Sport's Guy goes Hollywood For me, this situation is eerily similar to when Jeff started writing full time for ESPN the Magazine. I think it's great that these guys are able to breakthrough and fulfill their professional dreams. But as a fan of their writing, I selfishly wish that the good times could continue. It's just not enough getting the occassional Boot Room. Bill admits that he'll be writing less often, I just hope that his columns aren't as infrequent as Jeff's.
Yeah, but Jeff was a baseball writer (NY Daily News) before he was with the Mutts, so it's not really analogous (although I do see your point).
The problem is that it's a GUARANTEE that the Jimmy Kimmel show is going to go down in FLAMES (ABC hasnt had a successful late night show in over 30 years and they arent going to start now) and the Sports Guy will have sold out. I question if ESPN.Com will let him return to his old capacity once he is replaced. RIP Sports Guy.
of course they'll let him return. he didn't burn his bridges. he's keeping a presence on the site (a diminished presence, but still a presence). he'll slip back like nothing happened. I think that's what will eventually happen because as mentioned, Kimmel's show will go down in flames. the sports guy is my favorite sports columnist. I wish him luck and look forward to reading what I'm sure will be his too infruequent ramblings.
Im mad because he is my all time favorite columnist as well. I DEVOUR his columns upon release. What I think is going to take a hit are his "Yes these are my readers" and "Mailbag" columns which are easily his funniest. On a non-related note, do you ever read TMQ? (Tuesday morning quarterback) VERY insightful and entertaining (Also on page2)
Bill Simmons is probably the hottest sportswriter around right now, incredible buzz, tremendous upside. He's cashing in, good for him. Keep in mind that he's staying in the family (ESPN-ABC). As far as Kimmel's show goes, I'm not so quick to say it will go down the drain. I think they could hit the right mark with a decent size audience who is tired of the comic abyss that is the Leno-Letterman axis. I grew up loving Letterman, but he's softened so much for the 11:30 time slot that his edge is gone. And Leno, don't get me started. It's getting harder and harder to remember that he was funny once. There are probably a lot of 17-39 year olds out there who are looking for a guy who is telling jokes to them, not 50 year old ladies in Omaha which is what Leno appeals to. What it has going against it is the hairtrigger mentality of the major networks. If a show doesn't work right off the bat they are very quick to give up on it. Shows, especially a live, late-night talker, need time to develop a voice and an audience. TMQ, like many things on Page 2, is so good because it's so different. The editors have the courage to say, "This is different, but so what?" It's way too long and is so dense with material that it's like an all-day sucker, but that's cool because there is nothing else like it.
Best of luck to The Sport Guy, easily my favorite writer on Page 2. Is Kimmel's show going to be against Leno/Letterman or Conan/Kilborn? I'd give him a much better chance of success against the former, as it offers a distinct difference (I'd choose Conan over everyone.) TMQ is the best because it's full of the great buzz word of elementary school: edu-tainment! Honestly, I actually have a better appreciation for football tactics since I have been reading TMQ. You have to love his gratuitous attempts to post as many pictures of women in bathing suits as well (though it does make reading the column at work somewhat interesting.)
Kimmel's show is going to start at 12:00 midnight and it's going to be live. So by the time Jay and Dave are getting settled in to their interview with Hugh Grant or Ashley Judd (and won't that be fresh and revealing) you can flip over to ABC. If Kimmel can hang on to you, he cuts in to Conan and Kilborn. To succeed Kimmel has to convince late night audiences that they have to switch over to him because if they don't, they might miss something wild. Something insane needs to happen at 12:05 on his show every night. No one is going to switch over to him if he's doing the same schtick. To his credit, I think he understands this. The show, as I understand it, won't begin with him doing 8 minutes of stand up.
Is there that much demand for another latenight show? Conan is VASTLY superior to anything else on TV, and Leno is OK. The problem for Kimmel is that everything else has been done. If his show is schticky it will be reminiscent of Letterman. If he does skits, that will be a little bit of Carson. I don't know WHAT would make me watch Kimmel unless it was COMPLETELY fresh like Conan was about 6 years ago for me. The problem is that Kimmel has a track record of NOT being funny (Man Show, Fox Sports spots)
One of my favorite skits ever was on the Man Show: when they had area women sign a petition to end women's suffrage. It can be low brow, but it is also fairly clever on occasion. Sure Conan and the Daily Show are better, but I wouldn't go as far to say the Man Show is not funny.
I saw perhaps a total of 20 minutes total of the man show. One time being the "end women's suffrage" skit. It was funny. Jimmy Kimmel is funny. To cpwilson's point though, how are they going to make this show fresh and new? I'd be willing to bet that every single late night host of the past 25 years at one point was quoted as saying, "We're going to be different." Then the ratings started to head south and the exec. prod. said, "We need to get (Stallone, Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet, etc.) on as a guest." And that, pretty much, was that.
Oh, yeah, he's freaking hilarious. So funny. Actually, I think Adam Corolla is genuinely funny, and funnier than Kimmel, but Kimmel is funny. Anyone who doesn't think so probably thinks the Black Sox were innocent.
Kenntomasch- Perhaps you misunderstood. Pat Sajak was given a late night show on ABC. Needless to say (And as Im sure you can guess by your reaction) things did NOT go well. They did not go well at all. This is a logical fallacy known as Ad Hominem and specifically known as "Poisoning the well". Im sure you would like to know when you're being illogical. And i think that Adam Corrola is hilarious. In fact he's one of the funniest guys on TV today. I honestly believe that the Man Show when it is funny (not often) is ONLY funny because of Corrola. It's a shame that it was he and not Kimmel that got a show.
Yes, I remember, I'm older than you. Maybe Kimmel's show will do well, maybe it won't. But there's no GUARANTEE either way, either based on anyone else's past performance or the current climate. When Conan (who is good) first went on the air, Oh My God did it look like a horrible decision. He's still here. No, this was a Bigsoccer technique known as "busting your balls" and once you've been around here longer than two months, you'll get used to it. There was no logical fallacy involved, as it wasn't a serious attempt to make a logical connection. How about the logical fallacy that goes "Pat Sajak failed, therefore, Jimmy Kimmel will fail?"