (e.g. James Gunn and Gina Carabo, the latter of which made incredibly stupid comments comparing Republicans to victims of the Holocaust). I have some friends comparing this to a deep breach of the First Amendment, but to me it's more Disney doing its normal idiocy to try to appear impartial politically.

Disney just settle the Gina Carano lawsuit from her dismissal from the Mandalorian as something that can only be seen as a win for these fascist assholes. The James Gunn thing wasn't even a comment he said, it was a right wing provocateur digging on Twitter posts until he found one that with enough twist and the help of the MAGA bots was construed as something "bad" when by all accounts was dark humor by Gunn. And Gunn got rehired because almost the entire cast refused to come back for a Guardians sequel without him and Disney/Marvel had Infinity War/Endgame incoming so they couldn't lose one of the biggest parts of the MCU.

I know the forum doesn't want to dig into politics anymore, but same as I told everyone 10 years ago when Trump ran for President, I could see this shit coming. Unfortunately, part of my family and friends have had to deal with dictators first hand, and Trump is one, and not only that, he's the closest thing that we have to Hitler in the US. People here can try to block talking about politics for the betterment of the forum but the reality is that Trump and his MAGA regime has spread their roots to everything we like to talk about here: film, TV, sports, and arts. This is going to get worse because the Democratic party has no leadership and has no balls. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are the sorriest excuse for leaders. They keep sending stern letters that Trump keeps wiping his ass over it. What we are seeing with the cancellation of Late Night TV is only a small sample of what are we going to get unless people in leadership positions start pushing back. Right now, the Ellisons are planning to buy WB/Discovery and merge it with CBS/Paramount/Skydance. Not only are people going to lose jobs, but it means that there will be less people with access to a megaphone to publicly denounce these atrocities. Both CBS News and CNN have been neutered by right wing management. Trump has all but killed NPR. MSNBC bent the knee last week. Print media has done the same as right now the only reliable source of information who's standing up to these miscreants is Rolling Stones. WaPo, NYTimes, LA Times, the Chicago Tribune and the rest of the big time newspapers have bent the knee.

I still go back to February 2023, when Jon Stewart, on his first day back to the Daily Show, said things were not going to change if Trump won. People would keep going on with their lives as always. Well, fuck him and the high horse he rode in. Not only are we in worse position than before, we still haven't hit rock bottom.

[pistolwink]

I've often talked with students about the dangers of accelerating media consolidation. But until the second Trump administration those dangers could seem remote and abstract—a matter of corporations subtly limiting the range of acceptable discourse. Under the 2nd Trump administration, it's so obvious and brazen as to seem almost parodic: one corporate boss after another committing acts of grotesque obeisance that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

What Kimmel said was dumb, and it's embarrassing to see so many liberals doing what the "other side" does and use obvious motivated reasoning to deny reality ("He must be a Groyper because his parents were MAGA!" "No one on the left would ever commit an act of political violence!"). But it's hardly a fireable offense.

[ryannichols7]

it's unavoidable to not talk about politics in some way while discussing art, but I'll still keep this real simple: all of this is over a podcaster

[dx23]

What Kimmel said was dumb, and it's embarrassing to see so many liberals doing what the "other side" does and use obvious motivated reasoning to deny reality ("He must be a Groyper because his parents were MAGA!" "No one on the left would ever commit an act of political violence!"). But it's hardly a fireable offense.

What did he say that was dumb? He said what the actual facts in the real world, not in MAGA land are. The shooter, who grew up in a right wing MAGA family that loves guns and the 2nd amendment, dressed as Pepe the Frog and wrote markings in the bullet casings that ties to the Groyper rhetoric. Over the past 50 years, real research has shown that the majority of mass shooters and assassination attempts/completed have been from the right wing. By the way, these were Kimmel's exact words, which contrary to the entire current administration, were looking to unify and help process grieving instead of adding gas to the fire

“The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said.

“In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving,” he added.

What about that is dumb?

[dx23]

it's unavoidable to not talk about politics in some way while discussing art, but I'll still keep this real simple: all of this is over a podcaster

Not only is over a podcaster, but a racist, mysoginistic one, that when quoted by reporters or people in social media using Kirk's own words, it has caused their termination from employment.

[pistolwink]

I don't want to get too deep into this, and mods can turn this line of argument off if they want (I won't mind at all), but I'll respond in the interest of clarifying both my position and the facts that are known: it's obvious from the charging document (and the texts therein) and other info that's come out that the shooter was not motivated by extreme right-wing greivance against Charlie Kirk. he seems to have objected, primarily, to Kirk's ghastly villainizing of trans people.

you are inadvertently demonstrating the problem with epistemic bubbles and motivated reasoning I was referring to. for example, someone having MAGA parents doesn't say much if anything about their own politics. I know, and I'm sure you know, many people whose politics diverge from those of their family. you certainly wouldn't and shouldn't buy a similar argument in the other direction: "this kid who shot [x] left-wing figure had liberal parents, ergo he must be a liberal."

[Finch]

The only two things that are going to work now are cancelling your legacy media subscriptions for Disney+, ABC, ESPN, Amazon, Paramount+ etc and creating a new alternative media infrastructure that stays safe from billionaire takeovers.

[Matt]

Avoiding politics has always been impossible when discussing late night television, but let's keep things on-topic. If what you want to say isn't directly discussing late night TV shows or hosts, please refrain from posting it. And keep it civil and friendly.

This is not an attempt to censor but rather to provide at least one goddamn space on the internet that is not talking about Charl*e Fuck*ng K*rk.

[Brian C]

One has to wonder how NBC will now respond to the demands to cancel Fallon and Myers, since if they capitulate to those, the demands to take out SNL will surely not be far behind. CBS's stated reason to nix Colbert - that the show is a money pit - is probably half-true, and the late-night talk shows in general seem to be struggling. So Colbert and Kimmel are probably easy sacrifices for their networks to make, something that they don't mind doing anyway. But I'd think SNL would be a real pain point for NBC, and there'd be no way to avoid that fight if they cave on the talk shows.

Fallon and Myers are both produced by Lorne Michaels anyway. So hopefully he and NBC will stand firm. When you give in to blackmail, it only emboldens the blackmailer.

[tenia]

What saddens me most is that when Hortman and her husband and Hoffman got murdered, that was 3 people killed (plus a freaking dog). This alone was bigger than what happened more recently, but MAGAs know how to rile this up as if 10000 right wing podcasters got killed, as if they always are the victim (which they're not). They're the whiniest bunch ever, and it's sadly bringing the whole country back 100 years, while real actual systemic issues will only be reinforced instead of being tackled and the country pacified. Gun violence won't be tackled. Political violence will be reinforced. The rhetoric used by Miller and Vance is frightening. This is the rhetoric of people who can only think about hot-blooded responses, channeling "all the anger". This should be vilified, because that's where the actual bloodthirst is.

And as usual, the Dems leaders are, IMO, useless, lost, uterly incapable of providing the adequate level of resistance. But it also shows how the US political system actually isn't that sturdy.

But I guess it helps when big corporations have no balls.
Which brings me to Late night TV : it was, to us here in France, one of the last places where things could seemingly be treated in a more structural manner. I'm appalled at the level where this (but also the events in the UK) are handled in the news, and late night shows were, in the end and despite several shows being obviously flawed, able to tackle things frontally but also to connect the dots in some ways (please HBO, don't do anything to John Oliver). We need shows like this to get beyond what most news outlets are currently doing, talking about the UK as if Reform UK didn't only have 4 MPs, and like what is happening will maybe used for this, maybe Trump admin this or that. There is no maybe. It's litterrally already happening. Stop airing 2 min about global warning followed by 2 min about the best destinations to visit at the other side of the world. Provide more and better.

[pianocrash]

One has to wonder how NBC will now respond to the demands to cancel Fallon and Myers, since if they capitulate to those, the demands to take out SNL will surely not be far behind. CBS's stated reason to nix Colbert - that the show is a money pit - is probably half-true, and the late-night talk shows in general seem to be struggling. So Colbert and Kimmel are probably easy sacrifices for their networks to make, something that they don't mind doing anyway. But I'd think SNL would be a real pain point for NBC, and there'd be no way to avoid that fight if they cave on the talk shows.

Fallon and Myers are both produced by Lorne Michaels anyway. So hopefully he and NBC will stand firm. When you give in to blackmail, it only emboldens the blackmailer.

Unless NBC is usurped by some conglomo beholden to the current administration (per Judy Tenuta, "....it could happen!"), Michaels' productions still turn a profit, and SNL is the stalwart end all/be all of it's particular timeslot/legacy that it's practically a tentpole item to the NBC brand. It should also be noted that SNL is still run the same way as the old days (flat scale for the cast, set fee for the host), along with the requisite all-night writing marathons that seem to wear down even the most talented cast members (whomst?) to leave (doesn't even matter!), but it's still on the air! Since it's a cultural institution in it's 50th year, I don't think it's scrutinized to the point that a Guy In Suit Mugging Into A Camera On A Tuesday Night would be (let's be honest: nothing great is happening on TV at 11pm on a Saturday (RIP Count Floyd)), but also they throw away most of the good jokes in favor of softballs these days, anyhow. But that's what happens when you hire your untalented children (Wally Feresten: innocent!).

Oliver's show is 30 solid minutes of talking points, but given the amount of his subjects who have sued the show after being featured, & the fact that Oliver keeps egging them onward after the fact, it has to be the most lawyer'd up of any late night TV show in history.

Also, somehow, Bill Maher is on the same channel, but I'm not sure for whom or what for.

[Matt]

CBS's stated reason to nix Colbert - that the show is a money pit - is probably half-true

I think it would have to be, at most, half-true. They could easily downscale the show—get rid of the band and musical guests, move it to a smaller TV studio in New York (CBS has several), eliminate expensive comedy bits and pre-produced video segments, etc. Something like Tom Snyder's "Tomorrow" show, Jack Parr's "Tonight" show, or "The Dick Cavett Show" is probably more suitable to our times anyway. Get just one or two guests on and have them sit down for extended interviews. Don't compete with Fallon simply by not competing with Fallon. Basically upscale podcasts. Ratings would drop, but they're already dropping and what else do they have?

I did just realize the other day that we're living in a '70s TV broadcast network landscape: prime-time game shows, 'variety' type shows like "Dancing with the Stars" and "The Masked Singer," and hour-long cop and detective shows are the mainstays, there will soon be minimal late-night options (once again just "The Tonight Show" and its follow-up), and there are only a few well-regarded sitcoms.

[hearthesilence]

CBS's stated reason to nix Colbert - that the show is a money pit - is probably half-true

I think it would have to be, at most, half-true. They could easily downscale the show—get rid of the band and musical guests, move it to a smaller TV studio in New York (CBS has several), eliminate expensive comedy bits and pre-produced video segments, etc. Something like Tom Snyder's "Tomorrow" show, Jack Parr's "Tonight" show, or "The Dick Cavett Show" is probably more suitable to our times anyway. Get just one or two guests on and have them sit down for extended interviews. Don't compete with Fallon simply by not competing with Fallon. Basically upscale podcasts. Ratings would drop, but they're already dropping and what else do they have?

I did just realize the other day that we're living in a '70s TV broadcast network landscape: prime-time game shows, 'variety' type shows like "Dancing with the Stars" and "The Masked Singer," and hour-long cop and detective shows are the mainstays, there will soon be minimal late-night options (once again just "The Tonight Show" and its follow-up), and there are only a few well-regarded sitcoms.

It may have been a different era, but it's still applicable here - when a firm decision was made to cancel SNL in 1986, the main reason why it was reversed was the realization that there was nothing of substantial value that could replace it. Basically they would have to start from scratch and hope whatever they came up with would catch on, a huge gamble when so many other late night shows had already come and gone since SNL first became a success ten years prior. At least with SNL, you had something tangible to build on, even with deflated ratings. Colbert was/is the top-rated program on late night (like TRUE late night, past 11 EST/10 CST). If you wanted to create value out of a time slot that would otherwise be barren, having creative work with that many viewers is a huge asset. It makes little sense to simply throw all of that away and pretend there's no money to be had airing late night programming when you can find a way to make it less costly and turn a profit.

[Brian C]

Well, a big part of it depends on whether they can just do away with late night programming altogether, show "Bachelor" reruns or whatever in those spots, and turn a profit also.

Kimmel's situation is different (for now, at least), but CBS has already cancelled not just Colbert, but "The Late Show", period. And they kinda know what they're getting into with that decision, since they already cancelled "The Late, Late Show" a couple years ago and not replaced it with another talk show. If memory serves, CBS didn't even have a late-night talk show until they lured Letterman over in the 1990s, so it's not like it's written in stone that the slot has to be occupied by one. ABC had likewise been all over the map with their late-night programming until Kimmel got established twenty or so years ago.

Seems very possible that this era where all three networks had late-night talk shows might be looked back on as a historical oddity.

[okcmaxk]

Fallon just pulled out of an upfront, nice to see he's paying attention, having Gutfeld on wasn't gonna save him.

[Beloved Aunt]

Fallon just pulled out of an upfront, nice to see he's paying attention, having Gutfeld on wasn't gonna save him.

What does this mean? Fallon had scheduled Gutfeld and then cenceled him?

[TVC15]

“The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said.

“In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving,” he added.

What about that is dumb?

It's dumb because the evidence clearly shows that the shooter isn't MAGA or a Groyper.

[okcmaxk]

Fallon just pulled out of an upfront, nice to see he's paying attention, having Gutfeld on wasn't gonna save him.

What does this mean? Fallon had scheduled Gutfeld and then cenceled him?

Fallon had Gutfeld on recently—covering his bases.

[hearthesilence]

Well, a big part of it depends on whether they can just do away with late night programming altogether, show "Bachelor" reruns or whatever in those spots, and turn a profit also.

Kimmel's situation is different (for now, at least), but CBS has already cancelled not just Colbert, but "The Late Show", period. And they kinda know what they're getting into with that decision, since they already cancelled "The Late, Late Show" a couple years ago and not replaced it with another talk show. If memory serves, CBS didn't even have a late-night talk show until they lured Letterman over in the 1990s, so it's not like it's written in stone that the slot has to be occupied by one. ABC had likewise been all over the map with their late-night programming until Kimmel got established twenty or so years ago.

Seems very possible that this era where all three networks had late-night talk shows might be looked back on as a historical oddity.

I don't doubt they had their reasons, but it wouldn't surprise me if this went down as a misguided decision. Simply turning a profit isn't the only goal and ratings aren't the only metric (otherwise The Simpsons would've been cancelled a long time ago). One thing that gets alluded to but rarely discussed is how variety shows are inherently very effective promotional programs - they do more to generate profit elsewhere. This probably gets more press when it comes to music acts - a post-SNL or post-late night show bounce is very common with recording artists - but it's applicable to everything else. I don't work in promotions and marketing so I don't know how much this may have diminished in the age of TikTok and social media, but from what I can tell, it's still considered important to get people booked on these shows to promote a new show or movie, so I don't doubt they still have value.