On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:29 PM, David Bruggeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just when I thought he couldn't get crankier. At certain points he makes > George Will out to be young and hip. And Fallon's show is > head-and-shoulders above Kimmel's? Fallon is my preferred late night > Jimmy, but I smell Shales' SNL biases. > The topper for me was this claim by Shales: "Chevy Chase's show was "Masterpiece Theater' compared to Kimmel's" I have not been a long-time Shales hater like many on this list, perhaps out of my own ignorance and conformity. I read his column in the WaPo and assumed he was deserving of his PP, and that he had inside knowledge, and better judgement than mine. I did not always agree with him, but I assumed he had credibility. I don't think I have read him much (or at all) since he left the paper (when was that?), but this piece is flat out embarrassing. I am reminded not so much of a crankier George Will as the gone-to-seed Norma Desmond. I don't want to disagree with or criticize Shales so much as get him a conservator and have him institutionalized for his own well-being. It is possible that this was the first Kimmel show Shales had ever seen. If this entire piece had been posted here on our TV orNotTV page by a new poster I would think we had just been drunk dialed by some shill for Chevy Chase. Like Shales I am a Dave-man, and while I enjoy Kimmel I am not a fanatic, and I can see why he would not be to the taste of some. The problem is not that with his judgement that Kimmel puts on a bad show, but with the way the whole piece is written and put together. I guess he doesn't have access to an editor anymore. It also answers some questions I have had about the form of his SNL and ESPN books, both of which I read with interest, but was left unsatisfied by with the absence of a narrative voice. Friends have tried to tell me that is a positive editorial choice, but now I suspect the answer may just be that Shales is not a very good writer, and was smart to make most of those books just a series of extended quotes. To be fair to Shales (even though he was incoherent and wildly exaggerated about it), Kimmel's first 11:35 show was not very good. I can see how it might have seemed like a good idea for him to have Anniston on as a single guest for this premier given their personal connections, but she really did fall flat, and his bit asking people on the street to give their opinions about things that never happened can't help but seem derivative of the man Kimmel calls a "sell-out", so it was an unfortunate choice for the first episode when a lot of viewers were probably checking him out for the first time. I think Kimmel provides by far the best presentation of his musical guests of any late night show, and even though I am not a big No Doubt guy, they had a lot of energy and were one of the best parts of that show. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! 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
