Monday, July 28, 2008
Could Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel Share a Show? Plus: Emmy Predictions on House, Dexter and More!
Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel
Question: Here's an idea you can pass along to ABC (or quickly shoot down laughing). ABC has a current up-and-comer, the very funny
Jimmy Kimmel. They may also have a great interest in
Jay Leno after NBC unbelievably shows him the door. (What a boneheaded move). So now ABC could possibly have two talented hosts available for the 11:30 pm/ET slot. What to do? How about doing something completely different — 11:30 with Jay
and Jimmy... as co-hosts? Hear me out. The benefits (if egos allow): Both Jay and Jimmy get to be on at 11:30 pm, the time slot they deserve. Jay is going to be 60 when his NBC show ends, so being part of a two-host show could mean he wouldn't have to go at it full time anymore. He could work a little less. Some weeks it could be just Jay, some weeks just Jimmy, some days they'd be together. It could be a bit of a floating format. ABC doesn't have to demote Jimmy to get Jay. Jimmy is somebody who will be there in the future, and Jay is only going to go five or so more years at best. He just doesn't want to leave while he is on top. Who can blame him? Is this crazy to consider? It's never been done before, has it? (Probably for good reason, huh?)
— James L.
Matt Roush: I love this idea, because it's so wacky in so many ways and is such a recipe for disaster, I only wish they'd try it. Good luck getting Jimmy to carry Jay's water, or (gasp) vice versa. And one of the reasons this NBC late-night transition is such a head-scratcher is that Jay has no intention of slowing down just yet. When he's not willing to carry the full load any more, that's when he steps away, and that isn't likely to happen any time soon. Sharing the show? I'd love to see who'd volunteer to produce such a contraption. Stepping back a bit, NBC put this whole mess into motion a few years ago to lock up Conan O'Brien so he wouldn't jump networks. I happen to enjoy Conan's show much more than either Jay's or Jimmy's, but I'm enough of a realist to realize that making such a revolutionary change in the Tonight franchise before the principal player is ready (in this case, the top-rated if thoroughly mediocre Leno) is, to quote the above letter, "boneheaded." The industry buzz is that ABC is best positioned to steal Leno away when the time comes — it won't be for at least another year — because it seems awfully unlikely he'll stay at NBC no matter what kind of amorphous prime-time promises they make him. Leno knows as well as anyone that he's never going to have a more suitable job than his current one. Whether he ends up on another network or competing in syndication, Leno is likely to remain a formidable factor in late night as long as he chooses to be.
Question: I'm sure you are going to get some e-mails from
House fans complaining about your
jab at
House for not being Emmy-worthy this season (fans on the Internet are nothing if not fervent) because it was uneven. I agree with you that the season was uneven, sometimes terribly so, but since no Emmy voter could be expected to see every episode of every nominated drama,
House, like all the other shows, only had to submit a few episodes to be judged. The more I watch the repeats this summer, the more I realize that
House actually did have quite a few excellent episodes this season, including the spectacular two-part finale. I'd say there were definitely five or six episodes that were as good as anything else on TV this season, including the other Emmy nominees. (Yes, I watch and love
Mad Men, too, and I still stand by my statement.) Is it fair to base the quality of a whole season on a few episodes? Probably not, but that is the way the current Emmy system works. Of course, I'm biased because I'm a fan, I think
House definitely deserved its nomination. (I only wish Robert Sean Leonard and Anne Dudek had gotten some recognition for their season-finale performances, too!) If I'm completely off with my analysis and
House's nomination is a "popularity vote," wouldn't you secretly rather it happen to
House than some other shows like
Grey's Anatomy or
Boston Legal (oops, that actually happened)?
— Megan
Matt Roush: I'm not particularly riled at House's best-drama nomination, because even in an uneven season marred by the unhappy focus on new and largely unwelcome characters, the show still hit some home runs, especially in those final hours. But it illuminates such a huge flaw in the nominating process, in that those making the call don't watch enough TV (or so it seems) to put a show's current season in context. Nothing we can do about that except gripe, I guess.
Question: First of all, I love reading your column. That said, I'd like your opinion on this year's nominees for Best Drama Actors. Specifically: Who does
Hugh Laurie have to — er, let's say "bribe" — to get a freaking Emmy? Do you think, now that he's no longer a "novelty" (with
House starting its fifth year) that he will be passed over for new blood? Don't get me wrong: I absolutely love all of the nominees, particularly Michael C. Hall and Jon Hamm (and yes, I'm also a big fan of James Spader, although I know admitting that make my opinions suspect). But I am worried that Laurie is fated to be a bridesmaid and never a bride.
— SMP
Matt Roush: I worry about that as well, but Emmy tradition tells me that Laurie will keep getting nominated until he finally and eventually wins. He'd probably have a better chance this year if he was still a "novelty," as you put it, since he and the character have been around so long now that there's a danger of taking his work for granted. Which would be wrong. But this is one killer category, arguably the strongest of the entire Emmy slate, and I could make arguments for everyone on the list: the sublimely surprising Bryan Cranston and the brooding Gabriel Byrne as well as my personal picks (Hamm and Hall a virtual tie for me) plus Laurie and Spader. I would be thrilled if anyone but Spader won, and I single him out mainly because he has already been so honored for the role, and it's time for someone else. Please. Pretty please.
Question: Any insight, Matt, as to why
Boston Legal is ending its run next season? I know it's
not on your list of shows to watch, but it is on mine. Love the show, love its cast, and I'll be sorry to see it end, but I'm glad at least it's going out while it's still up there as a show to be enjoyed by many, and while it hasn't lost its edge.
— Dorothy
Matt Roush: This appears to be a mutual decision between David E. Kelley and ABC, and letting the show end on its own timetable with its creator personally shepherding it to the end is why this is cause for thanks from fans rather than frustration. Here are some of ABC entertainment president Steve McPherson's statements on the issue when he met the press earlier this month: "David felt like he had 13 episodes left in him. He really wanted to end it. He really wanted to do some things with our two core characters. It was really his decision. I really like being able to know when shows are going out.... Let's let these creators who have created unbelievably compelling characters and iconic pieces of television, let's let them end it with dignity and integrity and, to me, compelling content. And we can market it as such. For us, it's an advantage. We really appreciate David signing up and getting excited about these final 13. We're talking about how to really sell them as the kind of final crescendo for what for us has been a terrific series." Personally, I'm not sure what "dignity" has to do with Boston Legal, but otherwise, all of this makes perfect sense to me. And as I've said before, I have no doubt that even with its limited final season, the show is likely to be back in the Emmy race again a year from now, delighting its fans and annoying its critics.
Question: I'm sure you've heard a lot of Emmy-related complaints and raves over the last week or so, but I can't resist putting in my two cents. Especially since I recorded that 13-hour marathon of
Mad Men on AMC last Sunday, and just finished watching it! I felt the Emmy people had finally gotten it right — after all, it is this year's most nominated drama, is it not? However, as happy as I am with the Outstanding Drama Series nomination, as well as the ones for writing, directing, Jon Hamm, John Slattery and Robert Morse, I feel it is criminal that none of the brilliant women of the show were nominated. Elisabeth Moss, January Jones, Christina Hendricks and Maggie Siff all put in stellar performances last season. Not even a guest mention for Anne Dudek (who was also skipped over for her arc as Cutthroat Bitch on House, double shame!) On a side note, hooray for
Damages! Hopefully the Emmy attention attracts new eyes to this criminally underrated diamond!
— Ryan
Matt Roush: I'm hoping the Emmy love will boost the audiences for both Mad Men and Damages in their second seasons. They truly were the cream of the cable crop last year (along with Season 2 of Dexter and of course the neglected The Wire), and the fact they got such major attention can only enhance their profiles. But it is ironic, isn't it, that Mad Men did well in the nominations everywhere but in the female acting categories. One of the few recurring criticisms I hear about the show is from those who find it hard to watch because of how the women are portrayed and treated, given the overt sexism of the times, and maybe that has something to do with them not getting their due this year. But honestly, it probably has more to do with how jam-packed ensemble dramas are with name actresses doing great work, and many of the Mad Men ladies are just now breaking through. Maybe next year...
Question: Is there any hope for smaller TV shows to ever get big Emmy nominations? It was a struggle for Buffy, Angel, Gilmore Girls and Everwood, all as great and brilliant as the "big shows," to get nominations, but do you ever think there will come a day when the Academy sees some things outside of the box? The CW is a frustrating network, but there are potential Emmy nominees in Supernatural and Reaper. More than just for sound editing and the like.— Barry
Matt Roush: In the case of shows like these, their Emmy invisibility has at least as much to do with a general bias against the genres of so-called "family" and "fantasy/sci-fi" programming. But it's a fact, one we've discussed at length over the years, that the CW (and the WB and UPN before it) just doesn't seem to register with the Emmy voters, as if it simply doesn't exist. The relative smallness of the audience doesn't seem to be as big a factor, when you consider this year's triumphs of Mad Men and Damages — which arguably play better to the older core Academy membership — despite puny first-year ratings.
Question: I keep hearing negative commentary from message boards, blogs and TV critics about the pilot for ABC's
Life on Mars. I read that they are recasting, retooling, moving the show to New York and, it seems, basically starting from scratch. Am I correct in my assessment? And if so, what actors are actually going to be in this show come this fall? It sounds like they have some challenges ahead, and at the same time I feel the criticism is unfair.
— Bert
Matt Roush: Of all the fall pilots being retooled (which is why we've seen so few official pilots yet), Life on Mars is unquestionably getting the biggest overhaul. New producers, a new locale and, outside of Jason O'Mara (the sole survivor from the original pilot), a new cast, which now includes The Sopranos' Michael Imperioli and Harvey Keitel (replacing Colm Meaney in the crucial role of O'Mara's gruff boss). I'm not in the business of reviewing unfinished shows, so I haven't sought out the original pilot of this or any other show that hasn't presented an official version to me. But yes, any criticism of the show at this point is not only unfair, it's meaningless.
Question: As a viewer of
Two and a Half Men and
The Big Bang Theory, both
Chuck Lorre sitcoms, I feel qualified to say what in the world are the Emmy voters thinking?
The Big Bang Theory is the most creative and funniest new sitcom in years, and they pass it over for
Two and a Half Men? Then they compound it by nominating Charlie Sheen for best actor while passing over the funniest new sitcom actor in years,
Big Bang's
Jim Parsons?
Men is no more than one sex joke after another, and Charlie just has a new conquest ever week, while Jim Parsons has the difficult role of being the new Felix Unger and the difficullty of learning all the science stuff every week. It really is a shame that the Emmy voters chose the wrong Chuck Lorre sitcom to recognize, because
Big Bang could have used the recognition to help build its audience. Sometimes I think it's the best show on TV that people have missed. I wish more viewers would find it, because they simply don't know what they are missing.
— Scott
Matt Roush: True, if we were still doing our "Best Show You're Not Watching" features, I'd definitely nominate The Big Bang Theory. But the Emmys are traditionally slow to notice shows that don't explode out of the gate or aren't championed in the media — I've raved about this one, and I know a number of other critics like it, but it hasn't got the buzz of more "hip" shows like 30 Rock or The Office. This show is what we call a "sleeper," whereas Two and a Half Men is currently CBS's signature sitcom, its highest rated, and one that has previously been invited to the Emmy party, which usually means it will keep getting nominated even if that means shutting out something else more deserving. (If you ask me, I would have dropped Entourage this year to make room for Big Bang.) I'm hoping that without the disruption of a strike this year (please, please), Big Bang will continue to grow — despite being asked to kick off the night for CBS in one of the most overcrowded time periods of the week — and that Parsons at the very least will get more credit for creating a side-splittingly funny character worthy of CBS' golden age of '70s hit sitcoms.
Question: I managed to get a copy of the pilot of TNT's new show Leverage, which I thought was excellent. I understand it's been picked up, but is there any word of when it will begin airing? The pilot showed a lot of promise. I've always liked Timothy Hutton and was pleased to see Aldis Hodge from Friday Night Lights in the cast. What's the outlook? Will this have a short season like most cable shows?— Pam E.
Matt Roush: I like what I've seen of Leverage as well, but we'll have to wait until December for the premiere of this caper series. I believe the show got a 13-episode order, so that's the most you'd get in the premiere season. That's standard for cable series, even for most of the hit ones.
Question: Even though the writer's strike totally screwed up the TV season, one good thing came out of it for me. Since there was nothing much to watch there for a while, I decided to purchase Season 1 of
Dexter on DVD. Wow, what a great decision! Not only do I have a new Top 3 favorite show, but I also have a new favorite actor. Both the show and Michael C. Hall are incredible. I never watched
Six Feet Under, so I wasn't familiar with his past work. I'm almost embarrassed to say how quickly I watched the entire first season, but at least I watched most episodes at the gym while on the treadmill. Of course, after watching Season 1, I couldn't wait to watch Season 2, which I promptly purchased on iTunes, and I was literally on the edge of my chair during every episode. It was just as good, if not better, than the first season. Of course I was thrilled to see that both the show and Michael C. Hall received Emmy nominations. The critics seemed to be pretty confident about Hall's nomination after he was snubbed last year (unbelievably!), but I don't think anyone saw the nomination for the show coming. Everyone seemed to think it was too bloody and too disturbing. Do you think there is any chance either will win? I think Hall has a better shot than the show does, and I think he deserves to win because he plays such a difficult character to perfection. Not a lot of actors, in my opinion, could make the audience love a serial killer. I have a feeling neither will win, mainly because it seems to be the year of
Mad Men and Jon Hamm. I think
Mad Men is a great show that is extremely well-acted, but I still like
Dexter and Michael C. Hall better.
— Jan
Matt Roush: Dexter's nomination for best drama was one of the most pleasant surprises of Emmy morning. I truly was shocked, not because I didn't think Season 2 was brilliant — it was, even better than the first — but because I was among those who just figured the membership would be too turned off by the show's twisted premise and unsavory tone. I think both the show and the star are long shots in their respective categories, which again is not a reflection on their quality but on the strength and relative appeal of their competition. If Dexter wins anything, I'll be happy, even if its win comes at the expense of another favorite, because it would be so thoroughly unexpected.
