|
|
 |
Marc |
+ |
Wednesday, September 1, 2004 at 6:23 AM
Edited Wednesday, September 1, 2004 at 6:58 AM Entertainment Weekly named Adam (along with DL Hughley and Amy Sedaris) as a contender to take over the Late Late Show. It was only one paragraph but said CBS would take a chance with his uncensored humor. I dont know how I feel about this honestly, it would be great for him but would mean the end of Loveline in all likely hood.
—Marc |
|
|
|
|
Kevin U. |
+ |
Wednesday, September 1, 2004 at 7:01 AM I doubt he would take the job... it would put him in direct competition with Kimmel, who he currently writes for, and he has the Loveline gig to attend to (even though I think their contracts are nearing the end soon, I don't see him ditching the show). —Kevin U. |
|
|
|
|
Magnificent Bastard |
+ |
Wednesday, September 1, 2004 at 8:21 AM I contend that Adam, and maybe even Drew will probably move on when their current contract with Loveline ends. Particularly Adam. He's in his 40's now, and while still somewhat relatable, the age chasm with the listening audience probably hurts the show. Kids today have some of the same age-old questions and concerns as generations past, but as society changes so do the scope of those topics. I just don't think Adam has the contemporary experience of young life to be relevant for the show's intent. Sometimes you need to know when to fold 'em. Face it, he's more and more cantankerous with callers and edging the show beyond its intent to serve the public. Loveline for Adam is routine now, and mostly serves his comedic need rather than his altruistic desires. While I listen for his comedy, the purpose of the show is public service. But listenership requires appeal, and I'm not sure Adam has it for another round. Can the 14 year olds listening really understand the bitter rants of a guy who had to resort to using a raft box image to jerk-off? I doubt I'd listen to a Loveline without Adam. I can't listen to a Loveline with Stryker.
—Magnificent Bastard |
|
|
|
|
Marc |
+ |
Wednesday, September 1, 2004 at 8:34 AM When JKL was first comming out I read in several places that ABC wanted to cancel Nightline, put Jimmy on at 11:30 and give Adam a show at 12:30. That woulda been amazing. —Marc |
|
|
|
|
thejoeinme |
+ |
Wednesday, September 1, 2004 at 8:38 AM I don't think Drew would leave the show, as it's pretty much HIS show now. And I don't quite agree with you about Adam. For one, in order to write comedy, he has to have a grip on society and what's going on. Also, he interacts with people a generation younger than his on a nightly basis, he's aware of what's going on. Also, the people listening now who are fairly young (16 to 20, say) are going to most likely continue to listen, as listenership doesn't just end after a certain age. And, despite how he may come across, Adam does indeed love doing the show, and for the right reasons (ie to "save some babies!", as DAG puts it). That comes across when he does give insightful advice to callers. I think what could have happened that would lead listeners to believe that he's just going through the motions is that it is almost expected of him now to go off on a rant every 20 minutes. Even people who contribute to this site say that his rants are the reason they listen to the show. I believe that what started out as a few rants here and there has become something that is now expected of him. I don't want to say that he is playing a character, but listeners respond to his rants, and as long as they do, there's really no reason to stop doing it. The way he treats some of the callers is most likely due to the fact that these people call in saying that they're long-time listeners of the show, and then ask the same questions that get asked every night. How many times have we heard calls from women saying they can't orgasm? Also, quite a few of the callers are indeed stupid, and I have to agree with Adam that if they're going to act like they're stupid, then they need to be treated like they're stupid. —thejoeinme |
|
|
|
|
Faygo |
+ |
Wednesday, September 1, 2004 at 12:18 PM They wanted to cancel nightline so that letterman could be on ABC at 11, then jimmy kimmel would go on after letterman at 12. It would have been leno/conan vs. letterman/kimmel —Faygo |
|
|
|
|
Angel |
+ |
Wednesday, September 1, 2004 at 4:30 PM I'd really hate to see Loveline leave the air. Adam and Dr. Drew really help a lot of people and yes...I do believe Adam is extremely insightful when dealing with the callers.
I don't hear a generation gap and the humor helps. Sometimes he gets carried away and there are times I think he comes across, on the air, as being abrasive with some of the callers. But, then...that is on the air. I don't know how the callers are received off of the air. The important point, made earlier in this thread is that both Adam and Dr. Drew really care about the callers. If the late night television talk shows are pre-recorded, during the day, maybe Adam can continue to co-host Loveline. Dr. Drew is a doctor full time during the day and he does the broadcast at night.
—Angel |
|
|
|
|
Logo Lou |
+ |
Wednesday, September 1, 2004 at 5:01 PM I tried it a few times and I personally don't think Jimmy's show is that funny. I like Conan better and in my area Jimmy's on when I'm listening to Loveline anyway. The age gap isn't that important (despite what TV/Radio people want people to believe, hell when I was a teenager I HATED mosted of the shows aimed at teens or about teens). The gap that you will have with ANY hosts (one would think) is the gap between average folks with some common sense and majority of total retards that call the show. Adam could easily do the radio show still no matter what else he takes on. He requires no prep, he can rant about anything, it takes 2 hours, and he gets paid a whole lot. —Logo Lou |
|
|
|
|
stass |
+ |
Thursday, September 2, 2004 at 2:43 AM Adam is too lazy to take on something like being the host of a late night gig. I can't see him doing it. —stass |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Thursday, September 2, 2004 at 7:58 AM Drew wouldn't leave loveline unless there was absolutely no way he could continue doing the show. Listen to how he talks about "taking control of the media" in some of the interviews hes done on other shows. Its his personal goal. I think Adam likes doing loveline because its easy, and I do think he likes helping kids. But, I could see him leaving. He won't stick around in a situation he doesn't like if the money, like they asked him to do for the Man Show. But, I don't think he would leave for CBS. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Farty Face |
+ |
Sunday, September 5, 2004 at 12:18 AM " the purpose of the show is public service" Bull shit. the purpose of the show, like every other show ever made, is to make money and get ratings. Adam can get ratings and thats all that matters. shut the fuck up with your commie propaganda. —Farty Face |
|
|
|
|
Masteel |
+ |
Sunday, September 5, 2004 at 7:06 AM That’s recockulous. He would never do that. 1. It would take away from his nap time. 2. Without Jimmy doing all the work, nothing would ever get done. 3. Talk show television just isn’t the format for his humor, he would stink up the air worse than Chevy Chase or Pat Sajak ever did. 4. He’s a writer on Kimmel, maybe some sort of contractual agreement would hold him back. 5. He would never go in direct competition with Kimmel, Kimmel is the reason he is where he’s at today.
—Masteel |
|
|
|
|
thejoeinme |
+ |
Sunday, September 5, 2004 at 10:25 AM No, the purpose of Loveline is not to make money. Drew himself said that the show was created to be a forum where people with real issues could call in and remain somewhat anonymous, and get real, legitimate advice/answers for how to work with them. It is public service, and if you read Cracked, you would know that. —thejoeinme |
|
|
|
|
thejoeinme |
+ |
Sunday, September 5, 2004 at 10:26 AM BTW, if Adam took over Kilborn, do you think Entertainment Weekly would comment on the Kilborn-ectomy of the Late Late Show? Just a thought. —thejoeinme |
|
|
|
|
Jacotus |
+ |
Sunday, September 5, 2004 at 10:37 AM I don't think Drew will ever really leave, it's been his for a long time and it's obvious how much he cares about what he does. As for Adam, the fact that he does actually want to get this information and advice out to clueless teenagers can be seen if one listens carefully in between many cherished rants. —Jacotus |
|
|
|
|
Farty Face |
+ |
Sunday, September 5, 2004 at 2:49 PM "No, the purpose of Loveline is not to make money. Drew himself said that the show was created to be a forum where people with real issues could call in and remain somewhat anonymous, and get real, legitimate advice/answers for how to work with them. It is public service, and if you read Cracked, you would know that."
Bullshit. That might be what Drew thinks but hes not the one who decides if loveline stays on the air or what time it airs, or who the host is. If loveline was not turning a profit it would get cancled in a second. This isnt NPR or some other government paid for station. Loveline airs on a private station that needs profits to survive
—Farty Face |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Sunday, September 5, 2004 at 3:28 PM A show can exist both for public service and for the sake of making profit. —steve |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Monday, September 6, 2004 at 12:56 AM If it's profitable that shows how feasible it is as a public service. Masteel:"He would never go in direct competition with Kimmel, Kimmel is the reason he is where he’s at today."
It's not his comic ability? So far I've never heard Kimmel say anything funny. He might be a workhorse, but he doesn't have much talent. Adam's career is stymied by his lack of art work ethic and the public's squeamishness, and his career is helped by his brilliance with the verbal. I've yet to see any major impact on Adam's not exactly interstellar career due to Kimmel. Moron. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Nick Evil |
+ |
Tuesday, September 7, 2004 at 11:36 AM Drew did Loveline for free for like ten years man. It's not about the money, although Drew's understandably not complaining. —Nick Evil |
|
|
|
|
redsmith007 |
+ |
Thursday, September 9, 2004 at 8:51 AM don't forget the racism and negative shit he says about women
—redsmith007 |
|
|
|
|
Lou Cypher |
+ |
Monday, September 13, 2004 at 8:17 AM Well, he DID mention it being discussed with him. I just wish he'd say what ended up coming of it. —Lou Cypher |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Monday, September 13, 2004 at 2:33 PM It was interesting in that he seemed to actually be considering the show. Notice how he made the "comment" to his father about how he'd have to leave Jimmy's show. He also said nothing to deny that he'd take the show if it was offered to him. I think he's actually interested in it. —steve |
|
|
|
|
thejoeinme |
+ |
Monday, September 13, 2004 at 2:44 PM I got the impression that he was uninterested, and thought it was stupid of CBS to even offer it to him. —thejoeinme |
|
|
|
|
Masteel |
+ |
Monday, September 13, 2004 at 8:42 PM Yeah, I found that interesting too. It did seem like he was interested in it to me, which is kind of odd considering he'd be in competition with one of his best friends, but what else is he going to do? It is an oppertunity and he can't do Loveline forever. I just don't think he'd be a very good talk show host if it was highly scripted, and went away from his own personality too much. Maybe just him and a guest chatting ala Tom Sneider for the entire time, and he could go off on some rants. Don't know though. He isn't the same ranter when the camera is on him, as he is when he can just do a radio show in his PJ's without make-up and all that stuff. I take it back. I think it would be interesting to see him do a show like Tom Sneider had, with his own spin on it. That was a pretty intimate atmosphere (the way Sneider had it set up), it may work for him. There would have to be additions to it to reflect his own personality. Looks like they already have 4 temporary hosts lined up anyway, so maybe that was the end of it. —Masteel |
|
|
|
|
dr ipod |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 1:19 AM Who are the guest hosts? According to Vinnie Favali, who works at CBS and is on Howard Stern a lot, he said they were gonna have rotating guest hosts for a while. He hinted at Norm McDonald as being one of them. Did you know Dave Letterman owns that timeslot and makes money off the show and gets final say over who hosts?? Nuts. —dr ipod |
|
|
|
|
Masteel |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 1:53 AM September 6, 2004 From "Detroit Free Press" www.freep.com Craig Kilborn is gone and CBS' "Late Late Show" is in rerun limbo. (12:35 a.m. weeknights, WWJ-TV, Channel 62). But that ends Sept. 20 when four rotating guest hosts try the show on for size. Michael Ian Black ("Ed"), D.L. Hughley ("The Hughleys"), David Sedaris (funny, self-deprecating writer-guy), and sports talker Jim Rome will try to wedge their feet into Kilborn's vacant brogans.
—Masteel |
|
|
|
|
j4k3 |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 4:10 AM Guys, ALL the late-night shows are TAPED sometime in the morning or afternoon. They just air it as "live." Don't worry about Adam leaving Loveline. —j4k3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 7:48 AM Michael Ian Black and David Sedaris will be excellent. Jim Rome is a fucking tool, IMO. —Colin |
|
|
|
|
Magnificent Bastard |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 7:57 AM SEDARIS!? Fuck, he's a funny homo author (his latest book is hilarious), but to give him a tv show will be a disaster. It'll be a sausage fest and the women who adore them all the time. But I guess CBS will have to figure this out for themselves. Seems they've got an investigative blockage in the system. —Magnificent Bastard |
|
|
|
|
shroud |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 8:42 AM Although David Sedaris is a funny writer, everything I've read says it's his sister Amy Sedaris ("Strangers With Candy") who's guest-hosting. —shroud |
|
|
|
|
joe bloggs |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 11:21 AM I believe the Detroit Free Press article is wrong:
I think they meant Amy Sedaris, who is David's brother.
Amy Sedaris, the star of Comedy Central's "Strangers with Candy" and an upcoming feature film based on the show, has been mentioned as a possible replacement for Kilborn because of her connection to "Late Show" host and Worldwide Pants principal David Letterman. She's been a guest on Letterman's show several times, and both the "Strangers" series and film are Worldwide Pants productions. Also, according to E online:
The first name suggested to fill the empty chair by Industry watchers is Conan O'Brien, NBC's Late Night host whose deal with the Peacock expires in December 2005. While NBC hopes to keep O'Brien at its Rockefeller Plaza studio, the self-deprecating funnyguy has been open about his desire to switch to shift time slots But it's hardly a done deal. O'Brien is likely to look for some type of guarantee that he'd be groomed to take over Letterman's spot when the Late Show host steps down, which isn't due to happen anytime soon. And since O'Brien has another year on his contract, CBS would be forced to make do with guest hosts until the redhead could come aboard.
I actually think O'Brien is an unlikely candidate, as Letterman (who does in fact have a production deal for the slot after his as part of his contract) is very afraid of putting someone on after him that threatens him. He is very afraid of looking bad, or being replaced. This is why he never put on any guest host until he absolutely had to (due to health problems). And in fact, this is a common fear amongst talk show hosts, partially due to the fact that Jay Leno got his job after guest hosting for carson. And that's why Jay and Conan and Kilborn have never had guest hosts. (For fans of Larry Sanders, this is the source of an on-going joke on the show.)
That's why Letterman had Tom Snyder on for so long, even though he clearly sucked, and kept kilborn on, even though he was completely bland.
The question is: Is Adam considered a threat to Letterman?
And also, is Adam considered a threat to Kimmel?
Keep in mind, kilborn beat Kimmel pretty consistently.
—joe bloggs |
|
|
|
|
Kevin U. |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 2:10 PM I thought Kimmel beat Kilborn pretty consistantly... —Kevin U. |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 3:53 PM i was in a cave...WTF happened to Kilborn? was he fired or did he leave? —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
goodtimes3 |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 4:37 PM
Edited Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 4:37 PM "It'll be a sausage fest" -mag. bastard what the fuck do you think queer eye was? newsflash, it got huge ratings. theyd go with this "controversy" to get a few points on the ratings. dont doubt executive stupidity —goodtimes3 |
|
|
|
|
redsmith007 |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 4:55 PM if adam takes the job, loveline's over, deal with it. but he'd never last on national tv, he's too funny. people are idiots, never forget that —redsmith007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin U. |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 6:17 PM I guess my source is too outdated to be considered accurate (or maybe it's just who you ask?), but according to the Discovery Times documentary called, "The New Face of Late Night": "As of April 2003 "Jimmy Kimmel Live" was regularly drawing more viewers than Craig Kilborn's "Late Late Show..." I guess Jimmy's outpacing of Kilborn didn't last? Either way, I have never really fully understood or cared about TV ratings - all I know is I enjoy Kimmel more than I ever did Kilborn and I'm glad it's Kilborn leaving and not Jimmy. —Kevin U. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 9:44 PM Hey -- was Danny from here? (Tonight's call RE: Kilborn) Everyone mark your calendars for October 6th. Goodtimes. —steve |
|
|
|
|
Darkfloyd |
+ |
Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 6:18 AM Adam wont replace kilborn. We all know how nervous he gets when hes just a guest on Kimmel and he's said he never liked taping the loveline tv show. I think Ace would like to remain behind the scenes as a writer, producer etc. —Darkfloyd |
|
|
|
|
Angel |
+ |
Saturday, September 18, 2004 at 12:33 AM I heard Adam talk with a caller about the Kilborn slot the other night on Loveline. I must admit I am surprised that he is even considering the move. I wonder if there is more to this than any of us realize because I really think he and Jimmy Kimmel are good friends. As for the earlier comments about Jimmy Kimmel. I think he is a wonderful host and a very funny comedian. The only problem with the show is when its scheduled. I hate that it follows Nightline. I never know when it is really going to be on and I tape the program using DVR. DVR goes with the cable TV guide. If Nightline is running late, I end up seeing Nightline instead of the talk show. I've reached a point where I set the DVR to tape JKL when it's suppose to be on and the two shows that follow, even though I don't watch those programs. It would be great if Jimmy Kimmel Live could find an earlier time slot. ABC isn't doing the show any good by putting it on when they do...what a waste of a great program. As far as Loveline is concerned...I don't think Adam will leave Loveline if he gets the talk show host position. —Angel |
|
|
|
|
db |
+ |
Saturday, September 18, 2004 at 6:17 AM As much as I like Adam, I don't think he could handle a show like that. Everytime he's on Kimmel, he has to have some kind of rehearsed routine to talk about (like wearing a gym towel). I heard when Drew did Loveline for free, it was only on Sunday nights, more of a community service thing. When it went to 5 nights a week, he wanted to get paid. —db |
|
|
|
|
Kevin U. |
+ |
Saturday, September 18, 2004 at 8:50 AM Drew explained it once... I think he said something like that when his wife got pregnant with their triplets, she told him to either get paid for the radio show, or quit and find something that pays - so basically his wife forced him to ask for money. —Kevin U. |
|
|
|
|
benben |
+ |
Sunday, September 19, 2004 at 6:30 PM Personally I don't think Kimmel's joke delievery is very effective. He seems condescending and it is possible to use this to a comedic advantage...but it just doesn't work for him. Two things: 1) I think Carolla can use his curmudgeon persona much like Andy Rooney or Walter Matthau.
2) What if Carolla was using the show as an angle to raise the ratings of Kimmel? What I mean is sandbag and take one more network out of the competition with Kimmel. We all know how loyal he is...just a possibility. —benben |
|
|
|
|
GDG |
+ |
Monday, September 20, 2004 at 8:35 PM Has anyone considered that this is a way for Adam to get more money from his current employers by doing practically nothing. Just being considered for the job gives him more....juice. (to use a street term that was current 10 years ago) —GDG |
|