On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Gary <[email protected]> wrote: > > With all the compilations this week of crazy guest appearances over > the years on Letterman's show, nobody asks why this never seems to > happen on any other late night show. > > Anybody any theories on what it is about Dave that seems to bring out > the worst (or best) in guests?
As Evanier and others have noted, a lot of this is overblown. A big chunk of the "disaster" interviews on Time's list were either obvious schtick (e.g. Kaufman) or not disasters at all (e.g. Barrymore). They include the Michael Richards as a disaster, which seems to stretch the category so much as to make it meaningless. Richards himself was having a disaster, but I thought that was interesting and good tv. They include the recent interview with that Vampire actresss, which was mostly a case of a young actress being a little more obviously stupid and vapid than usual. Madonna, Fawcet, Hilton probably qualify as disaster interviews - though that Hilton interview is more a case of her being herself and finding out that was a disaster. Dave (especially in the early days) did more segments that were subversive of regular tv, and that may have motivated some guests to go in that direction more on their own than they would on another show. Dave also may be more likely to draw attention to the self-involvement or stupidity of a guest than other hosts. But a lot of this is exaggerated. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... Smart (TV) People on Ice! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
